14 ms·

“That Won't Work”

118 points by geocrasher 5y ago

netr0ute 5y ago
What's sad is that sites like Reddit are chock-full of TWWPs, so you can't ask anything new or weird without it likely being censored by downvotes.
duxup 5y ago
I recall a study that seemed to show the productivity of a team can be predicted by determining if they had a negative person or not (they had a different term that I forgot). The skills of the team members rarely mattered as much as that one negative person.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Do you happen to remember, was the negative person good or bad for productivity? And which causes which?
- ilaksh 5y ago
  You need to be very careful about a label like "negative person". I have been accused of being a negative person before. We had some tracking web application which had an editor which took very long to load on the web page and made it painful to enter new data. I was in a meeting and said plainly that the editor component "sucked". I was chastised by the manager for being negative. Meanwhile as soon as I got out of the meeting, I googled it and found that there was an option to disable the graphical editor, which we did. Because it sucked (was unacceptably slow). For many people, simply pointing out a problem is "negativity". Part of the reason it's like that is that many people have little to no problem solving skills or experience. So describing a problem is just noise, since there is nothing they can usually do to resolve problems. Whereas someone who has a lot of experience solving problems knows that the first step to solving problems is to acknowledge that they exist.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    Maybe it's a cultural thing, but it seems odd to me that an adult would use the word "sucked" in that context.
    - ilaksh 5y ago
      Which by saying that you imply that I was acting childishly. Culturally we are different then. That part of the system sucked as it was currently implemented. It was and still is an apt description. I will be happy if we don't attempt to communicate in the future, since we have a different culture.
      - AussieWog93 5y ago
        Yes, that was the implication. I suspect your manager saw things the same way too.
  - cellularmitosis 5y ago
    Was this editor the work of someone on your team? (or some third-party component?)
    - ilaksh 5y ago
      If you read my comment closely you would know the answer to that question. But you missed the point anyway.
      - marcosdumay 5y ago
        It's not clear from your comment. It implies that it was not made by anybody on your company, but it doesn't assert it (and there are plenty of cases where one would google about something somebody nearby had developed). And the GP is not missing your point, you are missing his. He is trying to point that if it was an internal development maybe your language was indeed rude (that really depends on a lot of context to decide). If that's the case, your manager may not be wrong.
- jimmyvalmer 5y ago
  Was the presence of a negative nelly purported to be a good or bad thing?
- b0afc375b5 5y ago
  Since a source was not linked, I googled it and found this article: https://research.msu.edu/workplace-negativity-can-hurt-productivity/ https://research.msu.edu/workplace-negativity-can-hurt-produ... Is this the one you're referring to? It states that: > Employees who point out problems in the office may help the company improve, but could be hurting themselves in the process. Couldn't find the link to the actual paper though.
nikanj 5y ago
Sometimes a blunt ”that won’t work” is needed, to save the team valuable time. There is no point in exploring implementation details of a solution, if the proposed solution has a fatal flaw. Pointing out said flaw obviously is the responsibility of the person calling TWW. The last thing I want is an engineering team of yes-men, who don’t want to be ”bad team players”, and thus keep cheering ideas that Just. Won’t. Work.
- CrazyStat 5y ago
  I think rephrasing the comment (as the post suggests) in terms of "that might work if we can [resolve fatal flaw]" is a good suggestion, in that case. It's a much less negative way to point out the flaw.
  - mixedCase 5y ago
    That leans the discussion towards "it's possible" more than "it's impossible unless...". Not ideal if the goal is to save time and sanity.
  - Isamu 5y ago
    Or just “what about <showstopper>?” All you have to do is bring up the issue that you think kills the idea, you don’t have to issue a judgment. If people can’t see that it kills the idea, then either you are wrong and it can be mitigated, or again you are wrong and it is not the issue you think it is, or you are right but you are dealing with a group of people that can’t see reason, which is something you would want to know anyway.
    - geocrasher 5y ago
      If you just say "what about <showstopper>?" without offering a way to continue the discussion, then you might come off as TWWP. I would suggest that it could be phrased in a more constructive way, which was the point I tried to make in the article. Instead of "what about <showstopper>?" you could say "I think that might be a reasonable solution. What impact will <showstopper> have on it?" and now you've validated the good and brought up the potential showstopper without shutting down the conversation about it.
ilaksh 5y ago
Strangely they didn't emphasize that a concrete objection is necessary rather than just an unexplained rejection. To me, "that won't work because" is totally fine, as long as they have a good reason. The article says "incorrect solution".. I think this is also the wrong perspective. Ideas are not monoliths. The starting point is the specific reason you think it won't work. A lot of times, the best ideas hinge upon solving some difficult problem, but they are rejected without consideration because other people in the room don't have problem solving skills and so see any proposal that requires problem solving as unworkable.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  It's pretty close to a terrible response which is just the reason it won't work, such as "That'll take too long". Often it's a valid problem but one that can be solved except it shuts down the conversation by making it seem like a brick wall. If you don't immediately know how to solve the problem, it's hard to argue that "My intuition says we can probably find a way round that later".
- dec0dedab0de 5y ago
  This is exactly what I was thinking. Saying "that won't work" with out a reason is a total dick move. But giving A reason can still spark ideas and conversation about how to work around that reason.
shabbyrobe 5y ago
There's also the "That Won't Work" person's sibling: the "I Don't See a Use Case" person. In my experience, "I Don't See a Use Case" people require more sophisticated tactics if you actually want to get something done while they're around, not least of all because they move the game to a harder field: "that won't work" at least states a fact, whereas "I don't see" moves us firmly into "belief" territory, and "a Use Case" invites us into the trap of dreaming up our own strawmen for them to tear down one by one. I wonder if they started out as "That Won't Work" people, but evolved better defenses?
- doubleunplussed 5y ago
  When I hear this phrase, I think of GNOME. Can't count how many times the developers of GNOME have knocked back perfectly sensible pull requests or feature proposals on this basis. ...often only to implement the exact same feature later when it appeared to be their own idea instead of coming from the outside. It's just an excuse to be insular and shut anything down, which is their default response to anything coming from the outside.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- jhardy54 5y ago
  I promise I’m actually curious and not trying to be difficult: is this the same as asking “what problem does this solve” or something different? I’d love a concrete example but I know that might be hard without using a real topic.
  - shabbyrobe 5y ago
    I think it could be the same but it doesn't have to be. "What problem does this solve" is a bit more generous as at least, on the face of it, it may offer an opportunity to provide an answer that will be received in good faith. But I think this is less about specific phrases one might need to be careful not to say, and more about the kinds of default attitudes that can turn into ongoing impediments to the free flow of ideas. It's definitely possible ask "what problem does this solve" without becoming the "What Problem Does This Solve Person", and the same goes for the other phrases too.
ping_pong 5y ago
I've been drilling into my kids' heads that far too many people think they are the smart ones by being the naysayers and by saying something won't work. It's lazy and it's useless. It's easy to pooh-pooh an idea and point out its flaws. The smart and effective people are the ones who say "How can we get this to work?" That takes creativity and thoughtfulness. I have indoctrinated my kids to say "How can we get this to work" instead. I hope it takes hold as they grow older.
- joshschreuder 5y ago
  I agree and like your philosophy, but it is also a bit of a trade off. There are lots of situations where spending time trying to make things work where you think they otherwise wouldn’t can waste time or cause further damage (like relationships). This is not me trying to say “that won’t work” :)
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    It is all about the right balance. Also, there many things we "could make work" with a lot of effort, but mostly it is about finding a way to achieve better results with less effort.
- jjav 5y ago
  But blindly following a "let's make it work" approach just leads to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg An expert "That Can't Work" early saves a lot of time.
  - naveen99 5y ago
    Funny video, but just for fun: you could write the words “red line” with blue ink and use carbon paper with no or transparent ink. Also you could draw 7 perpendicular functions on 7 lines... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_functions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_functions A lot of these debates about interpersonal issues come down to personality differences of Jung types.
noobermin 5y ago
A very good article, especially as I am often the "that won't work" person and I am aware of that and want to change. Only critique in the example at the end felt like everyone was already the "let's make it work" group without the "that won't work" person pulling down the bunch, I was hoping to hear an example of overcoming an "that won't work" person and turning them into a problem solver too!
- geocrasher 5y ago
  OP/Author here. I think the takeaway there was my admission that I used to be a TWWP, but by not being TWWP, I was able to become part of the solution. I am glad you liked the article otherwise :)
roenxi 5y ago
One other aspect - "It won't work and even if it would work we don't have the skills to execute it" has a strong prior probability. Easily 80% of attempts fail or are inappropriately skilled at the start. That means someone saying consistently "this won't work" is (a) generally going to be right, so feel clever (b) very likely to miss all the big opportunities in life.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
I've always been the "that won't work" person in whatever organization i've worked in for the last 35 years (fortunately for most organizations, I've been self-employed for the last 25 years). I think this article is needlessly negative. I view my "that won't work" contributions as the reason why it did work (eventually). As others have noted, it's important that "that won't work" is accompanied by actual reasons (and reasoning). But it is often important to have a nattering nabob of negativity, especially with a younger cohort full of positivity and possibility and not a lot of battles fought. Most of the time, it can be made to work, but often that requires the injection of a voice mostly full of objections, problems, issues, overlooked items.
- dtgriscom 5y ago
  Like you, my superpower is to "look for trouble." For some reason, my mind looks for the potential weak spots in any plan, and I'm darn good at it. Of course, it's much easier to find them in other people's plans than my own...
  - O_H_E 5y ago
    I feel personally attacked =_=
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Yeah, but it is very easy to get into more trouble than one bargained for.
- notahacker 5y ago
  Also, the nattering nabob of negativity is important in reminding people that prioritising the thing that probably won't work or is difficult to make work has the opportunity cost of not prioritising things that will work. Sure, the negative voice might occasionally deter you from finding an incredible solution, but the positive voices about ambitious ideas are always deterring you from focusing on fixing other stuff. I view my lack of success as the "that don't won't work" person in one role as the reason why we had a number of half finished products that didn't work or didn't sell. At least if a team agrees to try something that probably won't work because the rewards are so huge (or the implementation is easy and it's just the results that are questionable) they've thought about the resources needed, and won't either give up at the first hurdle or plough far more into it than it'll ever be worth.
NemuriBaku 5y ago
When I was an undergraduate, I suggested some ideas to my classmates that would now be called "static analysis". About 1/4 of them would reflexively respond with "That won't work: halting problem". They were vaguely aware that someone infinitely more clever than us had proved the impossibility of something having to do with code analyzing code, and so they considered the whole topic off limits forever.
- mistermann 5y ago
  Rationalists seem to be often susceptible to this error.
  - pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
    Small-r rationalists or LessWrongers?
    - mistermann 5y ago
      SSC folks, I'm not very familiar with LessWrong, I imagine they'd be similar but LessWrong folks may be more elite?
dredmorbius 5y ago
One of the first experiences that was very interesting to me in this project at Princeton was to meet great men. I had never met very many great men before. But there was an evaluation committee that had to decide which way we were going and to try to help us along, and to help us ultimately decide which way we were going to separate the uranium. This evaluation committee had men like [Richard] Tolman and [Henry DeWolf] Smyth and [Harold] Urey, [Isidor I.]Rabi and [J. Robert] Oppenheimer and so forth on it. And there was [Arthur] Compton, for example. One of the things I saw was a terrible shock. I would sit there because I understood the theory of the process of what we were doing, and so they’d ask me questions and then we’d discuss it. Then one man would make a point and then Compton, for example, would explain a different point of view, and he would be perfectly right, and it was the right idea, and he said it should be this way. Another guy would say well, maybe, there’s this possibility we have to consider against it. There’s another possibility we have to consider. I’m jumping! He should, Compton, he should say it again, he should say it again! So everyone is disagreeing, it went all the way around the table. So finally at the end Tolman, who’s the chairman, says, well, having heard all these arguments, I guess it’s true that Compton’s argument is the best of all and now we have to go ahead. And it was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, and remembering what the other fellow said, having paid attention, and so that at the end the decision is made as to which idea is the best, summing it all together, without having to say it three times, you see? So that was a shock, and these were very great men indeed. -- Richard P. Feynman https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/feynman-los-alamos https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/feynman-los-ala... Feynman, once again working best in conversation, ended up almost by accident in a conversation in Los Alamos with a seasoned theoretician named Hans Bethe. Bethe would bounce ideas off of Feynman, who being very loud could be heard to cry out, "No, no! That's crazy." From Feynman's recollection, Bethe always proved to be right. From Bethe's recollection, Feynman was probably the most ingenious person in the whole division. Bethe was the scientist who discovered that fusion fueled the sun. Bethe said of Feynman that "he could do anything, anything at all" (87). He was put in charge of the computing division. You have to wonder whether the Manhattan Project would have ended before the war if Feynman hadn't have been there. -- Feynman 3: The Bomb and then Depression http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2014/08/feynman-3-bomb-and-then-depression.html http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2014/08/feynman-3-bomb-and-th... My own experience is that there is a hierarchy of failures in problem resolution (or if you prefer: a requisite chain of successes), beginning with the realisation that you have a problem. Reality gives no figs whether or not feelings are being hurt, and if your culture won't permit others to point out that there is in fact a problem, your culture ... is part of the problem. Identifying solutions is several steps removed from identification of a problem (let alone diagnosis of cause). https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarchy_of_failures_in_problem_resolution/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarc...
perl4ever 5y ago
I thought of "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." If anyone with experience says something can't be done, you shouldn't necessarily take it as the final word, but when someone says something can be done, or can be done better, that's where experience pays off.
- analog31 5y ago
  I had to look up the quote, it was by Arthur C. Clarke, science fiction author. As a soon-to-be-elderly and yet-to-be-distinguished scientist, I don't think we have a good answer for what to do about the fact that at any given moment, our present-day knowledge might be wrong. I think that science and science fiction have different and irreconcilable approaches to that problem. In many cases, when I say something can't be done, rather than just leave it at that, I try to explain what parts I think are strictly impossible (this is actually rare), what parts are straightforward but require more effort than might be available, and what parts are likely to be legitimately hard due to the level of domain knowledge needed just to get started.
- cellularmitosis 5y ago
  Shunryu Suzuki described a related notion: "In the beginner's mind, there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind, there are few." https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/285436-in-the-beginner-s-mind-there-are-many-possibilities-but-in https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/285436-in-the-beginner-s-mi...
draw_down 5y ago
You NEVER say this in a team context. It doesn't matter if you're right, and it just reeks of obstinacy and self-dealing even if it shouldn't. Unfortunately I have seen things not work out, that I knew wouldn't work out, due to not saying this. Because this is just not a thing you say in, I would speculate, most tech companies, even the "good ones". Part of the problem is silent evidence, nobody sees the train wreck you prevent, so even when if you successfully shot something down, nobody can ever know that. I should probably clarify that I have this thought a LOT, I am not advocating against it. I'm saying for the most part tech biz culture doesn't like this. The slogan you'll sometimes find is "disagree and commit". After it's obvious it's not working, the org will switch directions and everyone forgets the idea that was never gonna work. The new direction is communicated out, and the old one becomes a distant memory. Oh and by the way- not only do you not ever say "that won't work", you super duper double NEVER say "I told you so" when it doesn't work. Not even in a constructive way, like "here's what I think led us astray...". Nope. You have to just drop it.
cle 5y ago
> Consider the incorrect solution, and unless you can come up with something better, say nothing at all. I don't think this is a good conclusion. Some problems are just hard, and avoiding talking about hard problems because you don't have a solution is a great recipe for never solving hard problems. Good communication skills can be helpful here. It's certainly possible to offer critical feedback without hurting peoples' feelings and without discouraging them. You can frame things to excite people about finding a difficult problem to solve, instead of sounding like a poo poo head. I think this article is creating a false dichotomy. You can point out flaws in a constructive way, without destroying souls.
keithalewis 5y ago
If you want to be really subversive tell them X is a great idea. But if you want to do X you have to do Y, and Y is impossible. Worked at Bloomberg for a couple of years. That was standard procedure to discourage any innovation.
Vanit 5y ago
This reminds me of one of my pet hates; you pose to the team an issue that needs solving, or perhaps you're in the middle of solving, and someone pipes up with "Couldn't you just X?", where X is the first thing any competent person might think of. Yes, sometimes we overlook the simple solutions and get caught in our own bubbles, so there is some value there. Personally when I find myself wanting to "couldn't you just" someone I start with more probing questions because I'm going to assume the obvious answer was the first thing tried/abandoned, which is why we're even talking about this. I suppose this is just the manifestation of the best way to motivate an engineer being to tell them something is impossible.
- Dunedan 5y ago
  If you didn't explain why X doesn't work, it's absolutely justified that people ask if that simpler solution X would work as well. Assuming you considered "the obvious answer" is unfortunately often not sufficient, as what's obvious to one person might not be obvious to another person.
  - jlokier 5y ago
    The "just" questions have their place, but more often than not, I've found it there's more than one they use up the available conversation energy. By the time all the obvious "justs" have been asked, and explanations why not for the n'th time have been given, the worthwhile meeting energy is exhausted and the original purpose of making a proposal is rendered pointless. You can see this outcome long before the end of a meeting too. If you see it coming at the start, maybe you won't bother making the proposal in the first place. It's not a bad sort of question, rationally. It's more that it tends to be accompanied with dismissive, looking-down yet shallow thinking, when what you needed for a useful meeting was engagement with the "meat" of the issue, not shallow dismissals. I knew someone who worked at a place where the word "just" in conversations was called out humorously with a silly noise, even when said by accident, to discourage it :)
- Agentlien 5y ago
  I feel like I used to get the question a lot at my previous job. When it was from people without a technical background it made little sense and was usually just a waste of time. When I got it from another programmer I didn't mind as much. Even if it should be obvious I'd already tried it, I know that the few times I've asked it myself it's because I'm genuinely curious why the obvious answer didn't work. Then again, I would probably word it differently. I think corporate culture is an important part of it. I see a lot of comments in discussions like these which make it sound like technical discussions tend to be a series of passive aggressive jabs and office politics. I've never had a job like that. I've certainly seen more office politics than I would like, but it didn't creep into technical discussions.
kstenerud 5y ago
I have a few ways to deal with "That won't work": My first response is "why?" From there we can explore what the actual problem is. If it's a rational "that won't work" with a plausible reason, we can just drop it there. If I'm unsatisfied with their reasoning, I can either lobby for it if this person has influence enough to block it, or just ignore the person otherwise. Unfortunately, in politics a good way to block something is to bury it in paper: "Hey that's great! Draw up a proposal and we'll bring it up next meeting!" For this you need to go full-on political, with all the crazy games that entails. At this point you have to decide whether it's really worth the energy or not. I had one particularly terrible manager whose response to any new idea was "Great! Make a Github issue for it!" Some employees even made a meme of it. By the time my tenure there ended, the GH issue list was thousands of entries long with no action taken on anything, and no way to find anything in that huge pile anyway (basically a garbage dump by design). For these kinds of situations, don't expect to have any impact.
- tayo42 5y ago
  I'm not sure I agree with the the last 2 paragraphs. Maybe it could be abused by political types but I feel like making someone write out their idea forces them to think it through and sets up some filter for ideas. Honestly if you can't get your idea through something as simple as writing a proposal then how do you expect to it get through any other challenges that come up during implementation. Also, why aren't people following through on their great ideas? If they're actually so useful why are they sitting a graveyard of ideas? > At this point you have to decide whether it's really worth the energy or not. Basically I see this as a benefit
  - 0xEFF 5y ago
    Agree, in many orgs if you don’t do design work upfront you risk getting killed when your project is successful enough to draw attention. The written design defends against, “this is just a toy” even if you’ve thought it through for countless hours.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    >Maybe it could be abused by political types but I feel like making someone write out their idea forces them to think it through and sets up some filter for ideas. I think as your organization gets very big you need to do this to be able to have any overview, the problem is that when your organization gets very big this is also the time when political types start to use these tactics to gain more power.
andrewflnr 5y ago
I'm reminded of the "sailing downwind faster than the wind" fiasco. One guy had an intuition that said it could be done, but everyone pooh-poohed it on energy conservation grounds until he built a full-scale machine and actually did it. Perpetual motion machines (and unethical behavior, another good example in this thread) really do need to be shot down fast, but they're rarer than they might appear, and sometimes an idea that looks like PMM-level fantasy can be brought to reality by modest changes in its assumptions. I like the idea of literally saying "what about energy conservation?" If you say that and actually have an open mind, maybe you can figure out how the energy budget really does add up, and even help figure it out. You still need to be prepared to deliver a hard TWW when needed. When? No blog post can answer this. It's a judgment call. As usual, there are no shortcuts.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > Perpetual motion machines (and unethical behavior, another good example in this thread) really do need to be shot down fast, but they're rarer than they might appear They really are not, a stint at (or getting chummy with) the nearest patent office demonstrates it quickly. The machine you mention is pretty much the exception that proves the rule, and unintuitive enough that yes it did really need a proper model. > One guy had an intuition that said it could be done There are dozens of guys waking up with the intuition that a PMM can be done every day.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    Better to keep quiet than to criticize it without bothering to study it though. Unless your criticism is simply "most inventions that look like this are PPM so yours probably is too."
  - andrewflnr 5y ago
    > They really are not Ok, but in the context of work conversations, though. I still think more of them can be recovered than our instincts first tell us.
- benhurmarcel 5y ago
d--b 5y ago
Been in the industry for 15 years. I never met any situation like the one described in the post. People say “that won’t work because X”, and others reply “yes it might work because Y” Usually things end up with “let’s give it a shot” or everybody agreeing that it won’t work. In a few rare cases, people disagree and the discussion can heat up, but eventually the thing that’s decided will or will not work, and resolution will come from there. Please don’t just box people in non-existing “that-won’t-work” persona .
- phnofive 5y ago
  It reads as a strawman arguement; the first proposal is to let bad ideas get discussed since they might inspire good ideas like a reborn phoenix. But really, a good idea will likely inspire better ideas, without the baggage of a myth.
- only_as_i_fall 5y ago
  Agreed. The way the article describes these interactions seems totally out of line with my real experiences, but maybe that's just me...
- Popegaf 5y ago
  Been in the industry for close to the same time and it has come up multiple times in companies of all sizes (15 employees to 10k employees). It may be the culture (West and South Europe), but that didn't stop people from continuing the train of thought "hold on, let me finish". So no, this isn't contrived. Some cultures are just pretty blunt.
cesaref 5y ago
To generalise, the attempt to move the discussion from negative to a positive spin is really an attempt to harness the wisdom of crowds. In my experience, subtle changes to working practice, team behaviour, meetings and discussions seem to have significant impact on the quality of work produced. I'm sure we've all been in situations where progress seems to be like pulling teeth, and other times when progress comes easily.
ryando 5y ago
The article reminds me of the "Yes, and..." rule from improv comedy. In replying to someone else's proposal, creating a habit of literally starting your sentence with "Yes, and..." is a way to build collaboration skills.
staysaasy 5y ago
In my (admittedly limited) experience, Very Successful People say versions of "that will be really hard" very often, and say "that is impossible / won't work" effectively never. I'm not sure if this is causation or correlation, or even which direction a possible causative link would flow in (eg being positive + open-minded makes you more successful vs. being successful makes you more positive + open-minded). But it's absolutely a pattern that I've noticed.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
teachingassist 5y ago
I've found it effective to have a standing rule that you are not allowed to critique someone else's idea, unless you are improving upon it.
- hef19898 5y ago
  That is very sound advice. I have to follow that.
bob1029 5y ago
It seems to me there might be some conflating between 2 points going on in a lot of places: Whether or not something will work in absolute technical terms. Whether or not something is a good idea within the current business context. Quickly distinguishing between which conversation you are having can moderate the discussion. I am prone to assume we are having the first conversation, which can occasionally cause friction with the business stakeholders.
aliasEli 5y ago
If you are working with other people to figure out if a proposed solution could work, claiming "That Won't Work" is not a very constructive remark. A far better way is to ask questions about the things that you consider flaws. It gives the others the possibility to give more information that you had not considered before or discover that they had not considered that problem. In both situations the group as whole has learned something.
kkoncevicius 5y ago
Finding a good solution and rejecting a bad solution is the same thing, both are positive steps towards the goal. In science this happens a lot. Some research is generated using a flawed procedure. Someone writes a paper criticising the procedure and demonstrating that it doesn't work. The procedure is abandoned and the critique saves a lot of scientific effort and funds from being wasted on empty pursuits. This is a big positive. Here is one example: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1250910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1250910
phendrenad2 5y ago
Author had an idea, someone pointed out a flaw in the idea, author reduced that down to "that won't work!" and went on a crusade against "thatwontwork-ers". It's a nice TEDX talk I didn't sign up for.
tpoacher 5y ago
There was an article not to long ago on HN which talked about why the phrase "It turns out" is an intellectually dishonest argumentation tactic disguised as a passing remark, to make an argument completely devoid of any evidence sound as if it's backed by lots of (otherwise unstated) evidence. I agree. However, I find it works beautifully as a counter-attack to similarly dishonest argumentation tactics relying on lack of evidence for their punch. "That won't work" is one of them. All you have to do is say "Actually, I too had considered considered it would not work ... but it turns out it will!", and, voilá, end of diversion. Your opponent will either accept your dishonest "yes it turns out it works" tactic as fact, in which case you can ignore the naysayer and continue arguing your previous point, or your opponent will ask "why does it 'turn out' that it will work?", in which case you can turn their fruitless exclamation into a counter-question of "oh, many reasons, 'it turns out' ... what was the specific reason you felt it would not work?", lead yourself down a 'fruitful' discussion instead. PS. The objective being, discussion. Not debate. If you're after debate instead, then maybe not the best way to counter this.

118 points by geocrasher 5y ago

What's sad is that sites like Reddit are chock-full of TWWPs, so you can't ask anything new or weird without it likely being censored by downvotes.

duxup 5y ago

I recall a study that seemed to show the productivity of a team can be predicted by determining if they had a negative person or not (they had a different term that I forgot). The skills of the team members rarely mattered as much as that one negative person.

nitrogen 5y ago
Do you happen to remember, was the negative person good or bad for productivity? And which causes which?
ilaksh 5y ago
You need to be very careful about a label like "negative person". I have been accused of being a negative person before. We had some tracking web application which had an editor which took very long to load on the web page and made it painful to enter new data. I was in a meeting and said plainly that the editor component "sucked". I was chastised by the manager for being negative. Meanwhile as soon as I got out of the meeting, I googled it and found that there was an option to disable the graphical editor, which we did. Because it sucked (was unacceptably slow). For many people, simply pointing out a problem is "negativity". Part of the reason it's like that is that many people have little to no problem solving skills or experience. So describing a problem is just noise, since there is nothing they can usually do to resolve problems. Whereas someone who has a lot of experience solving problems knows that the first step to solving problems is to acknowledge that they exist.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  Maybe it's a cultural thing, but it seems odd to me that an adult would use the word "sucked" in that context.
  - ilaksh 5y ago
    Which by saying that you imply that I was acting childishly. Culturally we are different then. That part of the system sucked as it was currently implemented. It was and still is an apt description. I will be happy if we don't attempt to communicate in the future, since we have a different culture.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      Yes, that was the implication. I suspect your manager saw things the same way too.
- cellularmitosis 5y ago
  Was this editor the work of someone on your team? (or some third-party component?)
  - ilaksh 5y ago
    If you read my comment closely you would know the answer to that question. But you missed the point anyway.
    - marcosdumay 5y ago
      It's not clear from your comment. It implies that it was not made by anybody on your company, but it doesn't assert it (and there are plenty of cases where one would google about something somebody nearby had developed). And the GP is not missing your point, you are missing his. He is trying to point that if it was an internal development maybe your language was indeed rude (that really depends on a lot of context to decide). If that's the case, your manager may not be wrong.
jimmyvalmer 5y ago
Was the presence of a negative nelly purported to be a good or bad thing?
b0afc375b5 5y ago
Since a source was not linked, I googled it and found this article: https://research.msu.edu/workplace-negativity-can-hurt-productivity/ https://research.msu.edu/workplace-negativity-can-hurt-produ... Is this the one you're referring to? It states that: > Employees who point out problems in the office may help the company improve, but could be hurting themselves in the process. Couldn't find the link to the actual paper though.

nikanj 5y ago

Sometimes a blunt ”that won’t work” is needed, to save the team valuable time. There is no point in exploring implementation details of a solution, if the proposed solution has a fatal flaw. Pointing out said flaw obviously is the responsibility of the person calling TWW. The last thing I want is an engineering team of yes-men, who don’t want to be ”bad team players”, and thus keep cheering ideas that Just. Won’t. Work.

CrazyStat 5y ago
I think rephrasing the comment (as the post suggests) in terms of "that might work if we can [resolve fatal flaw]" is a good suggestion, in that case. It's a much less negative way to point out the flaw.
- mixedCase 5y ago
  That leans the discussion towards "it's possible" more than "it's impossible unless...". Not ideal if the goal is to save time and sanity.
- Isamu 5y ago
  Or just “what about <showstopper>?” All you have to do is bring up the issue that you think kills the idea, you don’t have to issue a judgment. If people can’t see that it kills the idea, then either you are wrong and it can be mitigated, or again you are wrong and it is not the issue you think it is, or you are right but you are dealing with a group of people that can’t see reason, which is something you would want to know anyway.
  - geocrasher 5y ago
    If you just say "what about <showstopper>?" without offering a way to continue the discussion, then you might come off as TWWP. I would suggest that it could be phrased in a more constructive way, which was the point I tried to make in the article. Instead of "what about <showstopper>?" you could say "I think that might be a reasonable solution. What impact will <showstopper> have on it?" and now you've validated the good and brought up the potential showstopper without shutting down the conversation about it.

ilaksh 5y ago

Strangely they didn't emphasize that a concrete objection is necessary rather than just an unexplained rejection. To me, "that won't work because" is totally fine, as long as they have a good reason. The article says "incorrect solution".. I think this is also the wrong perspective. Ideas are not monoliths. The starting point is the specific reason you think it won't work. A lot of times, the best ideas hinge upon solving some difficult problem, but they are rejected without consideration because other people in the room don't have problem solving skills and so see any proposal that requires problem solving as unworkable.

exporectomy 5y ago
It's pretty close to a terrible response which is just the reason it won't work, such as "That'll take too long". Often it's a valid problem but one that can be solved except it shuts down the conversation by making it seem like a brick wall. If you don't immediately know how to solve the problem, it's hard to argue that "My intuition says we can probably find a way round that later".
dec0dedab0de 5y ago
This is exactly what I was thinking. Saying "that won't work" with out a reason is a total dick move. But giving A reason can still spark ideas and conversation about how to work around that reason.

shabbyrobe 5y ago

There's also the "That Won't Work" person's sibling: the "I Don't See a Use Case" person. In my experience, "I Don't See a Use Case" people require more sophisticated tactics if you actually want to get something done while they're around, not least of all because they move the game to a harder field: "that won't work" at least states a fact, whereas "I don't see" moves us firmly into "belief" territory, and "a Use Case" invites us into the trap of dreaming up our own strawmen for them to tear down one by one. I wonder if they started out as "That Won't Work" people, but evolved better defenses?

doubleunplussed 5y ago
When I hear this phrase, I think of GNOME. Can't count how many times the developers of GNOME have knocked back perfectly sensible pull requests or feature proposals on this basis. ...often only to implement the exact same feature later when it appeared to be their own idea instead of coming from the outside. It's just an excuse to be insular and shut anything down, which is their default response to anything coming from the outside.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jhardy54 5y ago
I promise I’m actually curious and not trying to be difficult: is this the same as asking “what problem does this solve” or something different? I’d love a concrete example but I know that might be hard without using a real topic.
- shabbyrobe 5y ago
  I think it could be the same but it doesn't have to be. "What problem does this solve" is a bit more generous as at least, on the face of it, it may offer an opportunity to provide an answer that will be received in good faith. But I think this is less about specific phrases one might need to be careful not to say, and more about the kinds of default attitudes that can turn into ongoing impediments to the free flow of ideas. It's definitely possible ask "what problem does this solve" without becoming the "What Problem Does This Solve Person", and the same goes for the other phrases too.

ping_pong 5y ago

I've been drilling into my kids' heads that far too many people think they are the smart ones by being the naysayers and by saying something won't work. It's lazy and it's useless. It's easy to pooh-pooh an idea and point out its flaws. The smart and effective people are the ones who say "How can we get this to work?" That takes creativity and thoughtfulness. I have indoctrinated my kids to say "How can we get this to work" instead. I hope it takes hold as they grow older.

joshschreuder 5y ago
I agree and like your philosophy, but it is also a bit of a trade off. There are lots of situations where spending time trying to make things work where you think they otherwise wouldn’t can waste time or cause further damage (like relationships). This is not me trying to say “that won’t work” :)
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  It is all about the right balance. Also, there many things we "could make work" with a lot of effort, but mostly it is about finding a way to achieve better results with less effort.
jjav 5y ago
But blindly following a "let's make it work" approach just leads to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg An expert "That Can't Work" early saves a lot of time.
- naveen99 5y ago
  Funny video, but just for fun: you could write the words “red line” with blue ink and use carbon paper with no or transparent ink. Also you could draw 7 perpendicular functions on 7 lines... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_functions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_functions A lot of these debates about interpersonal issues come down to personality differences of Jung types.

noobermin 5y ago

A very good article, especially as I am often the "that won't work" person and I am aware of that and want to change. Only critique in the example at the end felt like everyone was already the "let's make it work" group without the "that won't work" person pulling down the bunch, I was hoping to hear an example of overcoming an "that won't work" person and turning them into a problem solver too!

geocrasher 5y ago
OP/Author here. I think the takeaway there was my admission that I used to be a TWWP, but by not being TWWP, I was able to become part of the solution. I am glad you liked the article otherwise :)

roenxi 5y ago

One other aspect - "It won't work and even if it would work we don't have the skills to execute it" has a strong prior probability. Easily 80% of attempts fail or are inappropriately skilled at the start. That means someone saying consistently "this won't work" is (a) generally going to be right, so feel clever (b) very likely to miss all the big opportunities in life.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

I've always been the "that won't work" person in whatever organization i've worked in for the last 35 years (fortunately for most organizations, I've been self-employed for the last 25 years). I think this article is needlessly negative. I view my "that won't work" contributions as the reason why it did work (eventually). As others have noted, it's important that "that won't work" is accompanied by actual reasons (and reasoning). But it is often important to have a nattering nabob of negativity, especially with a younger cohort full of positivity and possibility and not a lot of battles fought. Most of the time, it can be made to work, but often that requires the injection of a voice mostly full of objections, problems, issues, overlooked items.

dtgriscom 5y ago
Like you, my superpower is to "look for trouble." For some reason, my mind looks for the potential weak spots in any plan, and I'm darn good at it. Of course, it's much easier to find them in other people's plans than my own...
- O_H_E 5y ago
  I feel personally attacked =_=
- hef19898 5y ago
  Yeah, but it is very easy to get into more trouble than one bargained for.
notahacker 5y ago
Also, the nattering nabob of negativity is important in reminding people that prioritising the thing that probably won't work or is difficult to make work has the opportunity cost of not prioritising things that will work. Sure, the negative voice might occasionally deter you from finding an incredible solution, but the positive voices about ambitious ideas are always deterring you from focusing on fixing other stuff. I view my lack of success as the "that don't won't work" person in one role as the reason why we had a number of half finished products that didn't work or didn't sell. At least if a team agrees to try something that probably won't work because the rewards are so huge (or the implementation is easy and it's just the results that are questionable) they've thought about the resources needed, and won't either give up at the first hurdle or plough far more into it than it'll ever be worth.

NemuriBaku 5y ago

When I was an undergraduate, I suggested some ideas to my classmates that would now be called "static analysis". About 1/4 of them would reflexively respond with "That won't work: halting problem". They were vaguely aware that someone infinitely more clever than us had proved the impossibility of something having to do with code analyzing code, and so they considered the whole topic off limits forever.

mistermann 5y ago
Rationalists seem to be often susceptible to this error.
- pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
  Small-r rationalists or LessWrongers?
  - mistermann 5y ago
    SSC folks, I'm not very familiar with LessWrong, I imagine they'd be similar but LessWrong folks may be more elite?

dredmorbius 5y ago

One of the first experiences that was very interesting to me in this project at Princeton was to meet great men. I had never met very many great men before. But there was an evaluation committee that had to decide which way we were going and to try to help us along, and to help us ultimately decide which way we were going to separate the uranium. This evaluation committee had men like [Richard] Tolman and [Henry DeWolf] Smyth and [Harold] Urey, [Isidor I.]Rabi and [J. Robert] Oppenheimer and so forth on it. And there was [Arthur] Compton, for example. One of the things I saw was a terrible shock. I would sit there because I understood the theory of the process of what we were doing, and so they’d ask me questions and then we’d discuss it. Then one man would make a point and then Compton, for example, would explain a different point of view, and he would be perfectly right, and it was the right idea, and he said it should be this way. Another guy would say well, maybe, there’s this possibility we have to consider against it. There’s another possibility we have to consider. I’m jumping! He should, Compton, he should say it again, he should say it again! So everyone is disagreeing, it went all the way around the table. So finally at the end Tolman, who’s the chairman, says, well, having heard all these arguments, I guess it’s true that Compton’s argument is the best of all and now we have to go ahead. And it was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, and remembering what the other fellow said, having paid attention, and so that at the end the decision is made as to which idea is the best, summing it all together, without having to say it three times, you see? So that was a shock, and these were very great men indeed. -- Richard P. Feynman https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/feynman-los-alamos https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/feynman-los-ala... Feynman, once again working best in conversation, ended up almost by accident in a conversation in Los Alamos with a seasoned theoretician named Hans Bethe. Bethe would bounce ideas off of Feynman, who being very loud could be heard to cry out, "No, no! That's crazy." From Feynman's recollection, Bethe always proved to be right. From Bethe's recollection, Feynman was probably the most ingenious person in the whole division. Bethe was the scientist who discovered that fusion fueled the sun. Bethe said of Feynman that "he could do anything, anything at all" (87). He was put in charge of the computing division. You have to wonder whether the Manhattan Project would have ended before the war if Feynman hadn't have been there. -- Feynman 3: The Bomb and then Depression http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2014/08/feynman-3-bomb-and-then-depression.html http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2014/08/feynman-3-bomb-and-th... My own experience is that there is a hierarchy of failures in problem resolution (or if you prefer: a requisite chain of successes), beginning with the realisation that you have a problem. Reality gives no figs whether or not feelings are being hurt, and if your culture won't permit others to point out that there is in fact a problem, your culture ... is part of the problem. Identifying solutions is several steps removed from identification of a problem (let alone diagnosis of cause). https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarchy_of_failures_in_problem_resolution/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarc...

perl4ever 5y ago

I thought of "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." If anyone with experience says something can't be done, you shouldn't necessarily take it as the final word, but when someone says something can be done, or can be done better, that's where experience pays off.

analog31 5y ago
I had to look up the quote, it was by Arthur C. Clarke, science fiction author. As a soon-to-be-elderly and yet-to-be-distinguished scientist, I don't think we have a good answer for what to do about the fact that at any given moment, our present-day knowledge might be wrong. I think that science and science fiction have different and irreconcilable approaches to that problem. In many cases, when I say something can't be done, rather than just leave it at that, I try to explain what parts I think are strictly impossible (this is actually rare), what parts are straightforward but require more effort than might be available, and what parts are likely to be legitimately hard due to the level of domain knowledge needed just to get started.
cellularmitosis 5y ago
Shunryu Suzuki described a related notion: "In the beginner's mind, there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind, there are few." https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/285436-in-the-beginner-s-mind-there-are-many-possibilities-but-in https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/285436-in-the-beginner-s-mi...

draw_down 5y ago

You NEVER say this in a team context. It doesn't matter if you're right, and it just reeks of obstinacy and self-dealing even if it shouldn't. Unfortunately I have seen things not work out, that I knew wouldn't work out, due to not saying this. Because this is just not a thing you say in, I would speculate, most tech companies, even the "good ones". Part of the problem is silent evidence, nobody sees the train wreck you prevent, so even when if you successfully shot something down, nobody can ever know that. I should probably clarify that I have this thought a LOT, I am not advocating against it. I'm saying for the most part tech biz culture doesn't like this. The slogan you'll sometimes find is "disagree and commit". After it's obvious it's not working, the org will switch directions and everyone forgets the idea that was never gonna work. The new direction is communicated out, and the old one becomes a distant memory. Oh and by the way- not only do you not ever say "that won't work", you super duper double NEVER say "I told you so" when it doesn't work. Not even in a constructive way, like "here's what I think led us astray...". Nope. You have to just drop it.

cle 5y ago

> Consider the incorrect solution, and unless you can come up with something better, say nothing at all. I don't think this is a good conclusion. Some problems are just hard, and avoiding talking about hard problems because you don't have a solution is a great recipe for never solving hard problems. Good communication skills can be helpful here. It's certainly possible to offer critical feedback without hurting peoples' feelings and without discouraging them. You can frame things to excite people about finding a difficult problem to solve, instead of sounding like a poo poo head. I think this article is creating a false dichotomy. You can point out flaws in a constructive way, without destroying souls.

keithalewis 5y ago

If you want to be really subversive tell them X is a great idea. But if you want to do X you have to do Y, and Y is impossible. Worked at Bloomberg for a couple of years. That was standard procedure to discourage any innovation.

Vanit 5y ago

This reminds me of one of my pet hates; you pose to the team an issue that needs solving, or perhaps you're in the middle of solving, and someone pipes up with "Couldn't you just X?", where X is the first thing any competent person might think of. Yes, sometimes we overlook the simple solutions and get caught in our own bubbles, so there is some value there. Personally when I find myself wanting to "couldn't you just" someone I start with more probing questions because I'm going to assume the obvious answer was the first thing tried/abandoned, which is why we're even talking about this. I suppose this is just the manifestation of the best way to motivate an engineer being to tell them something is impossible.

Dunedan 5y ago
If you didn't explain why X doesn't work, it's absolutely justified that people ask if that simpler solution X would work as well. Assuming you considered "the obvious answer" is unfortunately often not sufficient, as what's obvious to one person might not be obvious to another person.
- jlokier 5y ago
  The "just" questions have their place, but more often than not, I've found it there's more than one they use up the available conversation energy. By the time all the obvious "justs" have been asked, and explanations why not for the n'th time have been given, the worthwhile meeting energy is exhausted and the original purpose of making a proposal is rendered pointless. You can see this outcome long before the end of a meeting too. If you see it coming at the start, maybe you won't bother making the proposal in the first place. It's not a bad sort of question, rationally. It's more that it tends to be accompanied with dismissive, looking-down yet shallow thinking, when what you needed for a useful meeting was engagement with the "meat" of the issue, not shallow dismissals. I knew someone who worked at a place where the word "just" in conversations was called out humorously with a silly noise, even when said by accident, to discourage it :)
Agentlien 5y ago
I feel like I used to get the question a lot at my previous job. When it was from people without a technical background it made little sense and was usually just a waste of time. When I got it from another programmer I didn't mind as much. Even if it should be obvious I'd already tried it, I know that the few times I've asked it myself it's because I'm genuinely curious why the obvious answer didn't work. Then again, I would probably word it differently. I think corporate culture is an important part of it. I see a lot of comments in discussions like these which make it sound like technical discussions tend to be a series of passive aggressive jabs and office politics. I've never had a job like that. I've certainly seen more office politics than I would like, but it didn't creep into technical discussions.

kstenerud 5y ago

I have a few ways to deal with "That won't work": My first response is "why?" From there we can explore what the actual problem is. If it's a rational "that won't work" with a plausible reason, we can just drop it there. If I'm unsatisfied with their reasoning, I can either lobby for it if this person has influence enough to block it, or just ignore the person otherwise. Unfortunately, in politics a good way to block something is to bury it in paper: "Hey that's great! Draw up a proposal and we'll bring it up next meeting!" For this you need to go full-on political, with all the crazy games that entails. At this point you have to decide whether it's really worth the energy or not. I had one particularly terrible manager whose response to any new idea was "Great! Make a Github issue for it!" Some employees even made a meme of it. By the time my tenure there ended, the GH issue list was thousands of entries long with no action taken on anything, and no way to find anything in that huge pile anyway (basically a garbage dump by design). For these kinds of situations, don't expect to have any impact.

tayo42 5y ago
I'm not sure I agree with the the last 2 paragraphs. Maybe it could be abused by political types but I feel like making someone write out their idea forces them to think it through and sets up some filter for ideas. Honestly if you can't get your idea through something as simple as writing a proposal then how do you expect to it get through any other challenges that come up during implementation. Also, why aren't people following through on their great ideas? If they're actually so useful why are they sitting a graveyard of ideas? > At this point you have to decide whether it's really worth the energy or not. Basically I see this as a benefit
- 0xEFF 5y ago
  Agree, in many orgs if you don’t do design work upfront you risk getting killed when your project is successful enough to draw attention. The written design defends against, “this is just a toy” even if you’ve thought it through for countless hours.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  >Maybe it could be abused by political types but I feel like making someone write out their idea forces them to think it through and sets up some filter for ideas. I think as your organization gets very big you need to do this to be able to have any overview, the problem is that when your organization gets very big this is also the time when political types start to use these tactics to gain more power.

andrewflnr 5y ago

I'm reminded of the "sailing downwind faster than the wind" fiasco. One guy had an intuition that said it could be done, but everyone pooh-poohed it on energy conservation grounds until he built a full-scale machine and actually did it. Perpetual motion machines (and unethical behavior, another good example in this thread) really do need to be shot down fast, but they're rarer than they might appear, and sometimes an idea that looks like PMM-level fantasy can be brought to reality by modest changes in its assumptions. I like the idea of literally saying "what about energy conservation?" If you say that and actually have an open mind, maybe you can figure out how the energy budget really does add up, and even help figure it out. You still need to be prepared to deliver a hard TWW when needed. When? No blog post can answer this. It's a judgment call. As usual, there are no shortcuts.

masklinn 5y ago
> Perpetual motion machines (and unethical behavior, another good example in this thread) really do need to be shot down fast, but they're rarer than they might appear They really are not, a stint at (or getting chummy with) the nearest patent office demonstrates it quickly. The machine you mention is pretty much the exception that proves the rule, and unintuitive enough that yes it did really need a proper model. > One guy had an intuition that said it could be done There are dozens of guys waking up with the intuition that a PMM can be done every day.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Better to keep quiet than to criticize it without bothering to study it though. Unless your criticism is simply "most inventions that look like this are PPM so yours probably is too."
- andrewflnr 5y ago
  > They really are not Ok, but in the context of work conversations, though. I still think more of them can be recovered than our instincts first tell us.
benhurmarcel 5y ago

d--b 5y ago

Been in the industry for 15 years. I never met any situation like the one described in the post. People say “that won’t work because X”, and others reply “yes it might work because Y” Usually things end up with “let’s give it a shot” or everybody agreeing that it won’t work. In a few rare cases, people disagree and the discussion can heat up, but eventually the thing that’s decided will or will not work, and resolution will come from there. Please don’t just box people in non-existing “that-won’t-work” persona .

phnofive 5y ago
It reads as a strawman arguement; the first proposal is to let bad ideas get discussed since they might inspire good ideas like a reborn phoenix. But really, a good idea will likely inspire better ideas, without the baggage of a myth.
only_as_i_fall 5y ago
Agreed. The way the article describes these interactions seems totally out of line with my real experiences, but maybe that's just me...
Popegaf 5y ago
Been in the industry for close to the same time and it has come up multiple times in companies of all sizes (15 employees to 10k employees). It may be the culture (West and South Europe), but that didn't stop people from continuing the train of thought "hold on, let me finish". So no, this isn't contrived. Some cultures are just pretty blunt.

cesaref 5y ago

To generalise, the attempt to move the discussion from negative to a positive spin is really an attempt to harness the wisdom of crowds. In my experience, subtle changes to working practice, team behaviour, meetings and discussions seem to have significant impact on the quality of work produced. I'm sure we've all been in situations where progress seems to be like pulling teeth, and other times when progress comes easily.

ryando 5y ago

The article reminds me of the "Yes, and..." rule from improv comedy. In replying to someone else's proposal, creating a habit of literally starting your sentence with "Yes, and..." is a way to build collaboration skills.

staysaasy 5y ago

In my (admittedly limited) experience, Very Successful People say versions of "that will be really hard" very often, and say "that is impossible / won't work" effectively never. I'm not sure if this is causation or correlation, or even which direction a possible causative link would flow in (eg being positive + open-minded makes you more successful vs. being successful makes you more positive + open-minded). But it's absolutely a pattern that I've noticed.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

teachingassist 5y ago

I've found it effective to have a standing rule that you are not allowed to critique someone else's idea, unless you are improving upon it.

hef19898 5y ago
That is very sound advice. I have to follow that.

bob1029 5y ago

It seems to me there might be some conflating between 2 points going on in a lot of places: Whether or not something will work in absolute technical terms. Whether or not something is a good idea within the current business context. Quickly distinguishing between which conversation you are having can moderate the discussion. I am prone to assume we are having the first conversation, which can occasionally cause friction with the business stakeholders.

aliasEli 5y ago

If you are working with other people to figure out if a proposed solution could work, claiming "That Won't Work" is not a very constructive remark. A far better way is to ask questions about the things that you consider flaws. It gives the others the possibility to give more information that you had not considered before or discover that they had not considered that problem. In both situations the group as whole has learned something.

kkoncevicius 5y ago

Finding a good solution and rejecting a bad solution is the same thing, both are positive steps towards the goal. In science this happens a lot. Some research is generated using a flawed procedure. Someone writes a paper criticising the procedure and demonstrating that it doesn't work. The procedure is abandoned and the critique saves a lot of scientific effort and funds from being wasted on empty pursuits. This is a big positive. Here is one example: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1250910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1250910

phendrenad2 5y ago

Author had an idea, someone pointed out a flaw in the idea, author reduced that down to "that won't work!" and went on a crusade against "thatwontwork-ers". It's a nice TEDX talk I didn't sign up for.

tpoacher 5y ago

There was an article not to long ago on HN which talked about why the phrase "It turns out" is an intellectually dishonest argumentation tactic disguised as a passing remark, to make an argument completely devoid of any evidence sound as if it's backed by lots of (otherwise unstated) evidence. I agree. However, I find it works beautifully as a counter-attack to similarly dishonest argumentation tactics relying on lack of evidence for their punch. "That won't work" is one of them. All you have to do is say "Actually, I too had considered considered it would not work ... but it turns out it will!", and, voilá, end of diversion. Your opponent will either accept your dishonest "yes it turns out it works" tactic as fact, in which case you can ignore the naysayer and continue arguing your previous point, or your opponent will ask "why does it 'turn out' that it will work?", in which case you can turn their fruitless exclamation into a counter-question of "oh, many reasons, 'it turns out' ... what was the specific reason you felt it would not work?", lead yourself down a 'fruitful' discussion instead. PS. The objective being, discussion. Not debate. If you're after debate instead, then maybe not the best way to counter this.