4 ms·

I just can’t help but think of this movement as a kind of gaslighting. Your reports are either engaged because the work is interesting or the product is meaning

by zwkrt 6y ago

I just can’t help but think of this movement as a kind of gaslighting. Your reports are either engaged because the work is interesting or the product is meaningful, or they are not. Attempts to sugar coat will fail just like how construction workers making a bridge to nowhere out of Popsicle sticks will inevitably start asking reasonable questions. Maybe my experience at some relatively cutthroat teams at Amazon color my opinion, since I have been in an environment where this kind of PS “happy-argumentation” was actually rewarded instead of just talked about. In an optimistic mindset, “psychological safety” boils down to feeling secure in one’s job and in control of one’s project. When people feel secure, they free up cycles to creative, sleep better, enjoy each other’s company more, etc. when they feel in control they have the energy to constructively argue. But when rubber hits the road most engineers do not have one of either security or control. At a startup they may have some limited product control but there is no safety. In a large company they may have more security but no actual control of the product. Either way, to promote PS and get a more engaged team, a manager has to downplay the reality of the situation. This leads to management allowing complicated pet projects, rewrites, and feedback meetings that go nowhere all for the sake of appeasing egos. Engineers tend not to be overly people-savvy but we catch on eventually. I think it’s no better than the “we’re all a family” rhetoric. Just another way of trying to eke out more work for nothing in return. My last employer signed all employees up for an app called “happify” where we would get daily challenges to pop bubbles with stressful words on them or write praises to our coworkers. That strategy was so bald-faced that I had to kind of admire it. So why are checked-out engineers bad? They are worse than bad, they are counter-productive. They push shit code because who cares? They don’t question obviously bad designs because they know there’s no point. They quit or move on leaving the team in churn-hell. But these are symptoms not of psychology but of reality. Spinozas Ethics is a lovely look into how psychology and reality are just two sides of the same coin, and you can’t fix one without fixing the other. As stated above, the solution is engaging work, but most work is not engaging. So let’s just be more realistic, ok?

TameAntelope 6y ago
I don't think "psychological safety" boils down to feeling secure in one's job in the way you suggest, it's more specific than that. Being able to be your "true" self is the observation, not "be happy". If your true self is a neurotic mess, "psychological safety" on a team would give you the space to do that without feeling judged or that negative consequences would arise (informal or formal) by acting that way. You can improve "checked-out" engineers feelings by creating a way for them to express their concerns without worry that they'll be punished for it. Those toxic teams I'm sure you've been part of, where everyone felt shitty and nobody felt connected to the work? They didn't have to be that way by leveraging "psychological safety", even if "reality" was immutable (also, it's not immutable but we can get to that).
- zwkrt 6y ago
  I completely agree with you and every point. I will also admit that I was being intentionally pessimistic but to get a point across. It’s funny you mention my cutthroat teams as a negative, because those are the teams that made me realize what it actually means to be committed to a goal. The teams that made me come to this conclusion were subsequent “bullshit” teams in places where will-to-power was punished instead of cultivated. My main point in writing the diatribe above was to deter the type of pleasant but dull middle manager who thinks that all they have to do to solve their teams’ problems is psychologize them. I’ve actually noticed this as a larger cultural trend: people blaming their own minds or the minds of others for what is an actual real problem in the world. If I can help clear the wool from a few low-level programmers eyes to help them see that they aren’t so different from an accountant or the fry cook at their favorite bar (and that this is not a bad thing!) I feel like my job is done.
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    Yeah, it bothers the hell out of me when management forgets that we're actually tied to providing real value. The whole point of all this is that you get more value from the team when you do these things -- making people feel "safe" is a productivity hack, not the end goal. If people feel warm and fuzzy, but then don't move the project over the finish line, it's re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The trick is to find people like you, get you engaged and feeling like you can actually fix the shit that's stopping you from being productive, while also getting you to give space for people to fuck up now and then, because people fucking up and feeling okay with that sometimes leads to really great insight when instead of fucking up they do something great. Basically, "safety" is letting people feel not-terrible for taking a risk and having it blow up in their face. That should be allowed on a team, and Google's research seems to show that teams who allow people to fuck up without making them feel bad about it tend to make better shit than teams who punish people for fucking up. ...to a point. If all you do is fuck up, that also violates the safety, on the manager's side because then they're not feeling safe letting people take risks.
  - wayoutthere 6y ago
    I think you have it backwards; psychological safety is something that executive leadership has to build into the culture of the company. What it comes down to is a culture where decision making is transparent, questioning the status quo is encouraged and no one person holds the power to make / break a product. At the team level you’re always going to have good managers and bad managers, but with the right culture the bad managers blast radius will be diminished. A good manager can’t do a whole lot to overcome a shitty culture.
giantg2 6y ago
"But these are symptoms not of psychology but of reality." "But when rubber hits the road most engineers do not have one of either security or control." Well said
acntr_employee 6y ago
Thanks for the clear and concise way of summarizing my thoughts of the last few months. I am in a situation where I actually have near absolute safety and nearly no control over the projects. It was even worse in 2020 regarding control after being thrown into a toxic project by a CEO who always touts the motto "no a**holes". Well when pitching for the biggest budget in the history of the org reality is what counts. Not nice mottos. So I agree. Everytime I hear this bs about being a team/family/safe place I just think: STFU and pay me. I do my work. Nothing more, nothing less.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  Psychological safety isn't about making you happy, I'm actually a bit surprised why so many people here think it is. It's about producing positive outcomes in the form of successful projects. You're still going to have toxic projects, this isn't a magic dust you sprinkle on a project to make it suddenly successful, it's a technique you use to make unbearable work bearable and give the people who don't feel comfortable speaking up the space to do so. The observation is if everyone feels comfortable disagreeing with one another, the project is more likely to succeed. That's it. This is a productivity tool to make marginal projects more likely to tip favorably, and to keep good engineers around even when they're on bad projects, and hopefully make some bad projects less bad by giving everyone room to suggest improvements.
  - zwkrt 6y ago
    People keep saying this but I don’t understand the difference. Engineers only want to have constructive arguments with each other if they feel committed to the project and happy about their place in the organization. If people feel that their job is on the line or that argumentation will not lead to any constructive output, then they will not engage in such an activity. Can you explain the difference between being happy and engaging in behaviors which a happy person engages in? Maybe it would be helpful to use the term other than “safety”? Is there a synonym for a psychological safety that would get cross what you’re thinking about better?
    - 6y ago
commandlinefan 6y ago
When I first started studying software engineering/development/programming, I was bombarded with advice to question everything, push back on unnecessary features, try to get to the bottom of what was really needed and deliver that instead of what was being asked for and not to be afraid to say no. I took that advice to heart - I was a professional and in it for the long haul, trying to make a lifetime career out of this, after all. It took a long time for me to realize I was better off abandoning those platitudes and just getting my work done. Although the inspirational types are correct in arguing that the world would truly be a better place if everybody took ownership and made the bottom line their business, it's hard to make the world a better place if you get fired for being a PITA.
- rxhernandez 6y ago
  Yeah, I heavily bucked trends at my past 3 companies. I even got into plenty of disagreements with "principal engineers" at the end of their careers and those engineers inevitably won the arguments. However, there were enough times where, once the team realized how problematic those solutions were, they backtracked and used my solutions. Every manager (as well as a few colleagues) has tried to get me to come back so far. A couple have recommended me to lead the tech side of their friend's (well-funded) startups long after I left. I wouldn't ever do it again though unless it was explicitly asked for. Stressing about getting fired in the initial weeks after getting hired (or during a boss change) just isn't worth it.
carabiner 6y ago
Meta but why has the term "gaslight" become so common on Twitter and HN?
- fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
  The definition of “gaslighting” is a form of psychological abuse where someone is trying to make you doubt your own sanity by manipulating your perception of reality. I think this is a very powerful meme, because if you think gaslighting is occurring, anyone who argues that you aren’t being gaslit is calling you crazy and is therefore one of the gaslighters. This worldview reframes self-doubt or cognitive dissonance as being a product of a conspiracy. So in that sense it’s kind of a one-way street. Any thoughts that perhaps you aren’t being gaslit are just further evidence of how deep the gaslighting goes. Other explanations like “honest disagreement” or “lying” are more parsimonious and often a more accurate representation of reality, but just can’t compete. Unfortunately the adaptive thing to do here is go along with it. If a friend tells me they are being gaslit, I’m certainly not going to side with the gaslighters.
- Der_Einzige 6y ago
  I've noticed this with some other insults too - primarily used by the "woke" crowd. My favorite example of "marxist" style insults is claiming that someone lives "rent free" in ones mind. Admittedly, I find this uniquely insulting and if anything I've got to give credit to zoomers and the other forerunners of todays "wokism" for adding more interesting insults and accusations to our linguistic zeitgeist.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Limbaugh, hardly a zoomer (but actually a closeted Marxist!), bragged about living "rent-free" in Obama's mind at least a decade ago. My memory is fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure he made the same boast about one or both of the Clintons even earlier than that.
- watwut 6y ago
  Terms are subject of fashion. Psychological/relatinships related terminology is as much subject of buzz-words as tech. The process is exactly the same as when on tech suddenly everyone talks about fluent api one year, then about other buzzword, just for those then slowly dying.
ineedasername 6y ago
Your reports are either engaged because the work is interesting or the product is meaningful The point is that all members on a team may believe the work is meaningful and interesting, but still be unproductive due to group dynamics that penalize certain types of behavior that would constructive if they were allowed. It doesn't matter how meaningful or interesting things are if a co-worker or manager shuts you down every time you present a differing opinion on something.
lmm 6y ago
> Either way, to promote PS and get a more engaged team, a manager has to downplay the reality of the situation. This leads to management allowing complicated pet projects, rewrites, and feedback meetings that go nowhere all for the sake of appeasing egos. Engineers tend not to be overly people-savvy but we catch on eventually. Does it always have to be dishonest? "We need to implement a bog-standard CRUD app for XYZ, so it's a good opportunity to try some new technology stack / make a really polished codebase / ..." ought to be the kind of conversation that you can have.

by zwkrt 6y ago

TameAntelope 6y ago

I don't think "psychological safety" boils down to feeling secure in one's job in the way you suggest, it's more specific than that. Being able to be your "true" self is the observation, not "be happy". If your true self is a neurotic mess, "psychological safety" on a team would give you the space to do that without feeling judged or that negative consequences would arise (informal or formal) by acting that way. You can improve "checked-out" engineers feelings by creating a way for them to express their concerns without worry that they'll be punished for it. Those toxic teams I'm sure you've been part of, where everyone felt shitty and nobody felt connected to the work? They didn't have to be that way by leveraging "psychological safety", even if "reality" was immutable (also, it's not immutable but we can get to that).

zwkrt 6y ago
I completely agree with you and every point. I will also admit that I was being intentionally pessimistic but to get a point across. It’s funny you mention my cutthroat teams as a negative, because those are the teams that made me realize what it actually means to be committed to a goal. The teams that made me come to this conclusion were subsequent “bullshit” teams in places where will-to-power was punished instead of cultivated. My main point in writing the diatribe above was to deter the type of pleasant but dull middle manager who thinks that all they have to do to solve their teams’ problems is psychologize them. I’ve actually noticed this as a larger cultural trend: people blaming their own minds or the minds of others for what is an actual real problem in the world. If I can help clear the wool from a few low-level programmers eyes to help them see that they aren’t so different from an accountant or the fry cook at their favorite bar (and that this is not a bad thing!) I feel like my job is done.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  Yeah, it bothers the hell out of me when management forgets that we're actually tied to providing real value. The whole point of all this is that you get more value from the team when you do these things -- making people feel "safe" is a productivity hack, not the end goal. If people feel warm and fuzzy, but then don't move the project over the finish line, it's re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The trick is to find people like you, get you engaged and feeling like you can actually fix the shit that's stopping you from being productive, while also getting you to give space for people to fuck up now and then, because people fucking up and feeling okay with that sometimes leads to really great insight when instead of fucking up they do something great. Basically, "safety" is letting people feel not-terrible for taking a risk and having it blow up in their face. That should be allowed on a team, and Google's research seems to show that teams who allow people to fuck up without making them feel bad about it tend to make better shit than teams who punish people for fucking up. ...to a point. If all you do is fuck up, that also violates the safety, on the manager's side because then they're not feeling safe letting people take risks.
- wayoutthere 6y ago
  I think you have it backwards; psychological safety is something that executive leadership has to build into the culture of the company. What it comes down to is a culture where decision making is transparent, questioning the status quo is encouraged and no one person holds the power to make / break a product. At the team level you’re always going to have good managers and bad managers, but with the right culture the bad managers blast radius will be diminished. A good manager can’t do a whole lot to overcome a shitty culture.

giantg2 6y ago

"But these are symptoms not of psychology but of reality." "But when rubber hits the road most engineers do not have one of either security or control." Well said

acntr_employee 6y ago

Thanks for the clear and concise way of summarizing my thoughts of the last few months. I am in a situation where I actually have near absolute safety and nearly no control over the projects. It was even worse in 2020 regarding control after being thrown into a toxic project by a CEO who always touts the motto "no a**holes". Well when pitching for the biggest budget in the history of the org reality is what counts. Not nice mottos. So I agree. Everytime I hear this bs about being a team/family/safe place I just think: STFU and pay me. I do my work. Nothing more, nothing less.

TameAntelope 6y ago
Psychological safety isn't about making you happy, I'm actually a bit surprised why so many people here think it is. It's about producing positive outcomes in the form of successful projects. You're still going to have toxic projects, this isn't a magic dust you sprinkle on a project to make it suddenly successful, it's a technique you use to make unbearable work bearable and give the people who don't feel comfortable speaking up the space to do so. The observation is if everyone feels comfortable disagreeing with one another, the project is more likely to succeed. That's it. This is a productivity tool to make marginal projects more likely to tip favorably, and to keep good engineers around even when they're on bad projects, and hopefully make some bad projects less bad by giving everyone room to suggest improvements.
- zwkrt 6y ago
  People keep saying this but I don’t understand the difference. Engineers only want to have constructive arguments with each other if they feel committed to the project and happy about their place in the organization. If people feel that their job is on the line or that argumentation will not lead to any constructive output, then they will not engage in such an activity. Can you explain the difference between being happy and engaging in behaviors which a happy person engages in? Maybe it would be helpful to use the term other than “safety”? Is there a synonym for a psychological safety that would get cross what you’re thinking about better?
  - 6y ago

commandlinefan 6y ago

When I first started studying software engineering/development/programming, I was bombarded with advice to question everything, push back on unnecessary features, try to get to the bottom of what was really needed and deliver that instead of what was being asked for and not to be afraid to say no. I took that advice to heart - I was a professional and in it for the long haul, trying to make a lifetime career out of this, after all. It took a long time for me to realize I was better off abandoning those platitudes and just getting my work done. Although the inspirational types are correct in arguing that the world would truly be a better place if everybody took ownership and made the bottom line their business, it's hard to make the world a better place if you get fired for being a PITA.

rxhernandez 6y ago
Yeah, I heavily bucked trends at my past 3 companies. I even got into plenty of disagreements with "principal engineers" at the end of their careers and those engineers inevitably won the arguments. However, there were enough times where, once the team realized how problematic those solutions were, they backtracked and used my solutions. Every manager (as well as a few colleagues) has tried to get me to come back so far. A couple have recommended me to lead the tech side of their friend's (well-funded) startups long after I left. I wouldn't ever do it again though unless it was explicitly asked for. Stressing about getting fired in the initial weeks after getting hired (or during a boss change) just isn't worth it.

carabiner 6y ago

Meta but why has the term "gaslight" become so common on Twitter and HN?

fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
The definition of “gaslighting” is a form of psychological abuse where someone is trying to make you doubt your own sanity by manipulating your perception of reality. I think this is a very powerful meme, because if you think gaslighting is occurring, anyone who argues that you aren’t being gaslit is calling you crazy and is therefore one of the gaslighters. This worldview reframes self-doubt or cognitive dissonance as being a product of a conspiracy. So in that sense it’s kind of a one-way street. Any thoughts that perhaps you aren’t being gaslit are just further evidence of how deep the gaslighting goes. Other explanations like “honest disagreement” or “lying” are more parsimonious and often a more accurate representation of reality, but just can’t compete. Unfortunately the adaptive thing to do here is go along with it. If a friend tells me they are being gaslit, I’m certainly not going to side with the gaslighters.
Der_Einzige 6y ago
I've noticed this with some other insults too - primarily used by the "woke" crowd. My favorite example of "marxist" style insults is claiming that someone lives "rent free" in ones mind. Admittedly, I find this uniquely insulting and if anything I've got to give credit to zoomers and the other forerunners of todays "wokism" for adding more interesting insults and accusations to our linguistic zeitgeist.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Limbaugh, hardly a zoomer (but actually a closeted Marxist!), bragged about living "rent-free" in Obama's mind at least a decade ago. My memory is fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure he made the same boast about one or both of the Clintons even earlier than that.
watwut 6y ago
Terms are subject of fashion. Psychological/relatinships related terminology is as much subject of buzz-words as tech. The process is exactly the same as when on tech suddenly everyone talks about fluent api one year, then about other buzzword, just for those then slowly dying.

ineedasername 6y ago

Your reports are either engaged because the work is interesting or the product is meaningful The point is that all members on a team may believe the work is meaningful and interesting, but still be unproductive due to group dynamics that penalize certain types of behavior that would constructive if they were allowed. It doesn't matter how meaningful or interesting things are if a co-worker or manager shuts you down every time you present a differing opinion on something.

lmm 6y ago

> Either way, to promote PS and get a more engaged team, a manager has to downplay the reality of the situation. This leads to management allowing complicated pet projects, rewrites, and feedback meetings that go nowhere all for the sake of appeasing egos. Engineers tend not to be overly people-savvy but we catch on eventually. Does it always have to be dishonest? "We need to implement a bog-standard CRUD app for XYZ, so it's a good opportunity to try some new technology stack / make a really polished codebase / ..." ought to be the kind of conversation that you can have.