In particular, Google found that psychological safety is a key component of successful teams.
Indeed, I think in an environment where rudeness is the norm, it's much harder to get people to share negative thoughts. Sure, you'll have a few alpha-dicks who will say whatever shitty thing that comes to mind. But most other people will just keep their lips buttoned because they don't want to deal with critical, sarcastic comments.
If you want real, long-term organizational improvement, you have to create an environment were people are willing to share problems and concerns without fear that they'll get insulted or blamed.
One great example is Toyota's culture of continuous improvement, which helped them go from post-WWII decimation of Japan to the world's dominant carmaker. They're explicit that "respect for people" is foundational. A good book here is Rother's "Toyota Kata", which goes into Toyota's culture and people-management practices.
Another is airplane safety. For its ubiquity and technological complexity, flight is amazingly safe. But this requires a culture of deep, thoughtful honesty. Sidney Dekker's "Field Guide to Human Error" explains how much this depends on creating blame-free contexts, how much it requires a deep respect for people. Without that, people will a) blame others, and b) cover their own asses in an effort to avoid getting blame. That muddies the waters enough that you can never find and fix the systemic problems that caused bad outcomes.
TL;DR: If you really want people to share negative thoughts, you need positive, supportive environments.
Unfortunately people who will not speak up out of fear are toxic to company culture. The creative process is immediately destroyed when people need to second guess everything they say or do since it is impossible to know if you are about to say the wrong thing.
If someone can not tolerate cynical and sarcastic comments they need to be removed quickly. This is very different from mean spirited put downs and intentionally hurtful comments.
Stuff like "idk that button looks like it was mad in 2002" or "I swear we have the shittiest parser ever right here". Is good and fine.
"You talk to much", "why did you write it like that? It doesn't make any sense" Are bad.
Notice how the first like says "we" or talks about a specific feature and the others talk about specific people.
Second, you missed the point. It isn't about prohibiting anyone from expressing a negative opinion or sugar-coating things. That's a false dichotomy. It's about not attacking the messenger and not looking to place blame. It also means accepting valid criticism. You can be 100% honest without being an asshole.
Why do so many people (especially in tech) try to link "being a raging asshole" with telling the truth? The two are unrelated.
Blame culture is extremely toxic, but negative feedback can have as much benefit as positive if approached from the correct angle.
I wonder if there is a language barrier but cynical and sarcastic is very very different from putting people down.
Please give evidence supporting that claim. What I've seen is a lot of people are just non-confrontational by nature. They'll do a lot to avoid being in a fight. However, they may want to discuss things even with criticisms. It just becomes harmful to them after the conversational style crosses a certain line. Knowing this, groups like Toyota put a line down that allows the negative information to come in without the personal attacks or circumstances that shut many people down. Continuous innovations resulted that dwarfed the competition doing what you suggest. This is not an isolated incident as many innovative companies create similarly respectful environments where everyone tries to improve, either positively or negatively, the process or products without attacking each other.
That involves the speaker communicating in a way that will be effectively received by the listener, and the listener actively participating to try to hear what the speaker is trying to communicate. So it's context dependent as well.
There very well can be mismatches and miscommunication, but if the goal is effective communication, I think in a lot of cases these can be tolerated and worked around. Takes both sides.
That's a good point. In my classes on it, they called it active listening. Anyone interested in following up on your point should type that phrase into Google to find all kinds of interesting resources appear. Another angle I found interesting was "dang" linking to Principle of Charity:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html
I think that would've stopped a lot of arguments. I was against enforcing it totally at moderation level as I'm for empirical approach where we do dismiss bad information if it clearly fits the pattern. It's good as a general principle in discussions, though, when one's instinct is to think other party is an idiot on specific topic. A combination of active listening, charitable approach, and follow-up questions can make that discussion much better for both parties. I even learn from people who are clearly wrong about an issue when I see what things matter to such people & can fine-tune my solutions or arguments to reach more people. Other times I'm wrong with similar effect of fine-tuning ideas or beliefs as long as I suck it up. :)
> How to compose a successful critical commentary:
> * You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
> * You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
> * You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
> * Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...
Might be too much for every comment response, but good to keep in mind.
I think I've been particularly fascinated by this whole area recently in part because I know it's something I need to improve on. Your point I even learn ... suck it up. :) is spot on.
Thanks again for your thoughtful remarks and contributions. Much appreciated. Off to dig into the Principle of Charity and its references.
Do you think it's healthy to speak to a child in a cynical way? It shouldn't be any different when relating to an adult.
Absolutely not. I don't think I would look to fill my team with people who wish to be spoken to as children.
One speaks to a child with kindness, politeness, and respect. If you're looking to fill your team with people who don't want to be treated in those ways, that sounds to me like a pretty broken team.
> If someone can not tolerate cynical and sarcastic comments they need to be removed quickly. This is very different from mean spirited put downs and intentionally hurtful comments.
If somebody belives that cynical comments are valuable that person needs to be removed immediately. Cynicism is never the most effective position. Anybody who thinks it is is an asshole. If they can't realize this, they'll become a cancer.
Cut out the cancer. Get rid of the cynics. If you hire somebody who says that being cynical is a must, then admit your mistake quickly. Fire them. They're worse than useless. An empty chair is more valuable than such a beast.
If a stranger shouts at me, I'll instantly ignore them. If a person who I don't trust shouts at me, I'll be planning my escape, or possibly shout back. If a person with whom I have a respectful relationship shouts at me, I'll immediately move to deescalate the situation, calm them down, and get us back to the sort of discussion where we can jointly discuss and solve whatever has put them in such pain.
Long-term, large-scale problems require creative team-oriented approaches. Jerks eat away at social and cultural structures that make that possible. A book that covers the details is "The No-Asshole Rule": https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000OT8GV2/
Google's research doesn't conclude that at all. Safe place to speak up is not necessarily a positive, supportive environment.
A positive, supportive environment is one that allows people to speak up, supports people to be critical and allows both success and failures but doesn't perpetuate failures - meaning the initiative or product is separate from the person.
A negative, unsupportive environment generally makes people feel like shit until they quit or are fired, perpetuates failed initiatives out of ego or spite, or otherwise tosses out people along with a failed initiative, etc.
The research is actually about two things, safe place to speak up and empathy.
I think the key is to consider your motivation. Do you want the person to succeed? Do you have their best interests in mind? Assuming you do and your actions are congruent with that, you're being supportive.
If you see a way they can do something better, or want to point out a mistake, you should do that, because you believe it's in their best interest to improve and learn. And you'll want to do that in a way that is receptive to them.
Generally that's going to be a more positive experience than a negative one. I think we'd agree that ripping into them for making a mistake or telling them they're stupid is unlikely to be effective in the long term. I don't know you, but I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt that that's not how you interact anyway :) I'm using it as an example of something I'm sure we've all experienced or at least heard of.
You might argue I'm just reframing it, and yeah, I am, but I do think it's a fair and useful reframe.
Your point about the cost of expressing criticism has validity. Thinking deeply and critically in general takes a lot of effort, and there is a cost in empathy as well. After all, you're now thinking about the problem and the other person. I think the empathy part gets easier over time and can become a habit. In a team setting, once there's a common understanding of support and constructive criticism, you've got some slack to give people the benefit of the doubt in everyday interactions. Think of it as a social lubricant, or insurance that pays out when things aren't going so well.
Think of it from the point of view of the recipient. If you've been working hard on a problem and it's not working out, you might not be feeling so great. Or maybe the work's just fine but your blood sugar's low and you're feeling a little irritated.
Someone comes along and points out problems in your work. You're already at a deficit, so it's extra effort to be empathetic towards them as well. Are they actually being supportive with constructive criticism? Or tearing you down? If that social lubricant hasn't been applied in a while, it might be harder to give them then benefit of the doubt.
No one needs to be malicious or overly sensitive for this to lead to a more negative situation, nor do you need to be overly upbeat and cheery all the time. (I'm certainly not and try to keep myself from being critical of people who are :)
I might have read a lot more into what you wrote than you intended. It's not my intent to misrepresent what you've said, so please feel free to point out anything I may have unfairly assumed or misread.
What do you think?
Where I work all code is reviewed. Like, it has to be reviewed before it gets checked in. Everyone does reviews, everyone has their code reviewed.
One of the people I work with has an amazing talent which is that you go through a review with them, and at the far end you feel enthusiastic and pumped and really keen to throw all your code away and rewrite it from scratch, because they've just pointed out all the incredibly stupid stuff they've done wrong, but they've done it in such a way that you feel really good about all the stuff you've just learned.
Meanwhile I've gone through much less severe reviews from other people that have left me depressed and completely unenthusiastic, even though they thought my code was fine.
Positive, supportive, constructive, and critical: it's totally possible (and I need to learn how to do it).
I think it's the only way you can really criticize usefully. Negative feedback is always difficult to hear, much more so from somebody you don't trust. And trust is built up over time through positive interaction.
I am just back from my nephew's soccer game, the last game of the season. The coach gave each kid a card congratulating them on the great season. Each card had detailed, specific praise, as well as a couple of things they need to work on. It's clear he's been doing this all season: gobs of positive feedback, plus actionable negative feedback. And that's appropriate. What they're doing is mostly right, and what they don't do right they generally notice themselves. The small amount of negative feedback they need to hear is about the things they can't see. And for them to believe they are really missing something, it helps if it comes from somebody they really trust.
I should also mention that there are other ways to get improvement than critique. E.g., there's a technique called appreciative inquiry which is mainly about focusing on the things in a situation that are going well. Or you can just discuss someone's work and ask people what they see in it. Often they'll provide plenty of criticism on their own; you can then agree with the parts they should work on soon. Or you can set up feedback loops so that they experience quality issues sooner.
It's not, by the way, that I'm opposed to critique as a technique. But I think it's a dangerous one, in that a lot of people do it not because it really helps, but because it lets them feel smart and powerful at a colleague's expense.
As a signal of good feedback, I would use the number of adjectives in your feedback. Instead of saying that something is bad, stupid, lazy, you can say that a function has too many lines or too many branches, or that 2 modules are too tightly coupled.
But it's very different when total strangers communicate by text over the internet: sarcastic comments breed aggressive replies, and threads degenerate into arguments very rapidly. I think good conversations online need more restraint and empathic effort than good conversations IRL.
The underdone seems to be "say positive things", not say intelligent or insightful things.
You get your criticism, they get their happy feelings.
Anyway, the trend exists but can just be ignored. There is a huge crowd of people here that appreciate thoughtful, civil counterpoints. I'll add that quite a few are also professionals in industry worth having in one's network for people that use HN that way.
It can be tricky, though, to be critical and sarcastic without using a jeering tone.[1]
Constructive criticism is certainly important in all sorts of contexts. You don't want to be all "Oh that's perfect" when in fact it's fundamentally flawed in some way.
Sarcastic is more a matter of style than substance. "That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard." Which doesn't seem necessary or necessarily positive.
In any case, saying instead: "Oh yeah, that's a fucking brilliant idea" doesn't seem clearly better in my book.