6 ms·

Why don't companies just speak plainly about these kinds of changes? "We are doing this to cut costs, which we need to do to [Survive/Buy a Yacht/Whatever]" P

Why don't companies just speak plainly about these kinds of changes? "We are doing this to cut costs, which we need to do to [Survive/Buy a Yacht/Whatever]" People tend to be really understanding when you are brutally honest, and brutally cynical when you bullshit them even a little.

bingohbangoh 5y ago
That might work if its a few decisions here and there that look like they're being taken with much gravitas. But I'm not sure that would work if you're pivoting constantly and in a downward spiral. There are simply too many decisions happening for "we need to cut costs" to feel valid all the time. Lambda school appears to be in that category so far as I can see.
t-louie 5y ago
Lambda framed these changes as beneficial to students, for reason XYZ. I remember seeing a lot of student comments saying things like "Is lambda ok??" or "We're adults here, if lambda needs to cut costs they can tell us."
bwing 5y ago
To be frank: I think the main reason is because explicit talk of cost-cutting was at odds with leadership's self-aggrandizing Twitter talk. (Disrupting the education industry, putting four-year colleges out of business, etc.)
tziki 5y ago
Maybe in some engineering/phd bubbles that's true, but that most definitely doesn't work the majority of the time.
- nzmsv 5y ago
  An organization that treats their students with a "your feeble minds won't understand, so let me put some spin on this for you" deserves all the eventual backlash they get.
  - tziki 5y ago
    That's more or less every large organization then.
lazide 5y ago
For engineering or other pragmatic types? Definitely. For those who are used to hard reality and know how to make it fit in a nice way or move on like field sales? Often. For most everyone else? There is often a need to provide at least some surface ‘here is why everything is not actually super terrible so you should stay’ sugar coating or it is not going to go down well. The larger the group, the more apparent the effect and I suspect it’s due to lack of trust and/or familiarity with the speaker. If you’ve had your sleeves rolled up and been in the trenches with someone, you either know you can’t trust them already (and in which case, why are you still here?!?), or can trust them well and can see a positive outcome if it works. If you can’t trust them, it’s just a signal that things are terrible and don’t know how terrible they really are - and what choice does someone have to anchor and assume it’s worse (or maybe a little better).
- nzmsv 5y ago
  This is a little ironic... - We really don't appreciate bullshit, all it does is erode trust - No, no, let me explain how bullshit is actually good for you...
  - t-louie 5y ago
    This is very close to the language Lambda School actually used. Here is a snippet of something Lambda wrote after a LOT of students complained about the changes the school made to the program (removing TLs, grades, code review): - First, we need to clarify how we've changed the accountability model. - Second, we need to clarify why we've changed the accountability model. - Third, after we understand the bandwidth and instructor availability in this new model, we'll continue to tighten the proactive feedback on technical skills.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Oh I’m not saying bullshit is good! I’m saying in some situations, with large enough groups of people? The non-bullshit isn’t going to be good either. There is a reason 99% of politics is bullshit. shrug
    - 5y ago
lozenge 5y ago
Because legal. The students would understand, yes, but not accept getting something other than what they signed up for.
munificent 5y ago
Probably because a startup's primary audience for information is investors, not customers.
wly_cdgr 5y ago
Because Allred is a little bitch coward
- dang 5y ago
  Posting like this will get you banned on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. We moderate HN less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is the topic [1], but "less" doesn't mean "zero" and egregious comments like this are never ok. If you'd review the rules and stick to them going forward, we'd appreciate it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20moderate%20less%20%22not%20more%22%20yc&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
gonehome 5y ago
Good executives do do this, Ben Horowitz addresses it explicitly in The Hard Thing About Hard Things, but I've also seen it personally from good executives I've worked for. It's bad ones that think they can spin something negative into something positive. All it does is break trust and employees just think they're full of shit. The urge to spin things positively is the common default though for new execs for some reason, telling the truth about bad news when it's hard to do so is part of what makes someone good.
- lazide 5y ago
  It’s the default ‘easy’ answer - telling a bunch of people something that sucks is risky and scary and many times they don’t even know how to process it themselves, or that they will be ok if they do.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    Yeah - I suspect they may be lying to themselves first. It’s also possible they rationalize it in some way that they’re “protecting their employees” from the bad news. In practice people like to be clued in to the truth and are more likely to respond positively to honesty in my experience.
    - lazide 5y ago
      100% agree. I also think we're (maybe?) starting to come out of a period where selling bald faced lies and bullshit was a major way to 'make it rich'. Or at least I hope. There was a period where it was a requirement for an executive that they be credible and have a solid track record of under promising, over delivering, before they would ever be considered for leadership. Part of that comes with the experience to know (as in know in their bones, from direct experience) how important it is to be straightforward while not causing panic, and to set a solid and realistic direction instead of lying about it. People required that of their leaders because they had seen and felt the anguish and loss that doing otherwise causes when it is something important. We've had a insane run of peace and prosperity, and it's easy to forget that and take the fluffy fun face instead.

bingohbangoh 5y ago

That might work if its a few decisions here and there that look like they're being taken with much gravitas. But I'm not sure that would work if you're pivoting constantly and in a downward spiral. There are simply too many decisions happening for "we need to cut costs" to feel valid all the time. Lambda school appears to be in that category so far as I can see.

t-louie 5y ago

Lambda framed these changes as beneficial to students, for reason XYZ. I remember seeing a lot of student comments saying things like "Is lambda ok??" or "We're adults here, if lambda needs to cut costs they can tell us."

bwing 5y ago

To be frank: I think the main reason is because explicit talk of cost-cutting was at odds with leadership's self-aggrandizing Twitter talk. (Disrupting the education industry, putting four-year colleges out of business, etc.)

tziki 5y ago

Maybe in some engineering/phd bubbles that's true, but that most definitely doesn't work the majority of the time.

nzmsv 5y ago
An organization that treats their students with a "your feeble minds won't understand, so let me put some spin on this for you" deserves all the eventual backlash they get.
- tziki 5y ago
  That's more or less every large organization then.

lazide 5y ago

For engineering or other pragmatic types? Definitely. For those who are used to hard reality and know how to make it fit in a nice way or move on like field sales? Often. For most everyone else? There is often a need to provide at least some surface ‘here is why everything is not actually super terrible so you should stay’ sugar coating or it is not going to go down well. The larger the group, the more apparent the effect and I suspect it’s due to lack of trust and/or familiarity with the speaker. If you’ve had your sleeves rolled up and been in the trenches with someone, you either know you can’t trust them already (and in which case, why are you still here?!?), or can trust them well and can see a positive outcome if it works. If you can’t trust them, it’s just a signal that things are terrible and don’t know how terrible they really are - and what choice does someone have to anchor and assume it’s worse (or maybe a little better).

nzmsv 5y ago
This is a little ironic... - We really don't appreciate bullshit, all it does is erode trust - No, no, let me explain how bullshit is actually good for you...
- t-louie 5y ago
  This is very close to the language Lambda School actually used. Here is a snippet of something Lambda wrote after a LOT of students complained about the changes the school made to the program (removing TLs, grades, code review): - First, we need to clarify how we've changed the accountability model. - Second, we need to clarify why we've changed the accountability model. - Third, after we understand the bandwidth and instructor availability in this new model, we'll continue to tighten the proactive feedback on technical skills.
- lazide 5y ago
  Oh I’m not saying bullshit is good! I’m saying in some situations, with large enough groups of people? The non-bullshit isn’t going to be good either. There is a reason 99% of politics is bullshit. shrug
  - 5y ago

lozenge 5y ago

Because legal. The students would understand, yes, but not accept getting something other than what they signed up for.

munificent 5y ago

Probably because a startup's primary audience for information is investors, not customers.

wly_cdgr 5y ago

Because Allred is a little bitch coward

dang 5y ago
Posting like this will get you banned on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. We moderate HN less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is the topic [1], but "less" doesn't mean "zero" and egregious comments like this are never ok. If you'd review the rules and stick to them going forward, we'd appreciate it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20moderate%20less%20%22not%20more%22%20yc&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

gonehome 5y ago

Good executives do do this, Ben Horowitz addresses it explicitly in The Hard Thing About Hard Things, but I've also seen it personally from good executives I've worked for. It's bad ones that think they can spin something negative into something positive. All it does is break trust and employees just think they're full of shit. The urge to spin things positively is the common default though for new execs for some reason, telling the truth about bad news when it's hard to do so is part of what makes someone good.

lazide 5y ago
It’s the default ‘easy’ answer - telling a bunch of people something that sucks is risky and scary and many times they don’t even know how to process it themselves, or that they will be ok if they do.
- gonehome 5y ago
  Yeah - I suspect they may be lying to themselves first. It’s also possible they rationalize it in some way that they’re “protecting their employees” from the bad news. In practice people like to be clued in to the truth and are more likely to respond positively to honesty in my experience.
  - lazide 5y ago
    100% agree. I also think we're (maybe?) starting to come out of a period where selling bald faced lies and bullshit was a major way to 'make it rich'. Or at least I hope. There was a period where it was a requirement for an executive that they be credible and have a solid track record of under promising, over delivering, before they would ever be considered for leadership. Part of that comes with the experience to know (as in know in their bones, from direct experience) how important it is to be straightforward while not causing panic, and to set a solid and realistic direction instead of lying about it. People required that of their leaders because they had seen and felt the anguish and loss that doing otherwise causes when it is something important. We've had a insane run of peace and prosperity, and it's easy to forget that and take the fluffy fun face instead.