5 ms·

>, an atmosphere of blunt criticism hurts team cohesiveness and morale; there’s time and energy lost to hurt feelings, to damage control, to trust lost between

by jasode 9y ago

>, an atmosphere of blunt criticism hurts team cohesiveness and morale; there’s time and energy lost to hurt feelings, to damage control, to trust lost between team members - not to mention the fact that people are working in a fundamentally less humane environment. It may seem faster and easier to be direct, but as a strategy it’s penny wise and pound foolish. This is one of those statements that I think we want to be true but we have no evidence that it's true. Many contradictory examples exist in the real world: You can yell at your team and insult them and be successful. (Famous examples are Steve Jobs and Bill Gates' "that's the stupidest idea I've ever heard!") You can be soft-spoken and be successful. (Warren Buffet would be an example. He doesn't yell at the people in his Omaha office or his presidents/CEOs at Berkshire subsidiary companies.) Likewise, you can be blunt & harsh and fail. You can also be diplomatic & nice and fail. Same in other endeavors. You can yell at the football team and win the Super Bowl (Mike Ditka - Chicago Bears). Or, you can be soft-spoken and win the championship (Tony Dungy - Indy Colts). Likewise, you can do either style and still be the worst team in the league. Doesn't seem to be much correlation either way. My conclusion based on life experiences is that companies can have both the blunt and the diplomatic approaches. The blunt communication works well in upper management. (E.g. one VP tells another VP that "it's a stupid idea.") Everybody is a Type A personality and has a thick skin. However, the reality is that many employees (especially lower-level positions) feel demeaned by direct language. (As the endless debates about Linus' style attests.) Therefore, they require indirect language and those VPs have to dynamically adjust the communication to that personality. Personally, I don't like the style of indirect communication the author uses in examples of Daniel, David, and Allen but I fully understand it's necessary in the real world for certain people.

JoshTriplett 9y ago
> Personally, I don't like the style of indirect communication the author uses in examples to Daniel, David, and Allen but I fully understand it's necessary in the real world for certain people. I don't actually think the first two quoted comments are the best examples, precisely because they show a degree of indirectness. You can be direct, clear, and professional while still having empathy for the person you're speaking to. I do have enough personal experience with people of both types to have a strong impression that there's a correlation between empathy and success. By "empathy" here, I'm talking about the ability to accurately model other people and predict how they'll react to certain things. That doesn't automatically imply kindness, it's just a common side effect (since with empathy, you'd be knowingly hurtful otherwise). If you can't model other people at all, you're going to have a hard time in a people-oriented, communication-oriented role, which includes almost any leadership role. You might succeed in spite of lacking that skill, but you won't succeed because of it.
- marksomnian 9y ago
  Out of curiosity, how would you reword those comments in a more empathetic way?
  - JoshTriplett 9y ago
    For clarity, I think all three of the quoted comments already show empathy; I just think the first two can retain that empathy while also feeling more direct. (The third, with "Can you take a step back and explain your goal here?", is already fine on that front, and that specific tactic is one I'd highly recommend.) In the absence of context for the comments in question, I'll have to be somewhat broad in template. For the first, I'd avoid the passive voice like "It would be nice to...", and instead write something like: "X and Y look good, thanks. For Z, I'd suggest putting this in a data-bind, so that we can more easily switch the view between AB tests in development." For the second comment: "I think this will work in many cases, but it might break some limit in the size of $in clauses, which may lead to problem X in the future. I think we can defer that until it becomes a problem, but please keep it in mind if you see a clean way to address it." For my part, I find that adding rationale also adds more empathy, because it gives the other person the information to reach the same conclusion you did, and it shows trust that you can make non-opaque decisions and still have them hold up. Also helps with mentorship. And taking the time to talk about the things that are good helps when you then need to talk about the things that aren't; I prefer that over the "no news is good news" approach to reviewing.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      Adding rationale (mentorship) is a much more improved approach as it can be the gift that keeps on giving.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    I'm barging in here from side, but IMHO the empathetic way would require those comments to be different depending on the particular individual they're addressed to; you'd have to know and understand how they'd react to different options and (unconsciously?) tailor your comment accordingly. Saying "It would be nice to put this in a data-bind" (as in one of the examples in original article) is okay if you think that doing so is optional, insignificant, and the recipient would understand it the same way. Saying "It would be nice to put this in a data-bind" is okay if you think that the recipient should definitely implement that change unless there are strong contrary arguments, and the recipient would understand it the same way. If you say the same thing expecting that they'll understand one of the above interpretations, but they understand the other one - that was not empathetic, and you caused a miscommunication. Empathy by definition is personal and contextual, not universal.
SolaceQuantum 9y ago
Wasn't there a recent study don't by google that determined that their most successful teams were based on social sensitivity and ability to know when one has gone too far? I would consider that kindness.
- hashkb 9y ago
  You should find it and include it in your post or not post about it.
  - Ainsleylopo 9y ago
    I quit working at shoprite and now I make $35h - $80h...how? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier. Heres what I do, •••••••••>http://cutt.us/7N2sG http://cutt.us/7N2sG
  - sctb 9y ago
    This kind of thorniness doesn't improve the discussion, even if that's the intention. Please don't post like this.
- Klockan 9y ago
  Not really, the study found that psychological safety mattered. You don't feel psychologically safe when you notice that people say that you did good no matter how much you screwed up, instead you stop trusting all praise you get (impostor syndrome). They even highlighted an example where they say that bluntness can be positive in the article about the study: > When Rozovsky and her Google colleagues encountered the concept of psychological safety in academic papers, it was as if everything suddenly fell into place. One engineer, for instance, had told researchers that his team leader was ‘‘direct and straightforward, which creates a safe space for you to take risks.’’ That team, researchers estimated, was among Google’s accomplished groups. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-lear...
marcoperaza 9y ago
>Therefore, they require indirect language and those VPs have to dynamically adjust the communication to that personality. I disagree. If you treat people like they are weak, then you will breed weakness. I have seen first hand what this eggshell walking leads to: projects that should have been shot down as stupid ideas instead wasting million of dollars and hundreds of man years.
- d3ad1ysp0rk 9y ago
  If you can't be direct with kindness, you should not be in a position of leadership.
Turbots 9y ago
Being blunt, direct, even agressieve only works in the examples you give: gates, jobs, Linus... Those are all about incredibly talented and brilliant people and they can get away with it. Usually the people being this direct and unkind to others ... Not brilliant nor genius.
morgante 9y ago
> Therefore, they require indirect language and those VPs have to dynamically adjust the communication to that personality. This was one of the biggest things I had to learn in my first management/executive position. Just because all of the senior management enjoyed aggressive debating and sussing out of ideas didn't mean we could use the same language and approach when talking to other employees. I'm definitely ashamed by some of the emotional harm I caused our lower-level employees. Also it's important to note that you also need to be aware of who is listening. If you call a fellow VP's idea stupid, that can provoke negativity from more indirect listeners (even though he has no problem with it). Even if they aren't personally the target of direct criticism, many people are uncomfortable even hearing it about others.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  > Just because all of the senior management enjoyed aggressive debating and sussing out of ideas didn't mean we could use the same language and approach when talking to other employees. I'm guessing a big part of this is how secure each person feels. Someone in senior management already has a highly successful career, they could probably get another decent job pretty easily, and their income is high enough to where they probably have a fair amount of money saved up in case of a rainy day. For lower-level employees, this is frequently not true. Savings are more often minimal, many would not be able to easily get another good job. So naturally they will feel more threatened by blunt or 'harsh' language.
  - morgante 9y ago
    That could definitely be true, but at least in my experience there are clear personality differences as well. Certain personality traits are necessary to get into senior management, and a lot of those traits tend to lead to valuing direct feedback. > they could probably get another decent job pretty easily This is actually pretty false. Management jobs take a lot more time and effort to find than lower level ones. In tech especially, IC job hunts are way easier than any sort of management roles.
    - 9y ago

by jasode 9y ago

JoshTriplett 9y ago

> Personally, I don't like the style of indirect communication the author uses in examples to Daniel, David, and Allen but I fully understand it's necessary in the real world for certain people. I don't actually think the first two quoted comments are the best examples, precisely because they show a degree of indirectness. You can be direct, clear, and professional while still having empathy for the person you're speaking to. I do have enough personal experience with people of both types to have a strong impression that there's a correlation between empathy and success. By "empathy" here, I'm talking about the ability to accurately model other people and predict how they'll react to certain things. That doesn't automatically imply kindness, it's just a common side effect (since with empathy, you'd be knowingly hurtful otherwise). If you can't model other people at all, you're going to have a hard time in a people-oriented, communication-oriented role, which includes almost any leadership role. You might succeed in spite of lacking that skill, but you won't succeed because of it.

marksomnian 9y ago
Out of curiosity, how would you reword those comments in a more empathetic way?
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  For clarity, I think all three of the quoted comments already show empathy; I just think the first two can retain that empathy while also feeling more direct. (The third, with "Can you take a step back and explain your goal here?", is already fine on that front, and that specific tactic is one I'd highly recommend.) In the absence of context for the comments in question, I'll have to be somewhat broad in template. For the first, I'd avoid the passive voice like "It would be nice to...", and instead write something like: "X and Y look good, thanks. For Z, I'd suggest putting this in a data-bind, so that we can more easily switch the view between AB tests in development." For the second comment: "I think this will work in many cases, but it might break some limit in the size of $in clauses, which may lead to problem X in the future. I think we can defer that until it becomes a problem, but please keep it in mind if you see a clean way to address it." For my part, I find that adding rationale also adds more empathy, because it gives the other person the information to reach the same conclusion you did, and it shows trust that you can make non-opaque decisions and still have them hold up. Also helps with mentorship. And taking the time to talk about the things that are good helps when you then need to talk about the things that aren't; I prefer that over the "no news is good news" approach to reviewing.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    Adding rationale (mentorship) is a much more improved approach as it can be the gift that keeps on giving.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  I'm barging in here from side, but IMHO the empathetic way would require those comments to be different depending on the particular individual they're addressed to; you'd have to know and understand how they'd react to different options and (unconsciously?) tailor your comment accordingly. Saying "It would be nice to put this in a data-bind" (as in one of the examples in original article) is okay if you think that doing so is optional, insignificant, and the recipient would understand it the same way. Saying "It would be nice to put this in a data-bind" is okay if you think that the recipient should definitely implement that change unless there are strong contrary arguments, and the recipient would understand it the same way. If you say the same thing expecting that they'll understand one of the above interpretations, but they understand the other one - that was not empathetic, and you caused a miscommunication. Empathy by definition is personal and contextual, not universal.

SolaceQuantum 9y ago

Wasn't there a recent study don't by google that determined that their most successful teams were based on social sensitivity and ability to know when one has gone too far? I would consider that kindness.

hashkb 9y ago
You should find it and include it in your post or not post about it.
- Ainsleylopo 9y ago
  I quit working at shoprite and now I make $35h - $80h...how? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier. Heres what I do, •••••••••>http://cutt.us/7N2sG http://cutt.us/7N2sG
- sctb 9y ago
  This kind of thorniness doesn't improve the discussion, even if that's the intention. Please don't post like this.
Klockan 9y ago
Not really, the study found that psychological safety mattered. You don't feel psychologically safe when you notice that people say that you did good no matter how much you screwed up, instead you stop trusting all praise you get (impostor syndrome). They even highlighted an example where they say that bluntness can be positive in the article about the study: > When Rozovsky and her Google colleagues encountered the concept of psychological safety in academic papers, it was as if everything suddenly fell into place. One engineer, for instance, had told researchers that his team leader was ‘‘direct and straightforward, which creates a safe space for you to take risks.’’ That team, researchers estimated, was among Google’s accomplished groups. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-lear...

marcoperaza 9y ago

>Therefore, they require indirect language and those VPs have to dynamically adjust the communication to that personality. I disagree. If you treat people like they are weak, then you will breed weakness. I have seen first hand what this eggshell walking leads to: projects that should have been shot down as stupid ideas instead wasting million of dollars and hundreds of man years.

d3ad1ysp0rk 9y ago
If you can't be direct with kindness, you should not be in a position of leadership.

Turbots 9y ago

Being blunt, direct, even agressieve only works in the examples you give: gates, jobs, Linus... Those are all about incredibly talented and brilliant people and they can get away with it. Usually the people being this direct and unkind to others ... Not brilliant nor genius.

morgante 9y ago

> Therefore, they require indirect language and those VPs have to dynamically adjust the communication to that personality. This was one of the biggest things I had to learn in my first management/executive position. Just because all of the senior management enjoyed aggressive debating and sussing out of ideas didn't mean we could use the same language and approach when talking to other employees. I'm definitely ashamed by some of the emotional harm I caused our lower-level employees. Also it's important to note that you also need to be aware of who is listening. If you call a fellow VP's idea stupid, that can provoke negativity from more indirect listeners (even though he has no problem with it). Even if they aren't personally the target of direct criticism, many people are uncomfortable even hearing it about others.

TulliusCicero 9y ago
> Just because all of the senior management enjoyed aggressive debating and sussing out of ideas didn't mean we could use the same language and approach when talking to other employees. I'm guessing a big part of this is how secure each person feels. Someone in senior management already has a highly successful career, they could probably get another decent job pretty easily, and their income is high enough to where they probably have a fair amount of money saved up in case of a rainy day. For lower-level employees, this is frequently not true. Savings are more often minimal, many would not be able to easily get another good job. So naturally they will feel more threatened by blunt or 'harsh' language.
- morgante 9y ago
  That could definitely be true, but at least in my experience there are clear personality differences as well. Certain personality traits are necessary to get into senior management, and a lot of those traits tend to lead to valuing direct feedback. > they could probably get another decent job pretty easily This is actually pretty false. Management jobs take a lot more time and effort to find than lower level ones. In tech especially, IC job hunts are way easier than any sort of management roles.
  - 9y ago