8 ms·

A policy that only allows criticism of ideas is a poor policy. Criticizing the ideas of a person who consistently generates poor ideas doesn’t help that person

A policy that only allows criticism of ideas is a poor policy. Criticizing the ideas of a person who consistently generates poor ideas doesn’t help that person to generate better ideas. That person’s idea generating process (and by extension, that person) is what must be criticized constructively. To do otherwise is to open the door to bad actors.

howenterprisey 3y ago
The policy still allows criticism of people, just not in everyday discussion - which is correct, because it doesn't belong there. A person can be criticized (i.e. critically evaluated) by their manager, or perhaps by the person's peers privately telling their manager. But "criticize the idea, not the person" is a ground rule of any healthy intellectual culture. Criticizing people in a discussion about ideas immediately shits up the atmosphere. It's uncivilized. If someone consistently generates poor ideas, figure out some way to tell them respectfully after the fact or get their manager to do it. Either the person needs to fix their process somehow or they're not suitable for the environment. These both sound like things a manager should be judging because they are.
- sunk1st 3y ago
  That’s an interesting perspective. However, I maintain my position. Banning criticism of people is too general an abstraction and opens the door to bad actors. An article posted today (“I don’t need your query language”) offers a good concrete example. In an environment where I am unable to criticize a person’s approach (and by extension, that person) I and the rest of the team are at the mercy of their idiosyncrasies (I am referring to the syntax issues highlighted in the first example of the mentioned article). Escalation via managers can work in specific situations but it has no guarantee of success and comes at a significant cost. In the best case it exists as an extra layer of indirection that must be paid for. A technical solution, which is what you are proposing, is a poor solution when a better structured policy obviates the need for it.

howenterprisey 3y ago

The policy still allows criticism of people, just not in everyday discussion - which is correct, because it doesn't belong there. A person can be criticized (i.e. critically evaluated) by their manager, or perhaps by the person's peers privately telling their manager. But "criticize the idea, not the person" is a ground rule of any healthy intellectual culture. Criticizing people in a discussion about ideas immediately shits up the atmosphere. It's uncivilized. If someone consistently generates poor ideas, figure out some way to tell them respectfully after the fact or get their manager to do it. Either the person needs to fix their process somehow or they're not suitable for the environment. These both sound like things a manager should be judging because they are.

sunk1st 3y ago
That’s an interesting perspective. However, I maintain my position. Banning criticism of people is too general an abstraction and opens the door to bad actors. An article posted today (“I don’t need your query language”) offers a good concrete example. In an environment where I am unable to criticize a person’s approach (and by extension, that person) I and the rest of the team are at the mercy of their idiosyncrasies (I am referring to the syntax issues highlighted in the first example of the mentioned article). Escalation via managers can work in specific situations but it has no guarantee of success and comes at a significant cost. In the best case it exists as an extra layer of indirection that must be paid for. A technical solution, which is what you are proposing, is a poor solution when a better structured policy obviates the need for it.