14 ms·

Discretion still matters – don’t hurt your career by sharing too much

172 points by lkrubner 9y ago

cyberpunk0 9y ago
Or don't work with shallow, narrow-minded people?
- lkrubner 9y ago
  In what sense shallow and narrow-minded?
- cheald 9y ago
  Sure, if you can ensure that you'll do that for your entire career and that you'll never be in a position where vulnerability has made you (perceptually or otherwise) a weaker candidate than your rival for a particular job, contract, or promotion. The calculus is simple: do you gain more in your career by openly sharing everything, or by holding in reserve that which doesn't need to be shared? It is always - always - to your benefit to be the advantaged party in any relationship with an information asymmetry. By over-sharing or not exercising discretion, you are voluntarily putting yourself in the disadvantaged position and should reasonably expect that position to be exploited by others around you at some point. If you can avoid ever needing to transact with anyone that would exploit that asymmetry, more power to you. I'd wager that exceptionally few people have that luxury.
lkrubner 9y ago
For emphasis, I would add, if a woman says, "I'm really scared and overwhelmed by this task" then it is possible that she is sharing too much. But managers should recall that she is perhaps simply trying to create a friendship. It isn't automatically an expression of a lack of confidence.
- mc32 9y ago
  I would add that to be true for anyone. Some people are just more tentative and less likely to be sure about things. Not everyone believes they have to be uber resolute in their statements.
- watwut 9y ago
  If you never feel overwhelmed and a bit of nerveous, then you never really challenged yourself and play it too safe. Or just lie about your feelings. I am not sure why saying something like that is seen as worst then overconfidence and acting sure when you dont know what you are doing. The latter does more harm.
  - greenrd 9y ago
    Well, because of organisational biases. There are principal agent problems dotted throughout most businesses larger than a single room, and people care more about looking good than being theoretically optimal, and this is recursive. And however bad you think this problem is - it's probably worse. Robin Hanson and Eliezer Yudkowsky have both written good stuff on this subject.
curyous 9y ago
If you make yourself vulnerable, a competitor can exploit it.
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  Your competitors will find things to exploit anyway. Opening yourself up will attract people who'll help when things get tough.
  - JTon 9y ago
    Surely a balance between sharing and not sharing is optimal. How x and y are weighted depends on the work environment.
    - rainbowmverse 9y ago
      It must be an awful workplace if it's led by people who run for the hills at a conversation over doubts. Vulnerability is not a terminal illness. A lot of people never learn how to deal with it, so their rejection of others for it is largely a reflection of their own insecurities.
  - 111_1_111 9y ago
    That's like saying a basketball team shouldn't play defense because the other team will score even if they do play defense.
strictnein 9y ago
Honestly, this is a long article, but it's worth reading. It's written somewhat in response to another article by a millennial wanting her older colleagues to share more. Part of that is quoted in this article, including this passage: > Most of my new colleagues are at least 10 years my senior. Several of them have children, spouses, and mortgages. They are adults. Comparatively, I am a child. This really hits home, because I'm on the flip side of this now. In my current role I'm a lead on a team and am one of the oldest team members (late 30s). Most of my coworkers are 10 years my junior, so it's weird structuring conversations that don't involve in-depth discussion of kids and spouses and homes and school, etc. Not that it's all I want to talk about, but it is a pretty common place to go to when you're talking over lunch in the cafeteria. Now more of my conversations are back in the beer, sports, and video games realm, which I also enjoy, but it's just different.
- sergers 9y ago
  I am 31, moved into a new team 1.5 years ago. I am married 7 years, no kids... and have carried a hefty mortgage for 8 years. My other team mates are 38-55. Have kids, some even grandkids. While I can relate to alot of things, I can't stand their constant discussions about their kids and other family stuff... I just can't relate.(edit: not that I can't relate really, I just can't stand their constant distractions with home life... We all have issues, you might need a place to vent but work shouldn't be it. Go talk to a colleague in a discreet area not openly in professional work settings) It really disrupts me that I either have to super zone out (which I am good at) or leave my desk constantly. We have a open seating area with low wall shared cubicles... Which makes it worse. While I have family issues, I don't discuss them openly at work with everyone. I am friendly, but don't open up... If you talk to me, I will talk back and seem interested, but it's really in one ear and out the other. When it comes up to recommend or commend a colleague, it's not the work that comes into focus... You remember all these tidbits, and factor in determining that recommendation. Person works hard but may be unreliable because of X happening. Person is only here to talk about Y, rather than working hard. Person only comes to work, to get away from Z. I am the guy that goes to work, to work, so he can move on with his day after work as soon as possible. Others come for an escape from their home lives and share about it all day. I have colleagues in other departments that feel the same way that are older, but just don't discuss family in detail at work. In office politics, sharing can help at times being more friendly with management... But I make up for it in hard effort, top numbers.. and when it comes to review time its my work that shines. One colleague shared alot about his personal life, and only lost out on a job cause the hiring manager felt the guy had too many personal issues. (Manager told me in confidence). He is a hard worker, but has a stigma of being a weirdo for sharing so much of his family life.
xutopia 9y ago
There is a backlash to this ancient mode of thinking. It's called Conscious Leadership and it's predicated on the idea that vulnerability brings better results and that you need a safe environment for the dynamic to flourish. Some of it sounds very new-agey but from what I've read and experienced it has really good fundamentals.
- orev 9y ago
  That's very naive though. Eventually there will be someone around who is politically motivated or otherwise adversarial, and then your safe space is gone and everyone who exposed themselves remains exposed. No matter how much we want the new-agey stuff to work, it just doesn't because it requires everyone to play by its rules, which doesn't happen in reality.
  - nathanasmith 9y ago
    To add to this, I made the huge mistake a few years ago of admitting to an amount of social anxiety at a certain workplace. Within a few weeks that admission of vulnerability was used against me as a reason I wasn't a good fit for a project that I know I would have been great at. I left over it. Never again.
  - white-flame 9y ago
    The things that are exposed should still be work-related. Be honest about why deadlines were missed, what failures were in designs, etc, and basically work against just everybody putting on a "Yes everything is great!" facade. That facade breeds distrust and low morale. Even if things aren't going great, being honest about it keeps motivation up better than the alternative.
    - greenrd 9y ago
      Do retrospectives at regular intervals and encourage everyone in the team to bring up (almost) any issues, large or small, in those meetings, and discuss them, with a solution-focused outlook - what can we actually try in order to address this problem? An essential feature of retrospectives is that upper management, and internal/external customers, are not invited - and do not get to see the raw whiteboard, but only - if they see anything from it - a sanitised summary that's relevant - and diplomatic - for them. This all helps to encourage openness.
aetherson 9y ago
I'm 40, and some of my coworkers are like 25. I'm about two management levels above the basic engineers, but we're a small company and everyone knows everyone. So I'm having lunch with some of the engineers, and one of them shares out of the blue that she regrets getting a computer science degree at her (good) college, and thinks she should've gone into business instead. And my immediate thought is, "For god's sake, don't SAY that shit around me, I'm someone who has a big say in your career prospects." I like having a casual, informal work experience. But it's a thin layer. Ultimately, this is still a hierarchy, and ultimately, you have to think about who you're talking to. (Separately: Don't get an undergraduate degree in business. What a worthless degree.)
- lkrubner 9y ago
  Exactly. That sums it up. When you hear something like: "Yeah, I know, I’m so scared. When Lawrence offered me this job, I was so worried about whether I could do it. I mean it’s all so complicated, and the connections to be made over the network are so uncertain, and then, everything, the timeouts, the servers, lost messages, everything I have to think about it, it’s just really overwhelming and scary, you know?" It sounds like a lack of confidence. However, Deborah Tannen has suggested a different interpretation.
  - eeZah7Ux 9y ago
    > lack of confidence Hide your doubts, smile and act confident and you'll be OK most of the time... ..but when it fails it can lead to disasters, especially if entire teams are engaging in this behavior.
    - mr_spothawk 9y ago
      > when it fails it can lead to disasters do you have any examples of this?
      - losteric 9y ago
        Are you asking for examples of failure resulting from one or more people overstating their confidence in achieving expectations?
1undo 9y ago
This goes back centuries. There is a reason why the slogan of the US currency is "In God We Trust." As harsh as it may seem, when money is involved you honestly cannot fully trust anyone.
hartator 9y ago
> We worked with Lisa for 2 years and we produced our biggest successes with her. So, being honest paid off for her? Most successful CEOs are very open about everything, and don't keep secrets. Secrets and opacity are what destroy companies and relationships, not the reverse.
- lkrubner 9y ago
  Maybe it was her focus on her fears that was an issue? If she'd simply said, "This project is really ambitious" then maybe everyone would have agreed? It is possible to be honest about the risks of a given strategy, without turning the conversation into a discussion of your personal fears and discomforts, yes?
  - hartator 9y ago
    I don't think I agree. Being fearful about specifics - she was talking about making sure servers don't lag, loads, etc. - is actually a green flag when hiring. It applies to CEOs too. I remember reading - can't find it back sorry - a ML study that shows a reverse correlation about how optimistic a CEO appears in the video of quarterly meeting and stock performance.
    - greenrd 9y ago
      You don't generally hire your CEO - and if, contrary to all precedent, you were hiring the CEO, you'd probably want someone who could speak convincingly and confidently to the media and investors, while speaking authoritatively, firmly and confidently to employees. That could make the difference between a startup running out of money or succeeding.
- trgv 9y ago
  > So, being honest paid off for her? The article describes how her openness almost cost her the job offer. In the author's opinion, she made a mistake by being open about her insecurities in a job interview. I've worked with people who are probably too open about their insecurities. I think you can be open about what you don't know without saying things like "I don't know if I can do this job." Frankly, I don't really know how to respond to that kind of statement in a professional setting beyond resorting to platitudes. I think there are better ways to talk about your insecurities, like saying "I have experience with X, but I haven't worked with Y, and I know I'll need to figure Y out for this role." That seems okay to me. Knowing what you don't know is really important. > Most successful CEOs are very open about everything, and don't keep secrets. Secrets and opacity are what destroy companies and relationships, not the reverse. Everyone has a private interior life. Everyone feels things and thinks things that they don't voice publicly.
jeffdavis 9y ago
"To the extent that he’s been successful, it’s because he’s been strategic about what he reveals, and to the extent that he is heading for disaster, it is because he is often unstrategic about what he reveals." I like the rest of the article, but this seems almost like the definition of confirmation bias.
- greenrd 9y ago
  What counterexamples would you offer? Bearing in mind that it may have been intended only to apply to consequences that he was responsible for, not things that he had nothing to do with, but I can't think of any examples of the latter right now.
- chillacy 9y ago
  It's also somewhat tautological, if we define being strategic as inherently leading to beneficial outcomes.
mr_spothawk 9y ago
beautiful. strategic. > Leah Fessler doesn’t seem to get that she is being forced to do this to serve the interests of capital. She is not doing this with a group of friends. A late night session in a dorm room rewards this kind of openness, but an exploitive economic system seeks this information to gain power over the workers.
DoreenMichele 9y ago
I'm a woman and I tend to be very open about a lot of things. I am generally being genuine/ authentic, but I had a very private life for a lot of years and I had to learn that communicating effectively with people who simply aren't going to be part of your inner circle just works fundamentally differently from communicating with those folks. Understanding is very much contextual. There isn't enough time in the day for you to have a deep, meaningful, close relationship to every passing acquaintance. I don't need to feel people are up to no good to decide that certain kinds of information are not appropriate in certain contexts. It is a waste of everyone's time and a poor communication practice to introduce personal elements that aren't pertinent. Discretion is certainly an element of that. But I think of it more in terms of effective communication. If someone has just met you and knows almost nothing about you, leading with talking about how scared you are is going to get interpreted very differently from saying that to people who know you well. If the entirety of their knowledge of you is "I'm scared I can't handle this job," well don't be surprised if the conclusion is that you are simply in over your head.
dkarl 9y ago
Traditionally, for a man among men, expressing confidence has always been safe. If a man expresses confidence in a situation where confidence is foolhardy, other men will interpret it as a performance of masculinity. I'm sure Rick understands this project is going to be a nightmare. I'm glad he's gung-ho about it. If you express fear, on the other hand, your fear will be scrutinized to determine whether it is well-founded and appropriate to the situation. I'm worried about Rick — he seems terrified by this project. I know it's going to be tough, but geez, grow a pair. Women among women are in the opposite boat. Expressing vulnerability is always safe because it can always be read as a performance of femininity, but expressing confidence invites scrutiny as to whether it is well-founded or arrogant. Both of those scenarios have a safe fall-back based on gender expectations. When you mix genders, the fall-backs disappear. In tech, this is virtually always a problem faced by a woman in a male-dominated workplace. If she's ever momentarily in doubt, there's no safe direction to err. She can't take the masculine safe route and project bravado, because that behavior only reads correctly from a man. Nor can she afford to fall back on traditional expectations of women, because traditional expectations of women would suggest she isn't competent at a technical job. So she has to hit the correct balance of confidence and vulnerability every time. There's no safe fallback. And even when she hits the correct, situationally appropriate balance of confidence, the men around her might still be confused about how they're supposed to interpret it coming from a woman. Unless they analyze her confidence in a rational, point-by-point manner — and how often do you do that in a workday? — they're relying on instincts that are conditioned by cultural processes largely outside their control to 1) expect confidence from coworkers and 2) not expect confidence from women. Anyway, it's pretty disheartening to see an incident that is heavily colored by gender expectations related and acknowledged as such but then interpreted as a story about a one-dimensional spectrum from expressiveness to guardedness. A man in the same situation would have been allowed a generous expression of confidence and self-regard, even if it reflected less technical insight than the woman's fears did. Women and men both routinely filter the emotions they share with other people, sharing some and repressing others. Showing vulnerability isn't about being unguarded or guarded, or about naive "authenticity" versus Machiavellian "performing authenticity." It's about filtering differently for a different set of expectations. Nor is it about women not understanding that personal knowledge can be used against them. Witness teenage girls feeling forced to suicide when other girls use their secrets against them. Women are not (and cannot afford to be) less socially careful than men, or less aware of the dangers of sharing. Nor is it true that "if you are ambitious, all of the top jobs are reserved for people who are closed and guarded." Successful male leaders are rarely cold fish and are often very personally charismatic. They have to be mindful of the effect their expressions of emotion have on the people around them, and of the necessity of using that power to inspire loyalty and sacrifice. You can't make it to the top without inspiring trust in people. In case that sounds overly touchy-feely, let me add that it's especially important if your ambition requires other people to fail. It's easier to knife someone in the back than take them head-on. The "closed and guarded" person is never going to enjoy someone's loyalty or take a rival by surprise, because everyone is going to treat him like a snake. (That's one path to power, but judging by the people you see in high positions, it isn't a common one. Even Donald Trump projects a lot of interior qualities such as confidence, defiance, and self-regard and inspires loyalty in people who feel that he is gifting those emotions to people who need them.) On a final note, I suspect the author understands 90% of this but is stranded on the wrong side of the enormous dichotomous wall he has erected between authentic emotional expression and manipulative emotional performance. People always filter and selectively amplify the emotions they express. That filtering is not inherently false, malicious, or untrustworthy. It's an inevitable part of being human, another complication when understanding another human being. A person's filter can be a positive or negative aspect of them, something they use in constructive or destructive ways. That's a better way to evaluate this question of vulnerability in the workplace. What kind of filter do I want my employees or coworkers to have at work? Should we systematically favor bravado over vulnerability? My gut feeling is that we should not.
throwme_1980 9y ago
super boring article, how can i downvote, i can only see the upvote button?
misterbowfinger 9y ago
I really do think about this a lot, but I disagree with what the author proposes which is basically lying or deceiving others: > Authenticity is rare, but people performing authenticity is common, and being good at that performance can build a fortune. Not just authenticity, of course. Being able to pretend that you are furious is a trick that all great sales people use. And being able to create the illusion of a sincere vulnerability can trick people into trusting you, which is invaluable The crux of the issue is as follows: is it possible to exercise discretion, but still be authentic and empathetic? I believe the answer to that is "yes". I also don't believe this is just about your career - it's about your life. In some circles, amongst _some_ people, in _certain_ circumstances, sharing details is beneficial. But not always. You should not overshare with every person you meet. It's simply not to your benefit. The difficulty is determining when, where, and to whom you share. Sometimes, you just know. And sometimes, you just have to express yourself. That doesn't always mean you say exactly what's on your mind. Simply a facial expression can communicate what you're feeling in a certain moment, but still with respect and dignity. Authenticity is extremely powerful. Even with a client, being authentic (without oversharing) will garner you a lot of respect.
- losteric 9y ago
  Yes, you're describing discretion and reiterating the author. They never suggested lying, merely being mindful of the circumstances when disclosing truth.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - misterbowfinger 9y ago
    Added an excerpt from the post. It seems to be the opposite of what I'm saying.
    - cosmie 9y ago
      I read that section as what one is commonly exposed to, not what he's advocating doing.
rajacombinator 9y ago
Made it about halfway through this article but couldn’t go on. There’s a big, big difference between appropriate discretion and faking authenticity.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
adrianratnapala 9y ago
A good article, which should probably be read alongside the one about "vulnerability" by Leah Fessler [1] that it is responding to. Mining the links, I sniff an insidious confusion about what it means show "vulnerabilty". On its face, it sounds like "exposing your weaknesses". But in pro-vulnerability literature (e.g. [2]), it seems more like "displaying honesty and courage". Those are strengths, not weakensses. An example is when someone is confident enough to say "Hey, I don't know about [X], can you explain it?". That confidence is good; but for it to work, it must be common knowledge that, since no-one understands everything the question displays keenness to learn (i.e. strength) and not ignorance (i.e. weakness). [Pro tip: one of the most valuable, and easiest, life skills I learned as a young man was to say "I don't know" in a confident tone of voice.] It is bad if vulnerability-talk teaches young people to display their weakness, since of course that will lead people to lose confidence in them. What else could it do? But it is good if they learn to turn problems into opportunities to strengthen themselves, and to do it openly so that their colleauges can help. [1]: https://work.qz.com/1155475/im-a-millennial-and-i-cant-get-my-older-colleagues-to-be-vulnerable-help/ https://work.qz.com/1155475/im-a-millennial-and-i-cant-get-m... [2]: https://www.fastcompany.com/3001319/why-doing-awesome-work-means-making-yourself-vulnerable https://www.fastcompany.com/3001319/why-doing-awesome-work-m...
- bayonetz 9y ago
  Related article by Fessler about creating a "user manual" for her colleagues to understand her better: https://qz.com/1046131/writing-a-user-manual-at-work-makes-teams-less-anxious-and-more-productive/ https://qz.com/1046131/writing-a-user-manual-at-work-makes-t... Such a cool concept. So much more efficient than the opaque, black-box methods we use to understand and navigate our colleagues in this discretion-oriented, anti-vulnerability-oriented status quo we currently live in. Ironically, I'd say the efficiency of it actually makes it more humanizing.
dorkwood 9y ago
I'm not a manager, but the people I've worked with best over the years are the ones who have shared a bit of themselves at work. People who act 'professional' all the time aren't trustworthy to me. It's impossible to have a frank discussion since they're always hiding behind the veneer of professionalism. They overrate their own ability to fool an audience, and it erodes everyone's ability to trust them. I'm not saying everyone needs to blurt out their feelings 100% of the time. I'm saying honesty isn't only reserved for touchy-feely millenials. If you cultivate a culture of honesty rather than dog-eat-dog deception, you'll get better feedback from your employees, you'll be able to give feedback easier, and teams will be more comfortable speaking up instead of sweeping the garbage under the table. The problem with the woman in the interview wasn't that she was being honest, it's that she was framing her honesty in an unproductive way.
joewee 9y ago
One piece of advice, never ever ever bring work from your previous or current employer to a job interview. I’ve had to reject very good candidates because of this.
- EADGBE 9y ago
  You don't want to see a portfolio?
  - joewee 9y ago
    The exception may be a artist, but I don’t want to see a portfolio of proprietary software or documents from a previous employer.
ravitation 9y ago
I've read a couple of your Smash Company articles now. I broke down in relative detail the indescribably huge problems there are with the one extolling the virtues of using one-on-one instead of group meetings. I'm not going to do that here... I'll just say a couple things... First editorial stuff... The structure and flow of this article does not work. Much of it is unnecessary, there are entire groups of paragraphs that, more or less, repeat themselves, and there are anecdotes that are basically nonsensical. Also, "discretion" is too poorly defined, it is used far too loosely (an unfortunate tweet or a youthful blunder is pretty much incomparable to being vulnerable with your coworkers - it's honestly laughable to put them in the same category). Second... The culture/gender thing... It's pretty much summed up in your final full paragraph. Just keep doing stuff the way we (i.e. I) have been until you inevitably shouldn't anymore because the culture expectations have changed? That's terrible advice, in absolutely any context, but especially this one. I'd be fairly confident in saying that any piece of advice that ends in that kind of qualifier should be thrown out immediately. Third... The point... Honestly, I don't need to know anything else about your "2 years" with Lisa to know that you were better off for her willingness to be vulnerable (a huge plus when looking at a new hire, by the way). Would you have preferred her to be dishonestly confident (that would have been easy), or at least noncommittally vague (easy, but comes off as unsurprisingly insincere)? No. You don't want that in an employee. Knowing the limitations and concerns (actual concerns) is always better. Sorry, it is. The rest of your anecdotes aren't strong enough to make me even consider questioning that she did anything wrong. She did something that was hard, yes. She did something that could have cost her that job, yes. But she did something that improved her (and your) ability to do the job, and you were better off for it. To be perfectly honest, it probably is a generational thing. And, to be perfectly honest again, I welcome the cultural changes (they are already getting here) that will come as the working generations shift. We, and our businesses, will be (i.e. are) better off for them. P.S. You should take some time for a hard think about what "professionalism" means. Too often it is used as a crutch to support some archaic, and frankly harmful (across all possible meanings of the word), business practices.
smithloan 9y ago
Greetings to you. We offers secured & unsecured loan at a very low interest rate of %3 We offer Personal loan, Debt Consolidation Loan, Venture Capital, Business Loan, Education Loan, Home Loan or "Loan for any reason! Do you have bad credit? You can still apply. if yes Contact us via email:super.hmloan@yandex.com !!! Yours Truly, Rogers Smith

172 points by lkrubner 9y ago

cyberpunk0 9y ago

Or don't work with shallow, narrow-minded people?

lkrubner 9y ago
In what sense shallow and narrow-minded?
cheald 9y ago
Sure, if you can ensure that you'll do that for your entire career and that you'll never be in a position where vulnerability has made you (perceptually or otherwise) a weaker candidate than your rival for a particular job, contract, or promotion. The calculus is simple: do you gain more in your career by openly sharing everything, or by holding in reserve that which doesn't need to be shared? It is always - always - to your benefit to be the advantaged party in any relationship with an information asymmetry. By over-sharing or not exercising discretion, you are voluntarily putting yourself in the disadvantaged position and should reasonably expect that position to be exploited by others around you at some point. If you can avoid ever needing to transact with anyone that would exploit that asymmetry, more power to you. I'd wager that exceptionally few people have that luxury.

lkrubner 9y ago

For emphasis, I would add, if a woman says, "I'm really scared and overwhelmed by this task" then it is possible that she is sharing too much. But managers should recall that she is perhaps simply trying to create a friendship. It isn't automatically an expression of a lack of confidence.

mc32 9y ago
I would add that to be true for anyone. Some people are just more tentative and less likely to be sure about things. Not everyone believes they have to be uber resolute in their statements.
watwut 9y ago
If you never feel overwhelmed and a bit of nerveous, then you never really challenged yourself and play it too safe. Or just lie about your feelings. I am not sure why saying something like that is seen as worst then overconfidence and acting sure when you dont know what you are doing. The latter does more harm.
- greenrd 9y ago
  Well, because of organisational biases. There are principal agent problems dotted throughout most businesses larger than a single room, and people care more about looking good than being theoretically optimal, and this is recursive. And however bad you think this problem is - it's probably worse. Robin Hanson and Eliezer Yudkowsky have both written good stuff on this subject.

curyous 9y ago

If you make yourself vulnerable, a competitor can exploit it.

rainbowmverse 9y ago
Your competitors will find things to exploit anyway. Opening yourself up will attract people who'll help when things get tough.
- JTon 9y ago
  Surely a balance between sharing and not sharing is optimal. How x and y are weighted depends on the work environment.
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    It must be an awful workplace if it's led by people who run for the hills at a conversation over doubts. Vulnerability is not a terminal illness. A lot of people never learn how to deal with it, so their rejection of others for it is largely a reflection of their own insecurities.
- 111_1_111 9y ago
  That's like saying a basketball team shouldn't play defense because the other team will score even if they do play defense.

strictnein 9y ago

Honestly, this is a long article, but it's worth reading. It's written somewhat in response to another article by a millennial wanting her older colleagues to share more. Part of that is quoted in this article, including this passage: > Most of my new colleagues are at least 10 years my senior. Several of them have children, spouses, and mortgages. They are adults. Comparatively, I am a child. This really hits home, because I'm on the flip side of this now. In my current role I'm a lead on a team and am one of the oldest team members (late 30s). Most of my coworkers are 10 years my junior, so it's weird structuring conversations that don't involve in-depth discussion of kids and spouses and homes and school, etc. Not that it's all I want to talk about, but it is a pretty common place to go to when you're talking over lunch in the cafeteria. Now more of my conversations are back in the beer, sports, and video games realm, which I also enjoy, but it's just different.

sergers 9y ago
I am 31, moved into a new team 1.5 years ago. I am married 7 years, no kids... and have carried a hefty mortgage for 8 years. My other team mates are 38-55. Have kids, some even grandkids. While I can relate to alot of things, I can't stand their constant discussions about their kids and other family stuff... I just can't relate.(edit: not that I can't relate really, I just can't stand their constant distractions with home life... We all have issues, you might need a place to vent but work shouldn't be it. Go talk to a colleague in a discreet area not openly in professional work settings) It really disrupts me that I either have to super zone out (which I am good at) or leave my desk constantly. We have a open seating area with low wall shared cubicles... Which makes it worse. While I have family issues, I don't discuss them openly at work with everyone. I am friendly, but don't open up... If you talk to me, I will talk back and seem interested, but it's really in one ear and out the other. When it comes up to recommend or commend a colleague, it's not the work that comes into focus... You remember all these tidbits, and factor in determining that recommendation. Person works hard but may be unreliable because of X happening. Person is only here to talk about Y, rather than working hard. Person only comes to work, to get away from Z. I am the guy that goes to work, to work, so he can move on with his day after work as soon as possible. Others come for an escape from their home lives and share about it all day. I have colleagues in other departments that feel the same way that are older, but just don't discuss family in detail at work. In office politics, sharing can help at times being more friendly with management... But I make up for it in hard effort, top numbers.. and when it comes to review time its my work that shines. One colleague shared alot about his personal life, and only lost out on a job cause the hiring manager felt the guy had too many personal issues. (Manager told me in confidence). He is a hard worker, but has a stigma of being a weirdo for sharing so much of his family life.

xutopia 9y ago

There is a backlash to this ancient mode of thinking. It's called Conscious Leadership and it's predicated on the idea that vulnerability brings better results and that you need a safe environment for the dynamic to flourish. Some of it sounds very new-agey but from what I've read and experienced it has really good fundamentals.

orev 9y ago
That's very naive though. Eventually there will be someone around who is politically motivated or otherwise adversarial, and then your safe space is gone and everyone who exposed themselves remains exposed. No matter how much we want the new-agey stuff to work, it just doesn't because it requires everyone to play by its rules, which doesn't happen in reality.
- nathanasmith 9y ago
  To add to this, I made the huge mistake a few years ago of admitting to an amount of social anxiety at a certain workplace. Within a few weeks that admission of vulnerability was used against me as a reason I wasn't a good fit for a project that I know I would have been great at. I left over it. Never again.
- white-flame 9y ago
  The things that are exposed should still be work-related. Be honest about why deadlines were missed, what failures were in designs, etc, and basically work against just everybody putting on a "Yes everything is great!" facade. That facade breeds distrust and low morale. Even if things aren't going great, being honest about it keeps motivation up better than the alternative.
  - greenrd 9y ago
    Do retrospectives at regular intervals and encourage everyone in the team to bring up (almost) any issues, large or small, in those meetings, and discuss them, with a solution-focused outlook - what can we actually try in order to address this problem? An essential feature of retrospectives is that upper management, and internal/external customers, are not invited - and do not get to see the raw whiteboard, but only - if they see anything from it - a sanitised summary that's relevant - and diplomatic - for them. This all helps to encourage openness.

aetherson 9y ago

I'm 40, and some of my coworkers are like 25. I'm about two management levels above the basic engineers, but we're a small company and everyone knows everyone. So I'm having lunch with some of the engineers, and one of them shares out of the blue that she regrets getting a computer science degree at her (good) college, and thinks she should've gone into business instead. And my immediate thought is, "For god's sake, don't SAY that shit around me, I'm someone who has a big say in your career prospects." I like having a casual, informal work experience. But it's a thin layer. Ultimately, this is still a hierarchy, and ultimately, you have to think about who you're talking to. (Separately: Don't get an undergraduate degree in business. What a worthless degree.)

lkrubner 9y ago
Exactly. That sums it up. When you hear something like: "Yeah, I know, I’m so scared. When Lawrence offered me this job, I was so worried about whether I could do it. I mean it’s all so complicated, and the connections to be made over the network are so uncertain, and then, everything, the timeouts, the servers, lost messages, everything I have to think about it, it’s just really overwhelming and scary, you know?" It sounds like a lack of confidence. However, Deborah Tannen has suggested a different interpretation.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  > lack of confidence Hide your doubts, smile and act confident and you'll be OK most of the time... ..but when it fails it can lead to disasters, especially if entire teams are engaging in this behavior.
  - mr_spothawk 9y ago
    > when it fails it can lead to disasters do you have any examples of this?
    - losteric 9y ago
      Are you asking for examples of failure resulting from one or more people overstating their confidence in achieving expectations?

1undo 9y ago

This goes back centuries. There is a reason why the slogan of the US currency is "In God We Trust." As harsh as it may seem, when money is involved you honestly cannot fully trust anyone.

hartator 9y ago

> We worked with Lisa for 2 years and we produced our biggest successes with her. So, being honest paid off for her? Most successful CEOs are very open about everything, and don't keep secrets. Secrets and opacity are what destroy companies and relationships, not the reverse.

lkrubner 9y ago
Maybe it was her focus on her fears that was an issue? If she'd simply said, "This project is really ambitious" then maybe everyone would have agreed? It is possible to be honest about the risks of a given strategy, without turning the conversation into a discussion of your personal fears and discomforts, yes?
- hartator 9y ago
  I don't think I agree. Being fearful about specifics - she was talking about making sure servers don't lag, loads, etc. - is actually a green flag when hiring. It applies to CEOs too. I remember reading - can't find it back sorry - a ML study that shows a reverse correlation about how optimistic a CEO appears in the video of quarterly meeting and stock performance.
  - greenrd 9y ago
    You don't generally hire your CEO - and if, contrary to all precedent, you were hiring the CEO, you'd probably want someone who could speak convincingly and confidently to the media and investors, while speaking authoritatively, firmly and confidently to employees. That could make the difference between a startup running out of money or succeeding.
trgv 9y ago
> So, being honest paid off for her? The article describes how her openness almost cost her the job offer. In the author's opinion, she made a mistake by being open about her insecurities in a job interview. I've worked with people who are probably too open about their insecurities. I think you can be open about what you don't know without saying things like "I don't know if I can do this job." Frankly, I don't really know how to respond to that kind of statement in a professional setting beyond resorting to platitudes. I think there are better ways to talk about your insecurities, like saying "I have experience with X, but I haven't worked with Y, and I know I'll need to figure Y out for this role." That seems okay to me. Knowing what you don't know is really important. > Most successful CEOs are very open about everything, and don't keep secrets. Secrets and opacity are what destroy companies and relationships, not the reverse. Everyone has a private interior life. Everyone feels things and thinks things that they don't voice publicly.

jeffdavis 9y ago

"To the extent that he’s been successful, it’s because he’s been strategic about what he reveals, and to the extent that he is heading for disaster, it is because he is often unstrategic about what he reveals." I like the rest of the article, but this seems almost like the definition of confirmation bias.

greenrd 9y ago
What counterexamples would you offer? Bearing in mind that it may have been intended only to apply to consequences that he was responsible for, not things that he had nothing to do with, but I can't think of any examples of the latter right now.
chillacy 9y ago
It's also somewhat tautological, if we define being strategic as inherently leading to beneficial outcomes.

mr_spothawk 9y ago

beautiful. strategic. > Leah Fessler doesn’t seem to get that she is being forced to do this to serve the interests of capital. She is not doing this with a group of friends. A late night session in a dorm room rewards this kind of openness, but an exploitive economic system seeks this information to gain power over the workers.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

I'm a woman and I tend to be very open about a lot of things. I am generally being genuine/ authentic, but I had a very private life for a lot of years and I had to learn that communicating effectively with people who simply aren't going to be part of your inner circle just works fundamentally differently from communicating with those folks. Understanding is very much contextual. There isn't enough time in the day for you to have a deep, meaningful, close relationship to every passing acquaintance. I don't need to feel people are up to no good to decide that certain kinds of information are not appropriate in certain contexts. It is a waste of everyone's time and a poor communication practice to introduce personal elements that aren't pertinent. Discretion is certainly an element of that. But I think of it more in terms of effective communication. If someone has just met you and knows almost nothing about you, leading with talking about how scared you are is going to get interpreted very differently from saying that to people who know you well. If the entirety of their knowledge of you is "I'm scared I can't handle this job," well don't be surprised if the conclusion is that you are simply in over your head.

dkarl 9y ago

Traditionally, for a man among men, expressing confidence has always been safe. If a man expresses confidence in a situation where confidence is foolhardy, other men will interpret it as a performance of masculinity. I'm sure Rick understands this project is going to be a nightmare. I'm glad he's gung-ho about it. If you express fear, on the other hand, your fear will be scrutinized to determine whether it is well-founded and appropriate to the situation. I'm worried about Rick — he seems terrified by this project. I know it's going to be tough, but geez, grow a pair. Women among women are in the opposite boat. Expressing vulnerability is always safe because it can always be read as a performance of femininity, but expressing confidence invites scrutiny as to whether it is well-founded or arrogant. Both of those scenarios have a safe fall-back based on gender expectations. When you mix genders, the fall-backs disappear. In tech, this is virtually always a problem faced by a woman in a male-dominated workplace. If she's ever momentarily in doubt, there's no safe direction to err. She can't take the masculine safe route and project bravado, because that behavior only reads correctly from a man. Nor can she afford to fall back on traditional expectations of women, because traditional expectations of women would suggest she isn't competent at a technical job. So she has to hit the correct balance of confidence and vulnerability every time. There's no safe fallback. And even when she hits the correct, situationally appropriate balance of confidence, the men around her might still be confused about how they're supposed to interpret it coming from a woman. Unless they analyze her confidence in a rational, point-by-point manner — and how often do you do that in a workday? — they're relying on instincts that are conditioned by cultural processes largely outside their control to 1) expect confidence from coworkers and 2) not expect confidence from women. Anyway, it's pretty disheartening to see an incident that is heavily colored by gender expectations related and acknowledged as such but then interpreted as a story about a one-dimensional spectrum from expressiveness to guardedness. A man in the same situation would have been allowed a generous expression of confidence and self-regard, even if it reflected less technical insight than the woman's fears did. Women and men both routinely filter the emotions they share with other people, sharing some and repressing others. Showing vulnerability isn't about being unguarded or guarded, or about naive "authenticity" versus Machiavellian "performing authenticity." It's about filtering differently for a different set of expectations. Nor is it about women not understanding that personal knowledge can be used against them. Witness teenage girls feeling forced to suicide when other girls use their secrets against them. Women are not (and cannot afford to be) less socially careful than men, or less aware of the dangers of sharing. Nor is it true that "if you are ambitious, all of the top jobs are reserved for people who are closed and guarded." Successful male leaders are rarely cold fish and are often very personally charismatic. They have to be mindful of the effect their expressions of emotion have on the people around them, and of the necessity of using that power to inspire loyalty and sacrifice. You can't make it to the top without inspiring trust in people. In case that sounds overly touchy-feely, let me add that it's especially important if your ambition requires other people to fail. It's easier to knife someone in the back than take them head-on. The "closed and guarded" person is never going to enjoy someone's loyalty or take a rival by surprise, because everyone is going to treat him like a snake. (That's one path to power, but judging by the people you see in high positions, it isn't a common one. Even Donald Trump projects a lot of interior qualities such as confidence, defiance, and self-regard and inspires loyalty in people who feel that he is gifting those emotions to people who need them.) On a final note, I suspect the author understands 90% of this but is stranded on the wrong side of the enormous dichotomous wall he has erected between authentic emotional expression and manipulative emotional performance. People always filter and selectively amplify the emotions they express. That filtering is not inherently false, malicious, or untrustworthy. It's an inevitable part of being human, another complication when understanding another human being. A person's filter can be a positive or negative aspect of them, something they use in constructive or destructive ways. That's a better way to evaluate this question of vulnerability in the workplace. What kind of filter do I want my employees or coworkers to have at work? Should we systematically favor bravado over vulnerability? My gut feeling is that we should not.

throwme_1980 9y ago

super boring article, how can i downvote, i can only see the upvote button?

misterbowfinger 9y ago

I really do think about this a lot, but I disagree with what the author proposes which is basically lying or deceiving others: > Authenticity is rare, but people performing authenticity is common, and being good at that performance can build a fortune. Not just authenticity, of course. Being able to pretend that you are furious is a trick that all great sales people use. And being able to create the illusion of a sincere vulnerability can trick people into trusting you, which is invaluable The crux of the issue is as follows: is it possible to exercise discretion, but still be authentic and empathetic? I believe the answer to that is "yes". I also don't believe this is just about your career - it's about your life. In some circles, amongst _some_ people, in _certain_ circumstances, sharing details is beneficial. But not always. You should not overshare with every person you meet. It's simply not to your benefit. The difficulty is determining when, where, and to whom you share. Sometimes, you just know. And sometimes, you just have to express yourself. That doesn't always mean you say exactly what's on your mind. Simply a facial expression can communicate what you're feeling in a certain moment, but still with respect and dignity. Authenticity is extremely powerful. Even with a client, being authentic (without oversharing) will garner you a lot of respect.

losteric 9y ago
Yes, you're describing discretion and reiterating the author. They never suggested lying, merely being mindful of the circumstances when disclosing truth.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- misterbowfinger 9y ago
  Added an excerpt from the post. It seems to be the opposite of what I'm saying.
  - cosmie 9y ago
    I read that section as what one is commonly exposed to, not what he's advocating doing.

rajacombinator 9y ago

Made it about halfway through this article but couldn’t go on. There’s a big, big difference between appropriate discretion and faking authenticity.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

adrianratnapala 9y ago

A good article, which should probably be read alongside the one about "vulnerability" by Leah Fessler [1] that it is responding to. Mining the links, I sniff an insidious confusion about what it means show "vulnerabilty". On its face, it sounds like "exposing your weaknesses". But in pro-vulnerability literature (e.g. [2]), it seems more like "displaying honesty and courage". Those are strengths, not weakensses. An example is when someone is confident enough to say "Hey, I don't know about [X], can you explain it?". That confidence is good; but for it to work, it must be common knowledge that, since no-one understands everything the question displays keenness to learn (i.e. strength) and not ignorance (i.e. weakness). [Pro tip: one of the most valuable, and easiest, life skills I learned as a young man was to say "I don't know" in a confident tone of voice.] It is bad if vulnerability-talk teaches young people to display their weakness, since of course that will lead people to lose confidence in them. What else could it do? But it is good if they learn to turn problems into opportunities to strengthen themselves, and to do it openly so that their colleauges can help. [1]: https://work.qz.com/1155475/im-a-millennial-and-i-cant-get-my-older-colleagues-to-be-vulnerable-help/ https://work.qz.com/1155475/im-a-millennial-and-i-cant-get-m... [2]: https://www.fastcompany.com/3001319/why-doing-awesome-work-means-making-yourself-vulnerable https://www.fastcompany.com/3001319/why-doing-awesome-work-m...

bayonetz 9y ago
Related article by Fessler about creating a "user manual" for her colleagues to understand her better: https://qz.com/1046131/writing-a-user-manual-at-work-makes-teams-less-anxious-and-more-productive/ https://qz.com/1046131/writing-a-user-manual-at-work-makes-t... Such a cool concept. So much more efficient than the opaque, black-box methods we use to understand and navigate our colleagues in this discretion-oriented, anti-vulnerability-oriented status quo we currently live in. Ironically, I'd say the efficiency of it actually makes it more humanizing.

dorkwood 9y ago

I'm not a manager, but the people I've worked with best over the years are the ones who have shared a bit of themselves at work. People who act 'professional' all the time aren't trustworthy to me. It's impossible to have a frank discussion since they're always hiding behind the veneer of professionalism. They overrate their own ability to fool an audience, and it erodes everyone's ability to trust them. I'm not saying everyone needs to blurt out their feelings 100% of the time. I'm saying honesty isn't only reserved for touchy-feely millenials. If you cultivate a culture of honesty rather than dog-eat-dog deception, you'll get better feedback from your employees, you'll be able to give feedback easier, and teams will be more comfortable speaking up instead of sweeping the garbage under the table. The problem with the woman in the interview wasn't that she was being honest, it's that she was framing her honesty in an unproductive way.

joewee 9y ago

One piece of advice, never ever ever bring work from your previous or current employer to a job interview. I’ve had to reject very good candidates because of this.

EADGBE 9y ago
You don't want to see a portfolio?
- joewee 9y ago
  The exception may be a artist, but I don’t want to see a portfolio of proprietary software or documents from a previous employer.

ravitation 9y ago

I've read a couple of your Smash Company articles now. I broke down in relative detail the indescribably huge problems there are with the one extolling the virtues of using one-on-one instead of group meetings. I'm not going to do that here... I'll just say a couple things... First editorial stuff... The structure and flow of this article does not work. Much of it is unnecessary, there are entire groups of paragraphs that, more or less, repeat themselves, and there are anecdotes that are basically nonsensical. Also, "discretion" is too poorly defined, it is used far too loosely (an unfortunate tweet or a youthful blunder is pretty much incomparable to being vulnerable with your coworkers - it's honestly laughable to put them in the same category). Second... The culture/gender thing... It's pretty much summed up in your final full paragraph. Just keep doing stuff the way we (i.e. I) have been until you inevitably shouldn't anymore because the culture expectations have changed? That's terrible advice, in absolutely any context, but especially this one. I'd be fairly confident in saying that any piece of advice that ends in that kind of qualifier should be thrown out immediately. Third... The point... Honestly, I don't need to know anything else about your "2 years" with Lisa to know that you were better off for her willingness to be vulnerable (a huge plus when looking at a new hire, by the way). Would you have preferred her to be dishonestly confident (that would have been easy), or at least noncommittally vague (easy, but comes off as unsurprisingly insincere)? No. You don't want that in an employee. Knowing the limitations and concerns (actual concerns) is always better. Sorry, it is. The rest of your anecdotes aren't strong enough to make me even consider questioning that she did anything wrong. She did something that was hard, yes. She did something that could have cost her that job, yes. But she did something that improved her (and your) ability to do the job, and you were better off for it. To be perfectly honest, it probably is a generational thing. And, to be perfectly honest again, I welcome the cultural changes (they are already getting here) that will come as the working generations shift. We, and our businesses, will be (i.e. are) better off for them. P.S. You should take some time for a hard think about what "professionalism" means. Too often it is used as a crutch to support some archaic, and frankly harmful (across all possible meanings of the word), business practices.

smithloan 9y ago

Greetings to you. We offers secured & unsecured loan at a very low interest rate of %3 We offer Personal loan, Debt Consolidation Loan, Venture Capital, Business Loan, Education Loan, Home Loan or "Loan for any reason! Do you have bad credit? You can still apply. if yes Contact us via email:super.hmloan@yandex.com !!! Yours Truly, Rogers Smith