Comment by cryoshon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cryoshon | Hacker News Reader

"Sandberg pushed forward, asking whether Scott’s ums were the result of nervousness. She even suggested that Google could hire a speaking coach to help. Still, Scott brushed off the concern; it didn’t seem like an important issue. “Finally, Sheryl said, ‘You know, Kim, I can tell I'm not really getting through to you. I'm going to have to be clearer here. When you say um every third word, it makes you sound stupid.’”

"“The vertical axis is what I call the ‘give a damn’ axis,” Scott says. “Part of the reason Sheryl was able to say to me so bluntly, ‘You sounded stupid,’ was that I knew that she cared personally about me."

This doesn't sit well with me because I am skeptical that bosses are going to be able to hit the proper mean of communication that works for each employee. Additionally, I am skeptical that bosses "caring personally for their employees" is actually fully possible or desirable all of the time, since there's always a frequently severe and irreparable conflict of interest between the institution and the individual. I don't want to give or receive friendship from my bosses (as we are only temporary means to an end for each other), I want courteous distance and realistic, bite sized action items to improve on.

For the author, her boss gave her highly appreciated and blunt criticism, and offered a solution. For another employee, the boss has just ruined their day, week, and possibly self image, while (incorrectly) assuming that the boss and the boss's boss thinks they are stupid. For yet another employee, the message of the boss is noted and acted upon, but the pushy probing regarding nervousness is weirdly personal and not at all appreciated.

I am usually pretty blunt, but I don't understand the fascination in managerial culture with intentionally toeing the line between asshole and "candor"-- and it pops up in more dimensions than just feedback. For whatever reason, there is glorification of putting down other people in a professional context.

In that example, Sandberg tried a tactful approach twice before being blunt. If she had stopped giving the guidance because Scott didn't understand the tactful suggestions, Scott would not have learned from that scenario and may have been less successful in the long run.

I don't see anything in this story that paints Sandberg as an asshole. And the only thing "radical" about her candor is that most managers (myself included sometimes) shy away from pushing if our directs don't understand what we're saying the first time.

This article gave me some useful encouragement to push myself to give feedback to people who need it even if it's uncomfortable for me.

What's wrong with, "As a listener, it's very distracting; moreso than you might think. You need to kick that habit to be an effective public speaker."? It's entirely possible to be candid without putting another person (your direct report, even!) down.

And this would have been a third attempt in the same vein. Kim may have then replied "Why does it matter if I am a good public speaker, the numbers were great!", in which case, you have to remove the last case of sugar coating and tell it how it is.

The correct response to the hypothetical "Why does it matter if I am a good public speaker..." statement is "it matters if you are going to be giving presentations and doing public speaking", not "saying um a lot makes you seem stupid". I still can't imagine a world in which being that directly accusatory to an employee is a good way to help someone.

To which someone could respond "But my job isn't public speaking, it is doing X" where X is providing ads, making widgets, etc. No matter how many times you rephrase, you may hit a point where you just say "you sound stupid" or "you're not good at this job".

In my opinion, the whole point of this talk is that giving honest feedback without tact is better than no feedback at all. If someone just doesn't get it when you say it diplomatically, just cut the fluff and say what you need to say.

But that isn't how it is. Someone who says "um" a lot while speaking doesn't sound stupid. They're grating, to many in the audience, but that doesn't reflect on the speaker's ability (except, obviously, their public speaking ability). That means the audience will be focusing on the speaker's verbal tics instead of the message that was intended, which is the root problem. The word "stupid" was intended to startle the employee into action by how rude it was.

I mean, obviously, in this particular instance with this particular person, it was effective, and for all I know, the manager is a really sharp observer of her reports and knew this was the right approach in this situation. I don't think it's a good general approach, and I'm afraid people are going to take away the wrong thing from this article. It's not good managerial advice to say, "Tell your employees they sound stupid if they are bad public speakers!" It's better managerial advice to say, "Know your employees, and how each individual might be best motivated, and don't accept complacency." You have to be really careful when taking cues from drill sergeants, because for a lot of people, that approach will backfire horribly, and the message will be overshadowed by the delivery style.

I'm a bit confused at the certainty of your argument. There are many people who believe that someone saying "um" sounds stupid. Your absolute assertion to the opposite seems rather like "I don't think someone saying 'um' sounds stupid so this isn't a valid criticism".

Are people going to hear critiques if they don't want to? The message getting through is what matters, that's a person by person problem. Saying something make someone sound stupid is certainly not "taking cues from drill sergeants".

On your first point, I agree that the message is most often overshadowed by delivery. But I also agree with mentat's point that at some point "um" can make the speaker sound stupid.

> It's not good managerial advice to say, "Tell your employees they sound stupid if they are bad public speakers!" It's better managerial advice to say, "Know your employees, and how each individual might be best motivated, and don't accept complacency."

I completely agree with this, and I got this from the article/video as well. In the "um" story, the manager tries twice to tell her in a nice way, offering to bring in a coach, etc, but she doesn't get it. Knowing her employee, she tells her that she sounds stupid and this works. Kim says in her talk that Sheryl had done several things to establish trust in their relationship previously, so she knew that this case was not a personal attack.

> In that example, Sandberg tried a tactful approach twice before being blunt.

This seems to be an overlooked aspect of the anecdote. If we were to pay more attention to what people are saying (and try to look at things from their perspective), there might be fewer occasions for bluntness. A word to the wise...

I think Scott addresses that critique in the article:

HHIPP: “Radical candor is humble, it’s helpful, it’s immediate, it’s in person — in private if it’s criticism and in public if it’s praise — and it doesn’t personalize.” That last P makes a key distinction: “My boss didn’t say, ‘You're stupid.’ She said, ‘You sounded stupid when you said um.’ There's a big difference between the two.”

Where would you suggest people try to be on those two axes instead?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com