3 ms·

I disagree strongly. Most people, if they're told their work is "rubbish", or trash, or garbage, or just bad, will react defensively and attempt to justify them

by Hasu 4y ago

I disagree strongly. Most people, if they're told their work is "rubbish", or trash, or garbage, or just bad, will react defensively and attempt to justify themselves and validate their work. "I was under time pressure", "It's not that bad", or "What do you know?" would be likely responses. A witty comment, sarcasm, or a joke are still deflections, and wouldn't cause the same outcome, because all of these responses persist the narrative of "me vs. you". The response here, acknowledging that the criticism is valid even though it wasn't diplomatic, is the key to achieving a good outcome. It reframes the discussion from antagonistic to cooperative. It's also not a precooked tactic. One of the points of the article is that this kind of reaction isn't really teachable or learnable - some people have it and most people don't. The article strives to find the heart of the interaction and others like it to find ways to make it learnable, but it acknowledges that it doesn't achieve that. It's weird that you're agreeing the article is bad when it's making the same fundamental point you are - good leadership isn't about canned approaches and there are no winning formulas, and someone's background has little bearing on their true leadership abilities.

leaflets2 4y ago
> It reframes the discussion from antagonistic to cooperative Well written, Maybe a similar way of saying that, could be: finding the useful things in what someone said, and ignoring any rude undertones At the same time, if one constantly needs to reframe antagonism, how long will it take until one starts looking for another workplace? Let's hope it was a one time thing
exodust 4y ago
> "there are no winning formulas" Except the one they list: "Julie used five actions... Disarm; Appreciate; Fuse opposites; Appeal to values; Develop a growth partnership." The article is not making the same point I did. It prompted discussion, which probably means there's nothing wrong with the article other than I disagree with its theories. "Good leadership" is endlessly debatable. On one hand, a good leader might say "I love the smell of napalm in the morning". A different leader might expresses remorse and healing/strength for the troops who are witnessing the same event. Like many around here, I've seen and participated in enough interactions in the workplace to have a good gut for what works, what is a waste of time, what is counterproductive. A leader who always smiles and even delivers bad news with a smile, for example, I would say is not a good leader. But someone else might argue the opposite, and insist that remaining positive is some kind of magic key. I actually like the "rubbish" comment by the co-author. Cutting through the bullshit is a skill. We've been told the remark was because the man was "temperamental". That's hearsay. Perhaps the "it's rubbish" comment was ultimately more responsible for the good outcome than the 5-point action reply. We have no insight into the specific working relationship between these individuals to make conclusions.

by Hasu 4y ago

leaflets2 4y ago

> It reframes the discussion from antagonistic to cooperative Well written, Maybe a similar way of saying that, could be: finding the useful things in what someone said, and ignoring any rude undertones At the same time, if one constantly needs to reframe antagonism, how long will it take until one starts looking for another workplace? Let's hope it was a one time thing

exodust 4y ago

> "there are no winning formulas" Except the one they list: "Julie used five actions... Disarm; Appreciate; Fuse opposites; Appeal to values; Develop a growth partnership." The article is not making the same point I did. It prompted discussion, which probably means there's nothing wrong with the article other than I disagree with its theories. "Good leadership" is endlessly debatable. On one hand, a good leader might say "I love the smell of napalm in the morning". A different leader might expresses remorse and healing/strength for the troops who are witnessing the same event. Like many around here, I've seen and participated in enough interactions in the workplace to have a good gut for what works, what is a waste of time, what is counterproductive. A leader who always smiles and even delivers bad news with a smile, for example, I would say is not a good leader. But someone else might argue the opposite, and insist that remaining positive is some kind of magic key. I actually like the "rubbish" comment by the co-author. Cutting through the bullshit is a skill. We've been told the remark was because the man was "temperamental". That's hearsay. Perhaps the "it's rubbish" comment was ultimately more responsible for the good outcome than the 5-point action reply. We have no insight into the specific working relationship between these individuals to make conclusions.