Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacobwilliamroy | Hacker News Reader

> narratives (not facts) are what move people

I actually find this practice really annoying. If I'm on contract cutting together some hack's godawful kung fu action film, the last thing I want to hear is the fiction he tells himself to get to sleep every night. Narrative is what we give to the public when we want to trick them into thinking that buying low-quality shoes will end world poverty. It has no place inside the company. Maybe it's helpful for customers to believe in the fantasy version of your company, but inside, you want people who know what is really going on, and are willing to participate without the use of such tricks.

View on HN

"Here at CinemaX we believe in our people, clarity of message to our stakeholders, employees as well as our customers. That's why we practice radical information theory - we let our employees know what's really going on to embolden maximum participation from our team members, or as we call them, CEOs. Other companies are built on fantasy - that has no place here."

Anything can be turned into a narrative, even your anti-narrative narrative.

Still empty and meaningless and I still feel irritated, and a little sick. I wonder if anyone actually likes to be spoken to in such a way.

Narratives are things that fill in the holes between the facts. You can't make sense of the world without them. We also call them "models" sometimes. Whenever there's ambiguity or not enough evidence, or uncertainty about how something might play out, it's a narrative (informed by the facts, but not a fact itself) that tells you how to proceed.

> If I'm on contract cutting together some hack's godawful kung fu action film, the last thing I want to hear is the fiction he tells himself to get to sleep every night.

Hum, no, that would be a lot of bullshit to accept. But I am sure you'll like to know you are helping creating a godawful kung fu action film. And it's very likely you'll like to hear on how successful the move will be.

I could tell a story around your work about how you are focused on the ultimate bottom line and how your efforts bring that clarity to the people around you, and I bet you'd eat it up.

I need some authenticity. It's clear to me that you just made all that up, because you've never really observed me working. Now I'm suspicious about all your compliments because I know you're willing to invent stories. I barely know you and I already feel uneasy about working with you.

Hypothetically, I think I'd rather not hire you in the first place.

On one hand, I want to treat you as a person with autonomy and empower you to bring your special qualities and skills every day.

On the other hand, I need people who can be managed effectively and know how to be part of a team - that means rolling your eyes quietly during the 'c-suite bullcrap', but also being able to take from it whatever is needed to provide direction in which to get running.

Instead, I'm sensing a 'rock management' vibe from you: you know what rock you don't like if I present it to you, but you can't define what rock you do like - and I don't need the overhead that comes with trying to help you work that out.

Bottom Line: leadership is a two way street. It takes hard work and authenticity on behalf of leaders. It also takes a level of faith, openness and understanding on behalf of the team. If either party doesn't show up, things get much, much harder.

Leadership is not entitled to the trust of their team. It must be earned. There's no reason for people to put themselves on the line for leadership that, statistically, will most likely not reciprocate.

Also, the paragraph about "rock management" was entirely unjustified and un-called-for. You appear to have confused GP with someone else.

Speaking factually, not hypothetically, you want me on your team.

I'm the guy who split his check three ways and raided dumpsters for food, just to make sure everyone got paid. As a private contractor, I have more bosses than I know what to do with: 9 clients at the moment, 7 repeat offenders; with each and every single one of them I don't leave a discussion until I have received a concrete request, established a delivery schedule, and read the whole plan back to the client to reassure everyone that their direction has been received exactly as they want it. If a client comes up and says "I want you to go into overdrive" I am not leaving until he or she explains what is really wanted: for me to produce a rush-ordered video before the end of the month, on top of the two I already have in the pipeline.

And I am also lucid enough to know without being told, when my feedback is wanted, and when my colleague just wants me to keep my mouth shut and listen to him or her talk about the Learning Annex book he or she was reading yesterday.

Fyi- you just proved the opposing view by selling yourself with a great story.

Conclusion: Stories work when they feel authentic and don't suck. That's why all those movies have all those random AA scenes. It's an easy cop out for injecting "this sh-t's real" vibe in order not to lose the viewers to the lagging plot.

What happens when I sell something that was never for sale? Does that mean I get to keep myself, and the thing it sold for¿

Not exactly sure why this is relevant or where you wanted to take this, but ok:

in that case you didn't sell anything. You created scarcity because you convinced someone that there are not many like you. You simply created desire in the other person which stays unmet in that moment because, as you say, you weren't for sale. He/she realizes that they desire the traits you have in who they're looking for, so they try to find someone like you elsewhere.

the flipside would be: some person next to you on a plane... incidentally and unintentionally, and in a way that doesn't annoy you, a relaxed casual no-bs conversation starts quietly between you two. At some point they drift into talking about something they're building. By the end, randomly, you feel like this is someone you would like to work with/for. Even though your skills turn out to be relevant, they're not hiring.

Some people are difficult, true. And a lot of leadership also depends on the chemistry between individuals. Some people just don't get along and that's fine, we all think in different way. But you shouldn't take disillusionment with BS as a sign of uncooperation. Sure in some cases you should just cut your losses and move on, but I feel you have to be in touch with reality in all circumstances.

If I, as a manager, would see someone rolling their eyes during a 'c-suite bullcrap' presentation I'd later ask them what's wrong and try to understand their point of view (unless there was an obvious reason). That is the two-way street you talk about, but don't see you strongly conveying. Being open to feedback, even the negative kind, is when you know you can truly trust your leaders.

Based on that you can reasses is there discrepancy between words and actions, or is the person just generally very anti-authority and doesn't like their higher ups no matter what. Either way you build up a rapport and see if you can turn things around in both cases, but if the person is being unreasonable I guess you just should cut your losses.

Narratives don't need to be bullshit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com