5 ms·

The issue with this article is how the author is approaching all of these discussions. There is no attempt to see the other person's perspective, or evaluate h

The issue with this article is how the author is approaching all of these discussions. There is no attempt to see the other person's perspective, or evaluate how the author should be approaching the discussion. This is very common among us Engineers but is a massive failure. If a manager comes over and suggests something to you, you need to understand their perspective for coming to that discussion, not asking questions that would make you make the same suggestion they made.

themoonisachees 4y ago
I get what you're saying, but at the same time that is exactly what the author is trying to do, just that they are doing it in their own way, which just so happens to feel adversarial to the manager. There is no right or wrong here. Asking the engineer to "think logically" in terms of how what they're saying might be interpreted is stupid. They are autistic, and you cannot reasonably expect them to do the exact thing autism prevents them from doing. Asking the manager to try to understand is probably more efficient, but the manager might be geared to think the engineer is adversarial already, possibly because of demeanor, or past experiences getting similarly confused. In this case the manager is probably more able to reason logically that their counterpart is autistic and is probably genuinely asking, but that is not a default, and probably requires some diversity training.
dghf 4y ago
> If a manager comes over and suggests something to you, you need to understand their perspective for coming to that discussion Isn't that exactly what the author did, at least in the React discussion? They tried to establish what potential benefits the manager hoped to get from the React rewrite. It was the manager who immediately gave up on the discussion, not the author.
- Hayarotle 4y ago
  The problem is with the (interpreted) subtext of the question. The question "Is our checkout page not performing well?" might be just a question, but in the context the author was put in, it usually has different implications. Many people would ask such question in order to imply that changing the framework was unnecessary and that the checkout page is already performing well enough. This seems to be how the manager interpreted the question. There are different ways of asking the same question, with different subtext. He could had started, for example, by saying "We should analyze how our checkout page's performance could improve if we switch to React". This way he would be able to ask essentially the same questions he intended to, but without accidentally implying that the switch is undesirable and unnecessary. Now, someone working with someone with autism should understand they have trouble with this kind of subtext, and give them more leeway. But most people don't know how to do this, as they're not used to such interactions.
  - larve 4y ago
    Thank you for reading. I think this is a salient point. How do I know how the manager is going to perceive the question based on what order I put the words in? My intent is to get the information I need, because I trust the manager to know it when I don’t. This of course is an edited example of a conversation in real life, and in fact my first draft had the question phrased as “we should analyze our performance and need metrics”. This honestly could have just as easily been perceived as patronizing. If anything, and I probably glossed over it too quickly, I do spend a lot of effort being very candid and open and agreeable when having these discussions, because it is so hard to make sure our intents and definitions are aligned. We can be talking about checkout and react and then after 2 h realize that we actually both care about better conversion of mobile users, and now we are talking and can put the react decision into context. I wrote this article about these situations: when my approach breaks down and I get blamed for not accepting being wrong, yet I’m actually trying my best to avoid exactly that.
jaywalk 4y ago
Yeah, the example about rewriting a page in React really stood out to me for this. He says "I entertained the question in good faith" but he was clearly just asking "gotcha" questions to try and show the manager what a stupid question it was. And it may very well have been a stupid question, but as you said, he didn't even attempt to understand his manager's perspective. I can totally understand why his manager got frustrated by this.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > just asking "gotcha" questions I didn't read them as "gotcha" questions. They looked like straightforward and sensible questions. I wonder if the manager was expecting some kind of kickback, and was braced to be adversarial. Perhaps there's some history here, between author and his manager.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    From a purely technical standpoint, of course they are valid questions. But from a political standpoint, when you know that your manager just read a blog post about React, I think the discussion needs to be framed differently. Starting out with something like "Oh, yeah. I'm familiar with React. What were some of the positive aspects of it that stood out to you?" will help to understand their perspective. Again, I fully acknowledge that a React rewrite could very well be a complete waste of time and effort in this scenario. But his manager obviously thought it could be worthwhile, or he wouldn't have asked about it.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      The manager is such a blank slate in this story it's almost useless to discuss, but what stood out for me was: "A manager came to me asking if we should rewrite the checkout of our E-Commerce platform using React... in order to make an informed decision, I needed to understand a few things: ... Why do they think a technology change is a solution? Do they understand the implications of such a switch?" What problems such a switch might solve and what the implications are is what the manager is asking you. Why would you direct exactly those questions back to them?
trashtester 4y ago
> If a manager comes over and suggests something to you, you need to understand their perspective for coming to that discussion For someone having autism, this may be impossible. If they are open about their autism, one could argue that the manager should be the one trying to see the topic from two sides. One may also need to come up with a shared understanding where the manager has a way to inform the autistic person more explicitly what to do than they would another person (who would get the subtle hints). This can be pitched as a way for the company to accommodate for having an autistic person on the team (as opposed to firing or not hiring them), in other words that the manager would do this as a way to support the employee, not to be abusive.
- JackFr 4y ago
  I’m all for accommodating disability. But in this case an obvious solution might be to do what your manager suggests simply because he is your manager. As a non-autistic person I don’t find it difficult to voice my concerns about a particular course of action and then do it anyway if that’s what the boss wants. (I realize the sticking point is “voice my concerns” — doing that in a manner that doesn’t come off as confrontational or undermining can be hard.)
  - nibbleshifter 4y ago
    > But in this case an obvious solution might be to do what your manager suggests simply because he is your manager That is career suicide (unless you make sure to get it in writing every single time). As a knowledge worker you are paid to not just be a yes man automaton, you are paid to evaluate and push back as needed.
    - JackFr 4y ago
      > That is career suicide (unless you make sure to get it in writing every single time). Why would you ever expect your managers to trust us if you don't trust them?
      - 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
shlant 4y ago
> There is no attempt to see the other person's perspective, or evaluate how the author should be approaching the discussion The whole point of the article is to provide the perspective of the Autistic. Why are you assuming "There is no attempt to see the other person's perspective"? Why are you demanding the subject of the article be about what you want it to be or for it to cover the other side of the interaction? There are certainly interactions where there is a misunderstanding on the side of the non-autistic and that is what this article is attempting to provide insight into.

themoonisachees 4y ago

I get what you're saying, but at the same time that is exactly what the author is trying to do, just that they are doing it in their own way, which just so happens to feel adversarial to the manager. There is no right or wrong here. Asking the engineer to "think logically" in terms of how what they're saying might be interpreted is stupid. They are autistic, and you cannot reasonably expect them to do the exact thing autism prevents them from doing. Asking the manager to try to understand is probably more efficient, but the manager might be geared to think the engineer is adversarial already, possibly because of demeanor, or past experiences getting similarly confused. In this case the manager is probably more able to reason logically that their counterpart is autistic and is probably genuinely asking, but that is not a default, and probably requires some diversity training.

dghf 4y ago

> If a manager comes over and suggests something to you, you need to understand their perspective for coming to that discussion Isn't that exactly what the author did, at least in the React discussion? They tried to establish what potential benefits the manager hoped to get from the React rewrite. It was the manager who immediately gave up on the discussion, not the author.

Hayarotle 4y ago
The problem is with the (interpreted) subtext of the question. The question "Is our checkout page not performing well?" might be just a question, but in the context the author was put in, it usually has different implications. Many people would ask such question in order to imply that changing the framework was unnecessary and that the checkout page is already performing well enough. This seems to be how the manager interpreted the question. There are different ways of asking the same question, with different subtext. He could had started, for example, by saying "We should analyze how our checkout page's performance could improve if we switch to React". This way he would be able to ask essentially the same questions he intended to, but without accidentally implying that the switch is undesirable and unnecessary. Now, someone working with someone with autism should understand they have trouble with this kind of subtext, and give them more leeway. But most people don't know how to do this, as they're not used to such interactions.
- larve 4y ago
  Thank you for reading. I think this is a salient point. How do I know how the manager is going to perceive the question based on what order I put the words in? My intent is to get the information I need, because I trust the manager to know it when I don’t. This of course is an edited example of a conversation in real life, and in fact my first draft had the question phrased as “we should analyze our performance and need metrics”. This honestly could have just as easily been perceived as patronizing. If anything, and I probably glossed over it too quickly, I do spend a lot of effort being very candid and open and agreeable when having these discussions, because it is so hard to make sure our intents and definitions are aligned. We can be talking about checkout and react and then after 2 h realize that we actually both care about better conversion of mobile users, and now we are talking and can put the react decision into context. I wrote this article about these situations: when my approach breaks down and I get blamed for not accepting being wrong, yet I’m actually trying my best to avoid exactly that.

jaywalk 4y ago

Yeah, the example about rewriting a page in React really stood out to me for this. He says "I entertained the question in good faith" but he was clearly just asking "gotcha" questions to try and show the manager what a stupid question it was. And it may very well have been a stupid question, but as you said, he didn't even attempt to understand his manager's perspective. I can totally understand why his manager got frustrated by this.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> just asking "gotcha" questions I didn't read them as "gotcha" questions. They looked like straightforward and sensible questions. I wonder if the manager was expecting some kind of kickback, and was braced to be adversarial. Perhaps there's some history here, between author and his manager.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  From a purely technical standpoint, of course they are valid questions. But from a political standpoint, when you know that your manager just read a blog post about React, I think the discussion needs to be framed differently. Starting out with something like "Oh, yeah. I'm familiar with React. What were some of the positive aspects of it that stood out to you?" will help to understand their perspective. Again, I fully acknowledge that a React rewrite could very well be a complete waste of time and effort in this scenario. But his manager obviously thought it could be worthwhile, or he wouldn't have asked about it.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    The manager is such a blank slate in this story it's almost useless to discuss, but what stood out for me was: "A manager came to me asking if we should rewrite the checkout of our E-Commerce platform using React... in order to make an informed decision, I needed to understand a few things: ... Why do they think a technology change is a solution? Do they understand the implications of such a switch?" What problems such a switch might solve and what the implications are is what the manager is asking you. Why would you direct exactly those questions back to them?

trashtester 4y ago

> If a manager comes over and suggests something to you, you need to understand their perspective for coming to that discussion For someone having autism, this may be impossible. If they are open about their autism, one could argue that the manager should be the one trying to see the topic from two sides. One may also need to come up with a shared understanding where the manager has a way to inform the autistic person more explicitly what to do than they would another person (who would get the subtle hints). This can be pitched as a way for the company to accommodate for having an autistic person on the team (as opposed to firing or not hiring them), in other words that the manager would do this as a way to support the employee, not to be abusive.

JackFr 4y ago
I’m all for accommodating disability. But in this case an obvious solution might be to do what your manager suggests simply because he is your manager. As a non-autistic person I don’t find it difficult to voice my concerns about a particular course of action and then do it anyway if that’s what the boss wants. (I realize the sticking point is “voice my concerns” — doing that in a manner that doesn’t come off as confrontational or undermining can be hard.)
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  > But in this case an obvious solution might be to do what your manager suggests simply because he is your manager That is career suicide (unless you make sure to get it in writing every single time). As a knowledge worker you are paid to not just be a yes man automaton, you are paid to evaluate and push back as needed.
  - JackFr 4y ago
    > That is career suicide (unless you make sure to get it in writing every single time). Why would you ever expect your managers to trust us if you don't trust them?
    - 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

shlant 4y ago

> There is no attempt to see the other person's perspective, or evaluate how the author should be approaching the discussion The whole point of the article is to provide the perspective of the Autistic. Why are you assuming "There is no attempt to see the other person's perspective"? Why are you demanding the subject of the article be about what you want it to be or for it to cover the other side of the interaction? There are certainly interactions where there is a misunderstanding on the side of the non-autistic and that is what this article is attempting to provide insight into.