5 ms·
no, it is not personal, never. it is about the argument itself. like chess. but yes, i enjoy that style of environment, i can guess it is like professional spo
by pinaceae 14y ago
no, it is not personal, never. it is about the argument itself. like chess.
but yes, i enjoy that style of environment, i can guess it is like professional sports. your feelings are worth crap.
maybe it is a very male worldview. or a nerdy male one. i don't know.
my CEO is a nice person. but he is sharp like a razorblade. have a suggestion? be prepared to have it cut, but never just so, but with publicly stated reasoning - that no one can dispute. it impresses me. i respect it and him.
- heretohelp 14y ago>maybe it is a very male worldview. or a nerdy male one. i don't know. It's a very open source/free software/bazaar-not-cathedral/nerdy worldview. I know female programmers willing to call me out on my shit when I'm doing something dumb. Please stop unnecessarily attributing things to gender.
- enraged_camel 14y ago>>my CEO is a nice person. but he is sharp like a razorblade. have a suggestion? be prepared to have it cut, but never just so, but with publicly stated reasoning - that no one can dispute. it impresses me. i respect it and him. Are you impressed, or intimidated? In the type of work environment you describe, the former can be mistaken for the latter. You say nobody can dispute his reasoning when he criticizes them. Is that because his criticism is correct, or because people are too scared to speak up? I don't manage people, but I'm a senior engineer and am in a position of influence in my department. The junior engineers often come to me for help. You know what though? Before that could happen, I had to learn to become approachable. This meant getting rid of my highly critical attitude, as well as my belief that "I am always right unless proven otherwise." The result is a happier work environment and more productive team members.
- 001sky 14y agoI don't manage people... Couple of thoughts on this: Good managers have a worldview, and they learn to communicate effectively. Its much more efficient, functional, and practical. That is the art of leadership, vs babysitting (or helicopter parenting, etc). Consider the counter-example: The worst manager is one is unpredictable, all over the place, capricious. He cannot scale, however smart he is. Beacuse nobody can decipher him. You cannot avoid or minimize a meeting, because you cannot prepare in advance for expected lines of reasoning, etc. That's part of creating a culture and having values. The best leaders I have ever worked for all had very stong, idiosynchratic lines of inquiry. They were all very tough, but always fair. You learned to "keep them in mind" as you did your work. Looking back, its very effective to help crystallize your own view in relation. That's how you develop.etc. So, in some sense this is independent of "approachable". You don't always want to be approachable. You want people to work independently but under a common vision. You want them to internalize things. Then, for the nuance, the edge case, the final decision/s...they can come and have a chat. Thus one sets out the right time and a right place to be approachable. But the context is critically important to distinguish. The questions and issues you raise need to be thought of inside the bigger picture. For things to make sense. Hope this helps.