6 ms·

Instead of either their old or their new approach: 1. Don't tolerate jerks regardless of their level of "brilliant". And simply not being likeable isn't enough

• saiya-jin 7y ago
  > Don't come up with artificially soft language and treat them like children who need to tiptoed around. This is often an issue in big corporations by my experience. People complain about others behind their back, but never in the face, feedback just doesn't get back to originators so little changes. Its all nice and quiet and then bam! and the person is fired. Or not.
• gurkendoktor 7y ago
  But who gets to define the "jerk"? What if 9 people in the room decide to bet the company/project on blockchain vaporware, and you are fervently opposed? Many people will come across as obnoxious when they have to stand their ground vs the majority. You have to find a balance, otherwise you'll incentivize friendly groupthink.
  • ps101 7y ago
    being opposed != being obnoxious Being opposed should be encouraged even if it's just a way to internally test ideas; being obnoxious should be discouraged. You, your team and your manager should be able to make that distinction. If work at a place where disagreement is systemically taken personally, look for another place to work at.
    • wolfgke 7y ago
      > Being opposed should be encouraged even if it's just a way to internally test ideas; being obnoxious should be discouraged. The lines between "opposed" and "obnoxious" are very blurry and depend a lot on whether the respective person is very socially adept or not.
    • elif 7y ago
      Of course opposed != obnoxious The problem is that if 9/10 have a bad idea, the 9 decide whether the dissenter is simply opposed or obnoxious. Or it could be that only 3/10 have a bad idea, and 6/10 are afraid to side with 1/10 out of fear of likewise being considered obnoxious. Any filter on honesty is a hazard IMO.
  • Aeolun 7y ago
    You are only a jerk if you keep opposing (or sabotaging) the project after it has been decided to do it.
    • fhy45678 7y ago
      I agree. But is this enshrined in some constitution that everybody reads and adheres to?
    • mattmanser 7y ago
      You're also a jerk if you imply people are stupid, or don't understand, or something's beneath you, etc.
  • marcinzm 7y ago
    You can argue against things without pissing people off in the process. Remember, at the end of the day you're at Atlassian and not a medical company, no one is going to die because of your decisions.
    • wolfgke 7y ago
      > You can argue against things without pissing people off in the process. This requires lots of political skills that only few people have.
      • Nasrudith 7y ago
        I would go further and say it is impossible because it is up to them to be pissed off or not. You can only not antagonize but to fanatics not serving them sufficiently is antagonizing them.
      • mcphage 7y ago
        > This requires lots of political skills that only few people have. Well then, then that sounds like a pretty valuable skill that should be given greater focus during performance reviews, doesn't it?
        • wolfgke 7y ago
          > Well then, then that sounds like a pretty valuable skill that should be given greater focus during performance reviews, doesn't it? Rather, being a very rational person instead of being pissed off by arguments, is a skill that should be given greater focus during performance reviews for programmers.
          • mcphage 7y ago
            Oh, absolutely—with one caveat: the people I know who are most "a very rational person" tend to also be the ones who get most pissed off by arguments.
  • ilaksh 7y ago
    I think this is a real flaw. Office politics are popularity contests. And popular people are usually not the most effective or integral people. In fact, often the popular path is entirely the wrong one. And when two-thirds of reviews are about "soft skills" or some such, it will probably actually boil down to a popularity contest. I mean I can think of multiple times over the years where projects absolutely failed even though people politely pointed out the flaws but did not push to correct them because they did not want to rock the boat and knew it would make them unpopular or "a jerk". Sure there are _actual_ jerks that theoretically this would "catch", but it seems like competent managers would give them a warning and if they weren't obviously improving, eliminate them by necessity. Another aspect of this is that politically connected (office politics) people in the organization are often immune to this type of thing, and calling them out in a review could be career suicide.
  • Quarrelsome 7y ago
    "you guys are all idiots" vs "I don't think this is a good idea. I still think xyz is a more optimal solution".
  • TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Honestly, in your example, the 10th person should leave. Not because they're wrong - they're right - but because a company is not a family, you don't have to be there if you disagree with everything that's being done. Let them try and fail; it's better for everyone involved than having this level of internal disagreement. (This works for our industry. May not work for most people on the planet, for whom abandoning a job is quite literally life-threatening. But that's an entirely separate topic.)
    • AstralStorm 7y ago
      This does not even work in the industry. There are serious costs to changing jobs, from such simple things like daily commute, through job searches down to salaries and temporary availability. (Hiring is seasonal.)
    • gurkendoktor 7y ago
      Not sure why you're being downvoted, in many cases this is the best solution. At the very least you can start looking for a plan B if you think your company is dysfunctional. Better to leave early, than to burn out while clenching your teeth through months of pointless meetings (or to be fired for being a jerk if you eventually crack).