3 ms·

This sounds like a recipe for disaster. Manager: “I appreciate straight, direct communication. Say what you are thinking, and say it without wrapping your mess

by l0b0 6y ago

This sounds like a recipe for disaster. Manager: “I appreciate straight, direct communication. Say what you are thinking, and say it without wrapping your message.” Employee 1, taking the advice literally: “I like hats! Do you like hats? Also green, green is good. And chocolate. But everyone likes chocolate, so that doesn't count. Manager: “You’re mad. Security!” Employee 2, taking it honestly but not literally: “Our product is making people’s lives worse. Every study ever made of our business says so. Why don’t we spend all this money doing something worthwhile?” Manager: “Not a team player. Security!” The rest of the employees either keep their heads down or take this as an invitation to get chummy with the manager, offering sage advice from the last tweet they read. I hope I never work at a place like that.

boxed 6y ago
Your premise is that the manager is dishonest in his user manual, and then also incompetent and stupid. Seems like the manual wouldn't make much of a difference if the manager is already incompetent, stupid, and has no self awareness.
- bloat 6y ago
  I assume most user manuals would be at least somewhat dishonest. No one is going to write "I'm touchy and thin-skinned, make sure to sound at least a little complimentary when giving me feedback."
  - toast0 6y ago
    I've seen plenty of posters or whatnot suggesting that constructive (negative) feedback be surrounded by complements. Yes, it makes it more likely to be heard, but it's also a policy saying everyone here is touchy and thin-skinned.
  - csydas 6y ago
    It's only dishonest in that the words in the manual are static and not changing, while our moods, attitudes, and maturity are. What you write down even during the calmest and most level-headed of times is not true 100% of the time and in every single situation -- people are more complicated than that. I think the general idea behind the idea in the article is good (be more direct in what you're looking for in an interaction or what you're not wanting in an interaction); I immigrated from the US to another country, and the number of senseless social rules and bureaucracy that are common in the US have an immense emotional toll that I don't think is appreciated well enough and address properly as an issue. The article's intention, as I understand it, is to remove a lot of these rulesets that basically benefit absolutely no one except for management that doesn't want to deal with the emotional side of employee wellbeing (or any wellbeing really, but that's another subject) Where the article gets it wrong I think is formalizing it into a manual, as it gives the wrong impression to me, and it's even offensive to my sensibilities. I'm not a kitchen appliance you read the manual for and once you press these buttons you get the desired feature enabled; I'm a human being, like everyone else, and have complex thoughts and feelings, and my reaction and decisions will change. What worked one day some time back is not necessarily how I'm going to feel every single day for the rest of my life. If we're going to keep the manual analogy, sure, let's do it, but let's extend the analogy a bit: - Humans get frequent updates: firmware, bug fixes, hot fixes, security patches, and rollups - Each one comes with a readme and a changeset doc - Not everyone is allowed access to the same level of details as others for each update If you want to keep current with me, I'll gladly share my "manual" with you, but don't be surprised if a feature you relied on in an older version is deprecated or even removed in a newer version. Humans change -- we don't have a manual, just a current status. There is some level of predictability, but everyone has the potential to change.
- l0b0 6y ago
  > Your premise is that the manager is dishonest in his user manual, and then also incompetent and stupid. It doesn't take any of those to reach the well-meaning conclusion that something like this is useful. The premise is that the intent of the manager is completely lost when translating a personal, context-dependent and culture-dependent feeling into words. Only someone with a very similar background to the manager will understand what is actually meant. Rather than putting it in writing, it's important to be the person they are trying to convey that they are, and let their employees make up their own mind whether they appreciate honest feedback.
lazyant 6y ago
Like a friend of mine said, where's the line between a totally honest and transparent workplace and a toxic workplace?
- rgoulter 6y ago
  https://www.issendai.com/psychology/sick-systems.html https://www.issendai.com/psychology/sick-systems.html Maybe "toxic workplace" is meaningfully broader than the psychopathy described in this "sick systems". But I wouldn't jump from "totally honest and transparent" to "toxic" straightaway. Notoriously, Bridgewater aims for "totally honest and transparent" communication.. and while it's clearly not for everyone, it seems to work for them. For everyone else, clearly "safety to make mistakes" is a required condition before communication can properly be 'totally honest and transparent'. -- Otherwise, what I think you're getting at, is that "honest and transparent" whitewashes toxic political dynamics.
  - ehmish 6y ago
    I agree with your comment, but that article you linked to it seems to have a couple of odd conclusions. It seems to be calling "keeping them emotionally involved" (using alignment of incentives) to be part of the definition of a sick system. Keeping employees emotionally involved doesn't seem to me to be a harmful thing for a workplace, or the workers themselves. Given you spend quite a lot of your waking hours working, feeling like your hard work's going to be rewarded seems like a good thing right?
- l0b0 6y ago
  Someone toxic would call their behaviour "honest and transparent" to justify what they're doing, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they are intrinsically linked.
- Viliam1234 6y ago
  > where's the line between a totally honest and transparent workplace and a toxic workplace? As a heuristic, honest people don't keep talking about how honest they are. So if a company reminds you regularly "this is a totally honest and transparent workplace", more likely it is the latter.
Viliam1234 6y ago
If people feel psychologically safe at the workplace, you don't have to ask them "what they don't have patience for" or "which activities deplete their energy". They will tell you. (Assuming you do agile - which everyone pretends to - they will tell you during the retrospective. Unsurprisingly, this is the part of agile methogology most companies decide to leave out.) If people don't feel safe, they will wonder whether their answers will be used to accommodate them better... or to decide who gets fired.

by l0b0 6y ago

boxed 6y ago

Your premise is that the manager is dishonest in his user manual, and then also incompetent and stupid. Seems like the manual wouldn't make much of a difference if the manager is already incompetent, stupid, and has no self awareness.

bloat 6y ago
I assume most user manuals would be at least somewhat dishonest. No one is going to write "I'm touchy and thin-skinned, make sure to sound at least a little complimentary when giving me feedback."
- toast0 6y ago
  I've seen plenty of posters or whatnot suggesting that constructive (negative) feedback be surrounded by complements. Yes, it makes it more likely to be heard, but it's also a policy saying everyone here is touchy and thin-skinned.
- csydas 6y ago
  It's only dishonest in that the words in the manual are static and not changing, while our moods, attitudes, and maturity are. What you write down even during the calmest and most level-headed of times is not true 100% of the time and in every single situation -- people are more complicated than that. I think the general idea behind the idea in the article is good (be more direct in what you're looking for in an interaction or what you're not wanting in an interaction); I immigrated from the US to another country, and the number of senseless social rules and bureaucracy that are common in the US have an immense emotional toll that I don't think is appreciated well enough and address properly as an issue. The article's intention, as I understand it, is to remove a lot of these rulesets that basically benefit absolutely no one except for management that doesn't want to deal with the emotional side of employee wellbeing (or any wellbeing really, but that's another subject) Where the article gets it wrong I think is formalizing it into a manual, as it gives the wrong impression to me, and it's even offensive to my sensibilities. I'm not a kitchen appliance you read the manual for and once you press these buttons you get the desired feature enabled; I'm a human being, like everyone else, and have complex thoughts and feelings, and my reaction and decisions will change. What worked one day some time back is not necessarily how I'm going to feel every single day for the rest of my life. If we're going to keep the manual analogy, sure, let's do it, but let's extend the analogy a bit: - Humans get frequent updates: firmware, bug fixes, hot fixes, security patches, and rollups - Each one comes with a readme and a changeset doc - Not everyone is allowed access to the same level of details as others for each update If you want to keep current with me, I'll gladly share my "manual" with you, but don't be surprised if a feature you relied on in an older version is deprecated or even removed in a newer version. Humans change -- we don't have a manual, just a current status. There is some level of predictability, but everyone has the potential to change.
l0b0 6y ago
> Your premise is that the manager is dishonest in his user manual, and then also incompetent and stupid. It doesn't take any of those to reach the well-meaning conclusion that something like this is useful. The premise is that the intent of the manager is completely lost when translating a personal, context-dependent and culture-dependent feeling into words. Only someone with a very similar background to the manager will understand what is actually meant. Rather than putting it in writing, it's important to be the person they are trying to convey that they are, and let their employees make up their own mind whether they appreciate honest feedback.

lazyant 6y ago

Like a friend of mine said, where's the line between a totally honest and transparent workplace and a toxic workplace?

rgoulter 6y ago
https://www.issendai.com/psychology/sick-systems.html https://www.issendai.com/psychology/sick-systems.html Maybe "toxic workplace" is meaningfully broader than the psychopathy described in this "sick systems". But I wouldn't jump from "totally honest and transparent" to "toxic" straightaway. Notoriously, Bridgewater aims for "totally honest and transparent" communication.. and while it's clearly not for everyone, it seems to work for them. For everyone else, clearly "safety to make mistakes" is a required condition before communication can properly be 'totally honest and transparent'. -- Otherwise, what I think you're getting at, is that "honest and transparent" whitewashes toxic political dynamics.
- ehmish 6y ago
  I agree with your comment, but that article you linked to it seems to have a couple of odd conclusions. It seems to be calling "keeping them emotionally involved" (using alignment of incentives) to be part of the definition of a sick system. Keeping employees emotionally involved doesn't seem to me to be a harmful thing for a workplace, or the workers themselves. Given you spend quite a lot of your waking hours working, feeling like your hard work's going to be rewarded seems like a good thing right?
l0b0 6y ago
Someone toxic would call their behaviour "honest and transparent" to justify what they're doing, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they are intrinsically linked.
Viliam1234 6y ago
> where's the line between a totally honest and transparent workplace and a toxic workplace? As a heuristic, honest people don't keep talking about how honest they are. So if a company reminds you regularly "this is a totally honest and transparent workplace", more likely it is the latter.

Viliam1234 6y ago

If people feel psychologically safe at the workplace, you don't have to ask them "what they don't have patience for" or "which activities deplete their energy". They will tell you. (Assuming you do agile - which everyone pretends to - they will tell you during the retrospective. Unsurprisingly, this is the part of agile methogology most companies decide to leave out.) If people don't feel safe, they will wonder whether their answers will be used to accommodate them better... or to decide who gets fired.