5 ms·
Ever since that back and forth about "East Coast being kind vs West Coast being nice" thing a while back[1], I think it's important to distinguish the two. Beca
by codelikeawolf 2y ago
Ever since that back and forth about "East Coast being kind vs West Coast being nice" thing a while back[1], I think it's important to distinguish the two. Because they are noticeably different (at least to me) and shouldn't be used interchangeably. I want someone to be kind to me in a meeting. I think niceness could seriously inhibit progress. A kind person will tell me that an idea I have won't work, but they'll offer to help me work through it. A nice person will tell me that a bad idea is good, just to avoid conflict.
[1] https://www.upworthy.com/nice-vs-kind-are-east-coast-people-better-than-west-coast-rp6 https://www.upworthy.com/nice-vs-kind-are-east-coast-people-...
- delichon 2y ago"Tough love" is kind but not nice. There doesn't seem to be a good phrase for the opposite in English but there should be.
- seneca 2y agoThe book Radical Candor calls the opposite "ruinous empathy".
- AgentOrange1234 2y agoDefinitely a good book. As someone who is very prone to ruinous empathy, the mantra, “it isn’t mean, it’s clear” has been very helpful for giving me the courage to raise issues earlier, when they are not a big deal.
- delichon 2y agoFeeding my dog as much as ... tough love: I think she needs. ruinous empathy: she thinks she needs.
- hooverd 2y agoUnfortunately "though love" as practiced is mostly just an excuse to be an asshole.
- cocacola1 2y agoSame with “brutally honest”, where the one saying it is more about the “brutally” than the “honest”.
- navane 2y agoVirtue signaling is definitely adjecent
- seadan83 2y agoThinking of cats/dogs - euthanasia seems to also be a good fit for "kind, but not nice"
- Kye 2y agoThis is real. When the car broke down in a turn lane in the rain: lots of honking behind me When the hazard lights came on: honking stopped, people materialized to help push it back out of the road
- lotsofpulp 2y agoI don’t understand the relevance of this example. Without the hazard light, there’s a 99% chance the person is simply looking at their phone, needlessly delaying everyone else, hence the honking to alert them to move. What else is another driver supposed to do? A hazard light means there is a problem that can’t be solved with honking.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- navane 2y agoNice people wouldn't honk at the stationary car without it's hazards on.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lotsofpulp 2y agoI would not categorize that as a “nice” people thing to do. Unless nice somehow means quiet and willing to be walked all over.
- wrs 2y agoI think unmentioned is that this is the east coast style. In Seattle we just let you sit there indefinitely because honking wouldn’t be “nice”.
- steveBK123 2y agoTo summarize the idea in a work concept for those who won't read through - East Coast "kind" would be to tell the person working for you about their performance issues early, in a constructive feedback manner such that they could course correct or find a role they are better suited for. The hope is they either improve in the role, find a new role internally, or decide to move on before having to stomach a firing. West Coast nice would be to let the person working for you continue to perform poorly without feedback, being "nice" to them, but privately considering them incompetent. Eventually you will end up firing them without much warning when a cut actually has to be made. Think Amazon PIP.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago>Eventually you will end up firing them without much warning when a cut actually has to be made. Think Amazon PIP. I would bet managers on the east coast keep under performers around just to have people to cut also, doesn’t take a genius to figure out the strategy. You invest in people you think can improve and help you, you get rid of the ones that hurt you, and you keep the so so ones for when you need to sacrifice.
- steveBK123 2y agoMost companies don't run an Amazon style PIP program where you HAVE to cut X% annually on every team. Therefore, keeping around people who genuinely deserve firing is a drag on delivering. As a result it is always in your interest to get improvements out of your team members, whether by upskilling, role changing, hoping they leave on their own or worst case actually laying them off. I've worked in financial service tech for nearly 20 years across 6 companies and only 1 I would say did a "5% every year" thing, and even that got paused for years at a time when market conditions pushed that way. Even if your statement is true, it is a matter of framing. Obviously you keep your best staff, and fire the actively negatively contributing staff. The people in the middle aren't just "for when you need to sacrifice".. they are simply the middle 50%. You obviously want to see them improve as well.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
- BeetleB 2y agoI have to say: It's really annoying that some idiot who wrote a book in the 90's has resulted in everyone redefining "nice", when they should have invented a new word. As far as the English language goes, what you define as "kind" is also "nice".
- olddustytrail 2y agoConsidering how many different things "nice" has meant over the past few hundred years, I doubt one more meaning will make a difference!
- codelikeawolf 2y agoWell, unfortunately nobody did invent a new word. Considering a cursory search of the definitions of both words: Kind: of a sympathetic or helpful nature Nice: pleasing, agreeable I would argue that they are actually different.
- ffsm8 2y agoI think you're misunderstanding the point they were making. The given example for nice > nice would be to let the person working for you continue to perform poorly without feedback, being "nice" to them, but privately considering them incompetent. Is actually being hypocritical, not nice. The nice person would still tell the under performing person what's what, they'd just not be rude about it. You can also create a scenario in which being kind becomes detrimental if taken to the extreme. However, the author of that book decided that being nice was bad, and being kind was good. This understandably continues to annoy people when this frankly dumb definition is brought up.
- jmull 2y agoHonestly, I think it’s a mistake to try to retroactively impose a technical distinction between two words that have been synonyms for quite a while. The intent is probably to clarify and communicate better. But with that word choice you end up confusing and muddying. The problem is, people have to know exactly what you mean already (which means you probably don’t have that much to talk about on that topic anyway).
- derefr 2y agoWhich of the two would say nothing in the public meeting to let you save face, but then would pull you aside for a "quick chat" afterward, and tell you your idea is bad then?
- ekanes 2y agoThe one who is both nice and kind. :P
- eleveriven 2y agoAnd smart
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago> Ever since that back and forth about "East Coast being kind vs West Coast being nice" thing a while back Missed the thing but what a front-loaded mess. What we want to say is Nice sucks, be kind. The rest feels unhelpful. Kinder to state the principle and let folks chew on it.
- brudgers 2y agoA person can be both...though that might just be skilled kindness.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y agoYou're right. Doubly so because either-or scenarios are usually false choices. The pithiness works in presentation but past that...
- NotMichaelBay 2y agoI agree with you but your delivery could have been... kinder.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y agoYou aren't wrong. The one-liner serves to isolate the goal from negative associations. But my delivery came with it's own neg assoc (against whoever came up with the E/W coast theory).