5 ms·

> Over a couple years we went from a raucous, rough-and-tumble culture of open debate on the technical merits to a "polite" "respectful" org where nobody dared

> Over a couple years we went from a raucous, rough-and-tumble culture of open debate on the technical merits to a "polite" "respectful" org where nobody dared pop their head over the trench and bad decisions were allowed to continue unchallenged until they were nigh-irreversible. I don't think polite and respectful are in opposition to open debate. If someone can't make a point in a debate without being polite and respectful, I really don't want to work with them.

afarrell 5y ago
Generally, putting a single word in quotation marks changes the meaning to refer to a facsimile of the word. polite: actual politeness “polite”: unwilling to say something that another person might feel upset about. ————————————- Also, there are ways that politeness obscures information-sharing. For example: I am saying the above at the risk of being condescending.
csande17 5y ago
I have found that it's very, very easy for some people operating in bad faith to turn ANY opposing argument into a violation of "politeness" and "respect". A real example from an internal discussion I witnessed once: A: We should use $FRAMEWORK for everything in $APP because it provides a better developer experience. Sure, long list views might be slower, but we hardly ever need to care about long lists. B: Almost every screen in $APP is a long list! I don't think we should compromise performance on $FEATURE, $FEATURE, or $FEATURE for this -- benchmarks suggest they'd be four to five times slower. A: [to B's manager, cc HR] By making such an obvious statement as "almost every screen in $APP is a long list" in a public Slack channel, B made me feel uncomfortable by implying I wasn't familiar with $APP, even though I've worked on it for several years. That is an unacceptably disrespectful way to hold a technical discussion.
- autarch 5y ago
  AFAICT, B was polite and respectful while engaging in open debate. The problem here is A, not B. The problem is _not_ the requirement to be polite and respectful.
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    > AFAICT, B was polite and respectful while engaging in open debate. Yep. > The problem here is A, not B. I'm pretty sure the implied problem is "B's manager" and "HR". > The problem is _not_ the requirement to be polite and respectful. The problem is that this requirement is not seperable from the details of how it's interpreted and enforced, and in a plurality of organizations that talk about "politeness" and "respect", it is in fact interpreted and enforced in a A(-hole)-ish manner, rather than a manner based on actual politeness and respect. Conversely, organizations that care about actual politeness and respect generally don't belabor the point as much as those that use it as a flimsy excuse, so people tend[0] to see a explicitly "'polite' 'respectful' org" as warning sign of the latter. 0: rightly or wrongly; I'm not sure how the statistics work out on that one. TL;DR: as other people have pointed out, the scare quotes are there for a reason.
  - atq2119 5y ago
    Sure, but now the case is before HR and B has to waste cycles defending themselves. Or, depending on just how dysfunctional the place is, they never even hear of the false accusation until months later when it has already metastasized through the organization. Obviously people should be polite and respectful, but when there is too much posturing around these facts, it's easy for malicious actors to weaponize.
- pjc50 5y ago
  This is also known as "tone policing".
- mcguire 5y ago
  How much harder is it for someone operating in bad faith to turn the lack of politeness and respect to their advantage? My personal experience would suggest it's even easier. [dang's pretty good about enforcing politeness and respect, so I won't try to present any examples. :-)]
  - afarrell 5y ago
    In the face of people willing to come talk to them directly about it? Fairly hard.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      In my experience, you're wrong.
rectang 5y ago
Don't a lot of companies strive for high "psychological safety" these days for the very reason of encouraging open debate, ensuring that bold ideas are actually given an airing rather than held back?
- autarch 5y ago
  I think this is exactly what companies should be striving for. I can't say how many do strive for it, of course.
  - rodgerd 5y ago
    I mean we just had an example of one company that would rather lose a third of its staff than allow them to criticise a founder!
  - afarrell 5y ago
    Also, talking about leadership is way harder than actually leading.
ericbarrett 5y ago
> I don't think polite and respectful are in opposition to open debate. Nor do I, hence the scare quotes. In fact there was nothing polite or respectful about it—it was an environment of fear.

afarrell 5y ago

Generally, putting a single word in quotation marks changes the meaning to refer to a facsimile of the word. polite: actual politeness “polite”: unwilling to say something that another person might feel upset about. ————————————- Also, there are ways that politeness obscures information-sharing. For example: I am saying the above at the risk of being condescending.

csande17 5y ago

I have found that it's very, very easy for some people operating in bad faith to turn ANY opposing argument into a violation of "politeness" and "respect". A real example from an internal discussion I witnessed once: A: We should use $FRAMEWORK for everything in $APP because it provides a better developer experience. Sure, long list views might be slower, but we hardly ever need to care about long lists. B: Almost every screen in $APP is a long list! I don't think we should compromise performance on $FEATURE, $FEATURE, or $FEATURE for this -- benchmarks suggest they'd be four to five times slower. A: [to B's manager, cc HR] By making such an obvious statement as "almost every screen in $APP is a long list" in a public Slack channel, B made me feel uncomfortable by implying I wasn't familiar with $APP, even though I've worked on it for several years. That is an unacceptably disrespectful way to hold a technical discussion.

autarch 5y ago
AFAICT, B was polite and respectful while engaging in open debate. The problem here is A, not B. The problem is _not_ the requirement to be polite and respectful.
- a1369209993 5y ago
  > AFAICT, B was polite and respectful while engaging in open debate. Yep. > The problem here is A, not B. I'm pretty sure the implied problem is "B's manager" and "HR". > The problem is _not_ the requirement to be polite and respectful. The problem is that this requirement is not seperable from the details of how it's interpreted and enforced, and in a plurality of organizations that talk about "politeness" and "respect", it is in fact interpreted and enforced in a A(-hole)-ish manner, rather than a manner based on actual politeness and respect. Conversely, organizations that care about actual politeness and respect generally don't belabor the point as much as those that use it as a flimsy excuse, so people tend[0] to see a explicitly "'polite' 'respectful' org" as warning sign of the latter. 0: rightly or wrongly; I'm not sure how the statistics work out on that one. TL;DR: as other people have pointed out, the scare quotes are there for a reason.
- atq2119 5y ago
  Sure, but now the case is before HR and B has to waste cycles defending themselves. Or, depending on just how dysfunctional the place is, they never even hear of the false accusation until months later when it has already metastasized through the organization. Obviously people should be polite and respectful, but when there is too much posturing around these facts, it's easy for malicious actors to weaponize.
pjc50 5y ago
This is also known as "tone policing".
mcguire 5y ago
How much harder is it for someone operating in bad faith to turn the lack of politeness and respect to their advantage? My personal experience would suggest it's even easier. [dang's pretty good about enforcing politeness and respect, so I won't try to present any examples. :-)]
- afarrell 5y ago
  In the face of people willing to come talk to them directly about it? Fairly hard.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    In my experience, you're wrong.

rectang 5y ago

Don't a lot of companies strive for high "psychological safety" these days for the very reason of encouraging open debate, ensuring that bold ideas are actually given an airing rather than held back?

autarch 5y ago
I think this is exactly what companies should be striving for. I can't say how many do strive for it, of course.
- rodgerd 5y ago
  I mean we just had an example of one company that would rather lose a third of its staff than allow them to criticise a founder!
- afarrell 5y ago
  Also, talking about leadership is way harder than actually leading.

ericbarrett 5y ago

> I don't think polite and respectful are in opposition to open debate. Nor do I, hence the scare quotes. In fact there was nothing polite or respectful about it—it was an environment of fear.