10 ms·

> factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized. I think t

by ue_ 9y ago

> factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized. I think this is a very wrong-headed way to go about self-criticism. It shouldn't be about loyalty to a party, it should be about recognition of faults and how to improve them. This is how I envisage worker control of production should be like, anyway. We should have a culture of criticism and self-criticism, in my opinion, because it does not necessitate meanness or humiliation.

Bartweiss 9y ago
It's actually a pretty widely-recognized cult tactic. People are grouped together for shaming sessions where they confess failings and are berated for them. It's nominally about bonding and seeing that everyone has failings, but as you point out that doesn't get problems solved. In practice, it creates social pressure to confess errors (you don't want to act superior to those around you), plus top down pressure ("confess or we'll say it for you"). It also creates investment (if this was all for nothing, why'd I humiliate myself?) and vulnerability (if I leave, they can tell everyone what I said!) And, of course, the degree of shaming can be tailored to cut down people doing too well. It's a terrifyingly effective thing, and the state communist version looked remarkably similar to the cult version. I don't think it's something you'd do if you actually wanted to help people or improve process, though. The best cultures of self-criticism seem to be the ones that criticize in abstract, sorting out what happened and why publicly but not aiming at individuals.
- ue_ 9y ago
  I don't think such meetings ought to aim at individuals, in fact this is what I wanted to avoid, rather it would be good to talk about processes in general, and to admit faults like that; I think this would be a much clearer way of making progress than to start a blame game or criticise people covertly, which usually ends up festering and turning into hate. I think people should be open about themselves, and constructively criticise. And again, I don't see why that ought to necessitate meanness. Criticising in abstract I think leads to a passive-aggressive culture, which I don't think it's right at all. The point of the meetings would be that everyone is involved, there's no secrecy, and that the meetings are perhaps optional, or at least participation in them is optional. I think a social pressure to confess errors may be a good thing at times, though I admit there's a lot of variation in how it could go. It's strange that I've been downvoted three times on my comment, but only have one reply. Such is the way of HN.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    The main lesson of aircraft safety culture should be that you can have an enquiry to establish what happened, or an enquiry to find out who's to blame - but not both, since once you start assigning blame there's a motive to conceal or destroy evidence. > no secrecy This is a nightmare for the person who's percieved underperforming due to unavoidable health issues that they've discussed with their manager/HR but would prefer to keep secret. > social pressure to confess errors This turns into bullying very quickly.

by ue_ 9y ago

Bartweiss 9y ago

It's actually a pretty widely-recognized cult tactic. People are grouped together for shaming sessions where they confess failings and are berated for them. It's nominally about bonding and seeing that everyone has failings, but as you point out that doesn't get problems solved. In practice, it creates social pressure to confess errors (you don't want to act superior to those around you), plus top down pressure ("confess or we'll say it for you"). It also creates investment (if this was all for nothing, why'd I humiliate myself?) and vulnerability (if I leave, they can tell everyone what I said!) And, of course, the degree of shaming can be tailored to cut down people doing too well. It's a terrifyingly effective thing, and the state communist version looked remarkably similar to the cult version. I don't think it's something you'd do if you actually wanted to help people or improve process, though. The best cultures of self-criticism seem to be the ones that criticize in abstract, sorting out what happened and why publicly but not aiming at individuals.

ue_ 9y ago
I don't think such meetings ought to aim at individuals, in fact this is what I wanted to avoid, rather it would be good to talk about processes in general, and to admit faults like that; I think this would be a much clearer way of making progress than to start a blame game or criticise people covertly, which usually ends up festering and turning into hate. I think people should be open about themselves, and constructively criticise. And again, I don't see why that ought to necessitate meanness. Criticising in abstract I think leads to a passive-aggressive culture, which I don't think it's right at all. The point of the meetings would be that everyone is involved, there's no secrecy, and that the meetings are perhaps optional, or at least participation in them is optional. I think a social pressure to confess errors may be a good thing at times, though I admit there's a lot of variation in how it could go. It's strange that I've been downvoted three times on my comment, but only have one reply. Such is the way of HN.
- pjc50 9y ago
  The main lesson of aircraft safety culture should be that you can have an enquiry to establish what happened, or an enquiry to find out who's to blame - but not both, since once you start assigning blame there's a motive to conceal or destroy evidence. > no secrecy This is a nightmare for the person who's percieved underperforming due to unavoidable health issues that they've discussed with their manager/HR but would prefer to keep secret. > social pressure to confess errors This turns into bullying very quickly.