7 ms·

I am an Alice and I need some feedback as why is it a bad thing! I work in an environment when very small percentage of people know what are they doing. and peo

I am an Alice and I need some feedback as why is it a bad thing! I work in an environment when very small percentage of people know what are they doing. and people that know what is going on do not speak up because they are frustrated and know probably nothing will change. in this environment I do speak up whenever I get a chance and I've been in arguments with managers 3 4 level above me. everybody else wants to be politicians and please everybody! but I believe because no one wants to hurt other people's feelings we are in a shit situation we are in. why am I wrong ? should I care less like everybody else? PS: where I currently work is wasting public money and I feel obligated to do something as a Libertarian!

fhood 9y ago
You are wrong because the vast majority of people take criticism personally. It turns out that when you tell people they are wrong and present them with reasons they are wrong, a surprising number of people double down. I'm sure you have heard this before, but you have to make them think it was their idea. Edit Source: I make this mistake all the god damn time, and never realize it until the person breaks and finally snaps at me. The whole time I thought we were just having a reasoned argument. I think that I am constructively invalidating the other persons arguments, meanwhile they are feeling belittled and defensive. Edit edit: This is even worse if, like me, you think arguments are pretty much the greatest most entertaining game it is possible to play.
- mars4rp 9y ago
  I see your point and I agree with you, but it is so hard to put ideas in peoples head! and it is taking so much effort! you can't do that in a meeting when 10 other people are sitting! I guess there is no way to get around it and I should just give up !
  - fhood 9y ago
    Yeah, this works better in one on ones, but usually I don't think it is that hard, particularly if the other person respects your opinion. The trick is rather than shooting down ideas, present alternatives, and guide the other person through finding the flaws on their own.(Note: Doing this without sounding patronizing can be difficult)
    - solatic 9y ago
      One of the tricks that helps people who have difficulty with this is by using the Socratic method. Posing your objection as a question (and not a rhetorical question) imparts a respect for the intellect of the person you're trying to convince. Instead of saying "bubble sort is too slow for us to use" (oppositional, "you are wrong for thinking otherwise"), try "wouldn't bubble sort be too slow for us to use?" (collaborative, "maybe you have something to add").
- wallace_f 9y ago
  I have made this mistake all the time in life as well. Even with some things that seem to have no political, religious, etc. angle to them, and are just very easy to Google and verify in a heartbeat. This is going to sound ridiculous, but I thought I'd open up for example. In university I adamently refuted the moon landing conspiracy of a group partner. I didn't realize this would offend, but it did. She did a lot of extremely vindictive things after that, and even tried to (with some success, I might add) incite anger towards me from other group members. Some people become extremely defensive and then aggressive, perhaps it is especially so if you are the nerdy-humble-well-intentioned-Alice-low-gravitas type... Knowing when to correct someone and when to keep quiet is something I have become a lot better at with age. It took a lot of learning the hard way though. I would hope others are understanding that not everyone who is perceived as a jerk, actually intends it.
- an_d_rew 9y ago
  Agree totally. In an idealized "intellectual-only" world, humans would be Spock-like and be pure rational actors. But we aren't, not even close. (And I would argue that that's a good thing, but that discussion is waaaaay out of scope). As soon as you accept that humans, including yourself, primarily make _emotional_ decisions and not rational ones, it becomes easier to steer decisions in a healthy manner.
  - johnsonjo 9y ago
    > In an idealized "intellectual-only" world, humans would be Spock-like and be pure rational actors. I used to think more along these lines. I heard someone recently talk about Spock and Captain Kirk and their approaches to different situations, and he said that most people think Spock must always be right due to his logical side. He then said that many times Kirk’s more human emotional approach actually worked out better in the end. Obviously you need a balance. Things should be logically thought out but sometimes you need to act out of empathy and sympathy towards others even when it might not make that much sense.
    - kilotaras 9y ago
      Don't generalize from fictional evidence. On average rational decisions are usually better than irrational ones. Also being rational =/= being cold and unemotional.
    - EmanueleAina 9y ago
      Right. In my opinion it's even worse. The thing that piss me off about Spock is that ignoring the emotional component is a very illogic thing to do. :)
- gumby 9y ago
  > but you have to make them think it was their idea. The best way I've found to do this is to them you don't understand something and have them explain the solution to you. Plus it's humility practice -- you might even turn out to be wrong!
  - fanpuns 9y ago
    This is good advice. Whenever I'm sure I'm right, I try to get people to walk me through whatever they are proposing because I know they will eventually step through the problems that I see, but they don't yet. But, you know, sometimes it turns out that I was actually the one not seeing some things clearly and by not coming out of the gate as a jerk about things we can both walk away having come to a collaborative solution and everyone feels good.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  It also really depends on your delivery. You can shoot down ideas and make counter-arguments in friendly & supportive ways, or smug & arrogant ways. I can see why you'd think that, I made the same mistake earlier, but see there's this problem here... vs No, that's obviously wrong, why would you even think that? Let me show you the right way...
  - fhood 9y ago
    You can only take that tone for co-workers. Doesn't work for your superiors as op describes.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- droopyEyelids 9y ago
  You're cynically describing being right as wrong. It's ok to be cynical and defeatist, but those two qualities don't make for useful answers to questions
mighty_bander 9y ago
The article points out the damage that being an Alice can cause - some people (most people, really) are affected by the way others treat them, so when you are right, and someone else is wrong (and you are certain of that ;) ) you can add a bonus to your technical contributions by mentoring that person. Winning an argument is hard and doesn't fix underlying problems with competency, but mentoring someone will build up good will. Instead of feeling like they have lost or been proven inferior, the "opponent" in this case will correctly believe they have grown technically. The way to do that is all in phrasing, tone of voice, and general respectful treatment. If, like me, this is not something that comes naturally to you, it might be worth searching google for a few little tricks that will help you to resolve disagreements. The Socratic method - using questions instead of statements - can be effective. It has also helped in my experience to describe similar situations in which the course of action you support has proven itself. When speaking with managers who make a bad suggestion, it is helpful to explain that the course of action they are proposing was considered, and why it was rejected. That will reassure them that you are on top of the situation, and (in the case of a good manager) show that you are able to do your work without your assistance. Of course if your manager's ego is tied to his/her suggestions, which is common, you're probably SOL. The most effective way I have seen a team deal with that is to implement the bad suggestions as quickly and flexibly as possible in order to minimise the damage to the schedule, the project, and so on.
meheleventyone 9y ago
Acting without tact and diplomacy is probably hurting your end goal. You want to build allies in a common cause rather than alienate people that can help.
- wccrawford 9y ago
  This is ridiculously good advice for so many situations. And in almost all of them, the person won't listen and will have claim some other reason that their behavior is warranted, no matter how ineffectual it ends up being in the end. It's so depressing.
spenczar5 9y ago
You are wrong because you are ineffective. You want a good thing: you want your environment to change for the better. But if you find yourself getting into arguments with managers, then you are probably not effectively changing minds, and you will get frustrated. You already sound frustrated. Speaking the truth straight out can feel good, but it is rarely a good rhetorical strategy. Instead, back up, and start with this: what do the people across the table want? What do they believe is good, and what do they believe is important? Now, how do you recast your arguments to appeal to those goals? How do you frame your position in such a way that they will want to agree with you? This is the foundation of convincing people: empathize, understand them, learn their communication patterns. Once you see how they communicate and think, you work down those routes but send the message you believe is important.
- heygrady 9y ago
  I've given advice to young professionals in the past in this same vein. I ask, "What magic is it that people love good ideas, yet, you have a good idea and no one listens to you?" The answer boils down to this: if you have a good idea but people are rejecting it, find a new way to talk about it.
  - antisthenes 9y ago
    The real answer is that ideas are a dime a dozen and execution is everything. When you proclaim a good idea, you aren't offering an execution plan to go with it, so people (rightfully) ignore it.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      Actually it is not even execution, but who promotes the idea and whether they have clout. People in management also tend to buy impossible lies especially considering deadlines.
- solatic 9y ago
  > what do the people across the table want? What do they believe is good, and what do they believe is important? See, this is why the public sector is usually so ineffective and why it's so frustrating. The people across the table tend to jump from posting to posting, and make safe moves that are far from being the correct ones to fulfill the organization's larger goals, while cultivating political capital. Ultimately, they are motivated by the prospect of future postings and promotions, which are determined not by their performance in achieving the organization's goals but by how much political capital they have succeeded in accumulating. There is no way to sell reform to these people, because reform involves upsetting the status quo, and upsetting the status quo costs large amounts of political capital. Successfully leading change from the bottom in the public sector is for that rare cadre of people who are not just visionaries and cheerleaders for change, but are patient enough to spend years and decades building upon small changes that build up while not losing their patience and escaping to the private sector. Source: been there, done that, screw that, couldn't pay me enough to go back and do that again
rodgerd 9y ago
> I am an Alice and I need some feedback as why is it a bad thing! Are you interested in the best outcomes, or addicted to behaving in the way you find easiest? If you are actually interested in outcomes, if you actually care you will learn that meeting people on their terms will produce better outcomes than communicating however you find easiest. Technology is easy, people are hard.
- mars4rp 9y ago
  "Technology is easy, people are hard" this is so true, one of the reasons I chose technology was I thought I can just spend my time in a cube isolated and not have to deal with people, but more and more my job is becoming dealing with people rather than technology!
lucozade 9y ago
> why am I wrong ? I'll bite. Does it work? Is your approach effective? In your engagement with the senior folk, do you just complain? Or do you suggest changes that you know are affordable and achievable? Are you arguing so you feel better about trying or are you genuinely attempting to affect change? Also, has it occurred to you that the higher ups might not be the fools and cowards they appear? Is it possible that they are operating with constraints that they just haven't chosen, or are prevented from, sharing with you? Obviously I don't know your organisation and it is, of course, possible that its staffed with incompetents. And that by sheer good fortune just you and a small group of your immediate colleagues are the only rational actors. Or it may be something else.
- mars4rp 9y ago
  "Does it work? Is your approach effective?" not all the times, but I had some success here and there! but not as much as I hoped for. "has it occurred to you that the higher ups might not be the fools and cowards they appear?" I am not that arragont to think I am the smartest person in a big organization or I am right all the times and others are always wrong! but those constrains are coming from somewhere and I believe most of it comes from people are lazy and don't like to argue with others because they want to be liked! There are lots of people that wants to please everybody and never push back on stupid ideas! the culture is top down and I have 7 level of management above me! I only can blame the top one or two :D
  - lucozade 9y ago
    ok. Your view isn’t unusual for folk in large organisations who have never held responsible positions so I’ll leave it there. But, for what it’s worth, you’re almost definitely wrong in your analysis. Senior people at large organisations do routinely make poor decisions but it’s usually for either external factors, empire building or blame shifting. It’s hardly ever for genuine stupidity or laziness.
jhjwe888 9y ago
There's research in neuroscience and psychiatry that conclude humans do not make decisions based upon hard facts. Whether it's due to our culture or a human truism regardless isn't understood. Just presenting a spreadsheet full of red and saying "We're screwing the pooch." makes me people uneasy. It doesn't give them context, which I think is the key. People want to feel they have a rounded understanding. Standing on a soap box blasting off about your personal pet peeves is annoying.
zzzeek 9y ago
> PS: where I currently work is wasting public money and I feel obligated to do something as a Libertarian! do non-libertarians feel that there's nothing wrong with companies wasting taxpayer money?
- halfnibble 9y ago
  I often wonder that myself.
- mars4rp 9y ago
  I don't know, everybody else looks fine with it and try to milk the cow as much as possible !
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Veelox 9y ago
It might be helpful to change your style a little to accomplish the same goal with less conflict. Always always give people a way to save face, this applies doubly in meetings. If people feel like the choices are being right or being responsible for an error they will fight to be right. If you give them a third option (past inexperience, blame someone that left, poor testing, changed requirements) that doesn't hurt their reputation, they no longer have to fight to be right. Try to teach people the principal behind why something is wrong/broken/bad. This applies to things like code health that there are more subjective. Instead of saying "That method should not be 300 lines." Teach that you want small understandable functions that do only one thing. This gives them a metric to use in the future and makes your comment seem more well thought out. Be helpful when you can be. If you are always causing problem people will remember that. People also will remember when you go out of your way to help them. A little bit of oil could help the other interactions run smoothly. I hope these little bits help some.
- cwilkes 9y ago
  I would change “save face” to more like empathize with the other person. Discover why some choices were taken. Nearly most decisions that seem wrong were taken due to time constraints. Something had to get out the door. Software can be patched later. So instead of saying “Bob’s team isn’t producing a good product” look into why. Maybe “Bobs team was in crunch time due to 3 people leaving the group and decided to use their own queuing service instead of working with IT to use the company one and that’s causing some problems that I think we can address by spending time on X”
valuearb 9y ago
You can't be a superior engineering contributor unless you are honest with everyone, from superiors to peers, to reports. The key is how you present information. I just proactively scheduled a 1-1 with a Sr VP three levels above me for later this month to cover an important topic. This is what I want to tell them: Our core customer facing application is shit. The contractors who wrote it cut tons of corners and the marketing people who designed did a horrible job, the UI emphasizes features customers don't care about, and makes it extremely difficult for customers to actually reach and use the revenue generating sections of the app. Not only is the marketing leadership is disfunctional, and worse, you (the Sr VP) have created a disfunctional development organization, that makes me wonder if you understand how to develop commercial applications. This is what I will say: The weaknesses in our core application are costing the company millions of dollars a month. We are struggling with making quick, effective decisions and shipping new versions to address the major problems because we have "too many cooks in the kitchen" in our team meetings and planning. I will give specific examples and relate them to specific examples from my long history shipping quality commercial apps on time. I will finish by saying the team is demotivated and underperforming, which makes you, the Sr VP, look bad, and plead that we need to solve this, for them and the company both.
- auggierose 9y ago
  I can't see this meeting ending well. Better in parallel look for a job opportunity with less than three layers of management above you.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    If you think a Sr VP is going to take a meeting from a Sr Dev just to fire them because they tell them things they don't know or don't want to hear, I'd say you are being paranoid. Nothing I do in that meeting will be a fire-able offense. The reality is most Sr Managers crave hear honest feedback, as long as it's given in a respectful way. They may not agree, but they aren't going to take offense. But if I'm wrong, and this Sr VP is one of the thin skinned exceptions (doubtful since they are taking the meeting from a Sr. Dev in the first place), then I can get a better job somewhere where it's less dysfunctional.
jpzisme 9y ago
I appreciate it when people tell me that I'm wrong in a respectful manner and with solid reasoning to back it up. It's impossible to be right 100% of the time, and the only way to improve is when someone or something points out when you've erred. If Alice was respectful and knew when to let things go in the example, I would want her as a teammate any day of the week. It seems the gut reaction in tech is that conflict is bad, but conflict is inevitable. It is better to respectfully resolve conflicts than try to avoid them at all costs IMO
Singletoned 9y ago
You are not wrong. There are lots of people who feel and act like you, and when they get together on the same team they can be very productive. I feel that a lot of places have a culture of agreeability. They are focused on fixing disagreement rather than fixing the underlying problem. A truth-telling person isn't suited to those environments. I also feel that a "no brilliant jerks" policy is an anti-neuro-diversity policy. It weeds out high-functioning autistic and psychopathic people. I think any homogenous environment created from such a policy would be a dangerous thing.
- mars4rp 9y ago
  "They are focused on fixing disagreement rather than fixing the underlying problem" this is gold, this is exactly what my organisation is doing! Thanks it helps a lot.
technofiend 9y ago
You know how people talk about "soft skills"? Bringing people around to your viewpoint without straight up arguing with them is indeed a soft skill. If you're a PERL hammer you're going to go after most every problem with a PERL script, right? What if the manager 4 levels above you is a Python guy? Is he right? Is he wrong? Or does he just feel differently? What if he's a functional programmer instead? What if he's a LISP guy? At some point you have to learn to appreciate other viewpoints and approaches to problem solving. You might want to argue things on strictly technical merits when someone 3 or 4 levels above you has completely different criteria to judge a solution. Maybe he sees less risk or less cost, maybe he just doesn't want to change the status quo. Maybe he simply sees a challenge to his authority. There's a wide spectrum between being a politician and pleasing everyone and being a politician and working through a discussion and couching your position in a way the other person appreciates and accepts. But it's on you to figure out how to make that work, not them.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

fhood 9y ago

You are wrong because the vast majority of people take criticism personally. It turns out that when you tell people they are wrong and present them with reasons they are wrong, a surprising number of people double down. I'm sure you have heard this before, but you have to make them think it was their idea. Edit Source: I make this mistake all the god damn time, and never realize it until the person breaks and finally snaps at me. The whole time I thought we were just having a reasoned argument. I think that I am constructively invalidating the other persons arguments, meanwhile they are feeling belittled and defensive. Edit edit: This is even worse if, like me, you think arguments are pretty much the greatest most entertaining game it is possible to play.

mars4rp 9y ago
I see your point and I agree with you, but it is so hard to put ideas in peoples head! and it is taking so much effort! you can't do that in a meeting when 10 other people are sitting! I guess there is no way to get around it and I should just give up !
- fhood 9y ago
  Yeah, this works better in one on ones, but usually I don't think it is that hard, particularly if the other person respects your opinion. The trick is rather than shooting down ideas, present alternatives, and guide the other person through finding the flaws on their own.(Note: Doing this without sounding patronizing can be difficult)
  - solatic 9y ago
    One of the tricks that helps people who have difficulty with this is by using the Socratic method. Posing your objection as a question (and not a rhetorical question) imparts a respect for the intellect of the person you're trying to convince. Instead of saying "bubble sort is too slow for us to use" (oppositional, "you are wrong for thinking otherwise"), try "wouldn't bubble sort be too slow for us to use?" (collaborative, "maybe you have something to add").
wallace_f 9y ago
I have made this mistake all the time in life as well. Even with some things that seem to have no political, religious, etc. angle to them, and are just very easy to Google and verify in a heartbeat. This is going to sound ridiculous, but I thought I'd open up for example. In university I adamently refuted the moon landing conspiracy of a group partner. I didn't realize this would offend, but it did. She did a lot of extremely vindictive things after that, and even tried to (with some success, I might add) incite anger towards me from other group members. Some people become extremely defensive and then aggressive, perhaps it is especially so if you are the nerdy-humble-well-intentioned-Alice-low-gravitas type... Knowing when to correct someone and when to keep quiet is something I have become a lot better at with age. It took a lot of learning the hard way though. I would hope others are understanding that not everyone who is perceived as a jerk, actually intends it.
an_d_rew 9y ago
Agree totally. In an idealized "intellectual-only" world, humans would be Spock-like and be pure rational actors. But we aren't, not even close. (And I would argue that that's a good thing, but that discussion is waaaaay out of scope). As soon as you accept that humans, including yourself, primarily make _emotional_ decisions and not rational ones, it becomes easier to steer decisions in a healthy manner.
- johnsonjo 9y ago
  > In an idealized "intellectual-only" world, humans would be Spock-like and be pure rational actors. I used to think more along these lines. I heard someone recently talk about Spock and Captain Kirk and their approaches to different situations, and he said that most people think Spock must always be right due to his logical side. He then said that many times Kirk’s more human emotional approach actually worked out better in the end. Obviously you need a balance. Things should be logically thought out but sometimes you need to act out of empathy and sympathy towards others even when it might not make that much sense.
  - kilotaras 9y ago
    Don't generalize from fictional evidence. On average rational decisions are usually better than irrational ones. Also being rational =/= being cold and unemotional.
  - EmanueleAina 9y ago
    Right. In my opinion it's even worse. The thing that piss me off about Spock is that ignoring the emotional component is a very illogic thing to do. :)
gumby 9y ago
> but you have to make them think it was their idea. The best way I've found to do this is to them you don't understand something and have them explain the solution to you. Plus it's humility practice -- you might even turn out to be wrong!
- fanpuns 9y ago
  This is good advice. Whenever I'm sure I'm right, I try to get people to walk me through whatever they are proposing because I know they will eventually step through the problems that I see, but they don't yet. But, you know, sometimes it turns out that I was actually the one not seeing some things clearly and by not coming out of the gate as a jerk about things we can both walk away having come to a collaborative solution and everyone feels good.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sliverstorm 9y ago
It also really depends on your delivery. You can shoot down ideas and make counter-arguments in friendly & supportive ways, or smug & arrogant ways. I can see why you'd think that, I made the same mistake earlier, but see there's this problem here... vs No, that's obviously wrong, why would you even think that? Let me show you the right way...
- fhood 9y ago
  You can only take that tone for co-workers. Doesn't work for your superiors as op describes.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
droopyEyelids 9y ago
You're cynically describing being right as wrong. It's ok to be cynical and defeatist, but those two qualities don't make for useful answers to questions

mighty_bander 9y ago

The article points out the damage that being an Alice can cause - some people (most people, really) are affected by the way others treat them, so when you are right, and someone else is wrong (and you are certain of that ;) ) you can add a bonus to your technical contributions by mentoring that person. Winning an argument is hard and doesn't fix underlying problems with competency, but mentoring someone will build up good will. Instead of feeling like they have lost or been proven inferior, the "opponent" in this case will correctly believe they have grown technically. The way to do that is all in phrasing, tone of voice, and general respectful treatment. If, like me, this is not something that comes naturally to you, it might be worth searching google for a few little tricks that will help you to resolve disagreements. The Socratic method - using questions instead of statements - can be effective. It has also helped in my experience to describe similar situations in which the course of action you support has proven itself. When speaking with managers who make a bad suggestion, it is helpful to explain that the course of action they are proposing was considered, and why it was rejected. That will reassure them that you are on top of the situation, and (in the case of a good manager) show that you are able to do your work without your assistance. Of course if your manager's ego is tied to his/her suggestions, which is common, you're probably SOL. The most effective way I have seen a team deal with that is to implement the bad suggestions as quickly and flexibly as possible in order to minimise the damage to the schedule, the project, and so on.

meheleventyone 9y ago

Acting without tact and diplomacy is probably hurting your end goal. You want to build allies in a common cause rather than alienate people that can help.

wccrawford 9y ago
This is ridiculously good advice for so many situations. And in almost all of them, the person won't listen and will have claim some other reason that their behavior is warranted, no matter how ineffectual it ends up being in the end. It's so depressing.

spenczar5 9y ago

You are wrong because you are ineffective. You want a good thing: you want your environment to change for the better. But if you find yourself getting into arguments with managers, then you are probably not effectively changing minds, and you will get frustrated. You already sound frustrated. Speaking the truth straight out can feel good, but it is rarely a good rhetorical strategy. Instead, back up, and start with this: what do the people across the table want? What do they believe is good, and what do they believe is important? Now, how do you recast your arguments to appeal to those goals? How do you frame your position in such a way that they will want to agree with you? This is the foundation of convincing people: empathize, understand them, learn their communication patterns. Once you see how they communicate and think, you work down those routes but send the message you believe is important.

heygrady 9y ago
I've given advice to young professionals in the past in this same vein. I ask, "What magic is it that people love good ideas, yet, you have a good idea and no one listens to you?" The answer boils down to this: if you have a good idea but people are rejecting it, find a new way to talk about it.
- antisthenes 9y ago
  The real answer is that ideas are a dime a dozen and execution is everything. When you proclaim a good idea, you aren't offering an execution plan to go with it, so people (rightfully) ignore it.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    Actually it is not even execution, but who promotes the idea and whether they have clout. People in management also tend to buy impossible lies especially considering deadlines.
solatic 9y ago
> what do the people across the table want? What do they believe is good, and what do they believe is important? See, this is why the public sector is usually so ineffective and why it's so frustrating. The people across the table tend to jump from posting to posting, and make safe moves that are far from being the correct ones to fulfill the organization's larger goals, while cultivating political capital. Ultimately, they are motivated by the prospect of future postings and promotions, which are determined not by their performance in achieving the organization's goals but by how much political capital they have succeeded in accumulating. There is no way to sell reform to these people, because reform involves upsetting the status quo, and upsetting the status quo costs large amounts of political capital. Successfully leading change from the bottom in the public sector is for that rare cadre of people who are not just visionaries and cheerleaders for change, but are patient enough to spend years and decades building upon small changes that build up while not losing their patience and escaping to the private sector. Source: been there, done that, screw that, couldn't pay me enough to go back and do that again

rodgerd 9y ago

> I am an Alice and I need some feedback as why is it a bad thing! Are you interested in the best outcomes, or addicted to behaving in the way you find easiest? If you are actually interested in outcomes, if you actually care you will learn that meeting people on their terms will produce better outcomes than communicating however you find easiest. Technology is easy, people are hard.

mars4rp 9y ago
"Technology is easy, people are hard" this is so true, one of the reasons I chose technology was I thought I can just spend my time in a cube isolated and not have to deal with people, but more and more my job is becoming dealing with people rather than technology!

lucozade 9y ago

> why am I wrong ? I'll bite. Does it work? Is your approach effective? In your engagement with the senior folk, do you just complain? Or do you suggest changes that you know are affordable and achievable? Are you arguing so you feel better about trying or are you genuinely attempting to affect change? Also, has it occurred to you that the higher ups might not be the fools and cowards they appear? Is it possible that they are operating with constraints that they just haven't chosen, or are prevented from, sharing with you? Obviously I don't know your organisation and it is, of course, possible that its staffed with incompetents. And that by sheer good fortune just you and a small group of your immediate colleagues are the only rational actors. Or it may be something else.

mars4rp 9y ago
"Does it work? Is your approach effective?" not all the times, but I had some success here and there! but not as much as I hoped for. "has it occurred to you that the higher ups might not be the fools and cowards they appear?" I am not that arragont to think I am the smartest person in a big organization or I am right all the times and others are always wrong! but those constrains are coming from somewhere and I believe most of it comes from people are lazy and don't like to argue with others because they want to be liked! There are lots of people that wants to please everybody and never push back on stupid ideas! the culture is top down and I have 7 level of management above me! I only can blame the top one or two :D
- lucozade 9y ago
  ok. Your view isn’t unusual for folk in large organisations who have never held responsible positions so I’ll leave it there. But, for what it’s worth, you’re almost definitely wrong in your analysis. Senior people at large organisations do routinely make poor decisions but it’s usually for either external factors, empire building or blame shifting. It’s hardly ever for genuine stupidity or laziness.

jhjwe888 9y ago

There's research in neuroscience and psychiatry that conclude humans do not make decisions based upon hard facts. Whether it's due to our culture or a human truism regardless isn't understood. Just presenting a spreadsheet full of red and saying "We're screwing the pooch." makes me people uneasy. It doesn't give them context, which I think is the key. People want to feel they have a rounded understanding. Standing on a soap box blasting off about your personal pet peeves is annoying.

zzzeek 9y ago

> PS: where I currently work is wasting public money and I feel obligated to do something as a Libertarian! do non-libertarians feel that there's nothing wrong with companies wasting taxpayer money?

halfnibble 9y ago
I often wonder that myself.
mars4rp 9y ago
I don't know, everybody else looks fine with it and try to milk the cow as much as possible !

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Veelox 9y ago

It might be helpful to change your style a little to accomplish the same goal with less conflict. Always always give people a way to save face, this applies doubly in meetings. If people feel like the choices are being right or being responsible for an error they will fight to be right. If you give them a third option (past inexperience, blame someone that left, poor testing, changed requirements) that doesn't hurt their reputation, they no longer have to fight to be right. Try to teach people the principal behind why something is wrong/broken/bad. This applies to things like code health that there are more subjective. Instead of saying "That method should not be 300 lines." Teach that you want small understandable functions that do only one thing. This gives them a metric to use in the future and makes your comment seem more well thought out. Be helpful when you can be. If you are always causing problem people will remember that. People also will remember when you go out of your way to help them. A little bit of oil could help the other interactions run smoothly. I hope these little bits help some.

cwilkes 9y ago
I would change “save face” to more like empathize with the other person. Discover why some choices were taken. Nearly most decisions that seem wrong were taken due to time constraints. Something had to get out the door. Software can be patched later. So instead of saying “Bob’s team isn’t producing a good product” look into why. Maybe “Bobs team was in crunch time due to 3 people leaving the group and decided to use their own queuing service instead of working with IT to use the company one and that’s causing some problems that I think we can address by spending time on X”

valuearb 9y ago

You can't be a superior engineering contributor unless you are honest with everyone, from superiors to peers, to reports. The key is how you present information. I just proactively scheduled a 1-1 with a Sr VP three levels above me for later this month to cover an important topic. This is what I want to tell them: Our core customer facing application is shit. The contractors who wrote it cut tons of corners and the marketing people who designed did a horrible job, the UI emphasizes features customers don't care about, and makes it extremely difficult for customers to actually reach and use the revenue generating sections of the app. Not only is the marketing leadership is disfunctional, and worse, you (the Sr VP) have created a disfunctional development organization, that makes me wonder if you understand how to develop commercial applications. This is what I will say: The weaknesses in our core application are costing the company millions of dollars a month. We are struggling with making quick, effective decisions and shipping new versions to address the major problems because we have "too many cooks in the kitchen" in our team meetings and planning. I will give specific examples and relate them to specific examples from my long history shipping quality commercial apps on time. I will finish by saying the team is demotivated and underperforming, which makes you, the Sr VP, look bad, and plead that we need to solve this, for them and the company both.

auggierose 9y ago
I can't see this meeting ending well. Better in parallel look for a job opportunity with less than three layers of management above you.
- valuearb 9y ago
  If you think a Sr VP is going to take a meeting from a Sr Dev just to fire them because they tell them things they don't know or don't want to hear, I'd say you are being paranoid. Nothing I do in that meeting will be a fire-able offense. The reality is most Sr Managers crave hear honest feedback, as long as it's given in a respectful way. They may not agree, but they aren't going to take offense. But if I'm wrong, and this Sr VP is one of the thin skinned exceptions (doubtful since they are taking the meeting from a Sr. Dev in the first place), then I can get a better job somewhere where it's less dysfunctional.

jpzisme 9y ago

I appreciate it when people tell me that I'm wrong in a respectful manner and with solid reasoning to back it up. It's impossible to be right 100% of the time, and the only way to improve is when someone or something points out when you've erred. If Alice was respectful and knew when to let things go in the example, I would want her as a teammate any day of the week. It seems the gut reaction in tech is that conflict is bad, but conflict is inevitable. It is better to respectfully resolve conflicts than try to avoid them at all costs IMO

Singletoned 9y ago

You are not wrong. There are lots of people who feel and act like you, and when they get together on the same team they can be very productive. I feel that a lot of places have a culture of agreeability. They are focused on fixing disagreement rather than fixing the underlying problem. A truth-telling person isn't suited to those environments. I also feel that a "no brilliant jerks" policy is an anti-neuro-diversity policy. It weeds out high-functioning autistic and psychopathic people. I think any homogenous environment created from such a policy would be a dangerous thing.

mars4rp 9y ago
"They are focused on fixing disagreement rather than fixing the underlying problem" this is gold, this is exactly what my organisation is doing! Thanks it helps a lot.

technofiend 9y ago

You know how people talk about "soft skills"? Bringing people around to your viewpoint without straight up arguing with them is indeed a soft skill. If you're a PERL hammer you're going to go after most every problem with a PERL script, right? What if the manager 4 levels above you is a Python guy? Is he right? Is he wrong? Or does he just feel differently? What if he's a functional programmer instead? What if he's a LISP guy? At some point you have to learn to appreciate other viewpoints and approaches to problem solving. You might want to argue things on strictly technical merits when someone 3 or 4 levels above you has completely different criteria to judge a solution. Maybe he sees less risk or less cost, maybe he just doesn't want to change the status quo. Maybe he simply sees a challenge to his authority. There's a wide spectrum between being a politician and pleasing everyone and being a politician and working through a discussion and couching your position in a way the other person appreciates and accepts. But it's on you to figure out how to make that work, not them.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]