Hacker News Reader

Comment by krono | Hacker News Reader

Dutch directness. We'll tell you that new suit you just purchased and are extremely excited about makes you look like a clown. We'll tell a higher-up why his new plan is stupid and that we're not very excited to waste our time on it, a complete stranger might walk up to you and tell you out in the open that your fly is down, you zip it up and no one will think anything of it.

It's accepted, it's respected, and it's even expected. Unfortunately, more often than not, it's also not at all appreciated by people from foreign cultures and we have to be really careful with our words.

View on HN

I'm from the US and have a bunch of Dutch in-laws that also happen to be quite successful. The first time I met them was on a work trip to Apeldoorn. I brought my wife and youngster and we went to stay with them for a long weekend in Amsterdam.

I couldn't figure out what was going on, because this tendency you describe was on full display right from the beginning. They invited us into their home then started giving us shit as soon as we walked in the front door. I thought they were just snobs and wanted to say fuck your stupid staircases and stroopwafel ain't shit (lying of course), but held my tongue because it wasn't my family. My wife on the other hand wasn't as restrained and gave it right back. Hearing Oom Rob laugh at her precision strikes made it all clear. We got along great after that and really had a fantastic time.

For what it's worth, I find Russians are expert at this as well.

That's an interesting observation, that russians and dutch share this trait. I agree but think the russians often deliver their insults in a bit more veiled manner. They will use irony and sarcasm, making you have to figure out if you were just insulted or not. The dutch are more brute-force insulting. I enjoy being roasted by both ;)

Totally agree on all points.

That is beautiful haha

They had your best interests at heart even if it might not have come across that way. I'm glad you figured that out back then and the relation didn't turn sour!

I personally haven't met many Russians, but many Romanians seem to share this trait as well

as a Romanian, I feel you

On the other hand I started to appreciate way more the way the English do it once I moved there for a while and worked closely with them - they tell you what's wrong, but really nuanced and careful as to not openly offend. But it takes a bit of practice and skill to understand what's actually being said, and once you have the skill and understanding, you can correct things without openly offending anybody.

Oh yes, it's a bit like a dance sometimes. While fun, it does feel inefficient and inconvenient

Absolutely.

Haha, what's wrong with Dutch staircases?

Given that the OP was

> stay with them for a long weekend in Amsterdam.

I guess he got a firsthand experience of the famously steep and narrow Amsterdam staircases.

Ha OK, if it's Amsterdam-specific then I just haven't climbed that many Amsterdam staircases it seems.

You got it! :) We were staying in a third floor bedroom and the staircase to get there was wild, especially with a toddler lol

Ah, the mythical "culture X is very direct".

Unless someone has real data on this, I'll keep to my anecdote of having worked with dozens and dozens of people from all over Europe and the Americas, and I can count with one hand how many people were actually productively direct and not just rude and immature.

There are linguists who quantify and measure this, of whom the most prominent is Deborah Tannen:

http://www.deborahtannen.com/scholarly-articles

("Prominent" here meaning "writes popular books as well as academic ones".)

One of the things that jumps out is that "culture X" is rarely as broad as an entire country (except perhaps a microscopic one). There are always cultures within the country, defined by gender, age, religion, wealth, location, ethnic heritage, etc etc etc.

There genuinely are cultural groups who will speak less directly ("Would you mind passing the salt?") and those who will speak more directly ("Pass the salt.") It's not just more-and-less; you still have to hit the correct level for the specific instance.

Tannen is perhaps most famous for writing about the different styles that men and women use (in different groups; it's very much taught by culture, not biology). I found it immensely helpful for understanding not just what women say but also what I say. I highly recommend her books.

I'm sorry I don't have direct links to scholarly articles that provide exactly what you're looking for, but that's where I'd start looking for them. It's entirely possible that they exist -- but they almost certainly don't come down to "The Dutch are more direct."

This isn't a pissing contest, it's simply the social standard here which sometimes accidentally leaks out to people who do not appreciate it, or wrongly interpret it as rudeness.

For us as practitioners of this behaviour, intended rudeness is actually easy enough to spot.

The point is that there are many cultures of which people claim "they are so direct". I've heard it said about Bangladeshis and Israelis too.

It may be true. A significant part of the world may be outside the "always lie to avoid offense" way of conducing yourself.

I would also say that "being direct" and "saying difficult things" are often not be the same. The former may just be "saying whatever pops into your head" whereas the latter is much more carefully considered.

> This isn't a pissing contest, it's simply the social standard here which sometimes accidentally leaks out to people who do not appreciate it, or wrongly interpret it as rudeness.

Well, as in any other country: there exists rude people in The Netherlands as well ;)

So, the next time when someone says "Oh boy, I talked to this Dutch... he was rude!", what are the chances of that Dutch being a) straightforward, b) rude, or c) both?. I find c) happens most of the time.

Oh yes plenty of rudeness to go around here. And I get what you mean, there's a perfect example in one of the other comments[1] of what can happen when the true intent is unclear.

Although not always easy, not letting yourself feel offended, assuming positive intent, and just walking away with a smile is a guaranteed win under most circumstances.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27190514

The book The Culture Map goes through that and lot of other "Culture X is more Y than Z" in a readable level of detail.

Are you sure you were in the proper position to define rude, mature, or productive? I don't mean this as a diss but those are all defined by either implicit or explicit standards or goals.

Australians and Israelis can also be pretty direct. In the USA I always had the impression that the east coast (specifically NYC) is more direct than what you find on the west coast.

It seems much better to say outright that you think something is stupid vs. thinking it's stupid and pretending it's not. In cultures where it's common people can take it, in cultures where it's not common you're perceived to be an offensive jerk.

Agreed. West coast snowflakes get bent out of shape at the least hint of directness, honesty (esp. about their shit startup ideas) and criticism.

I've also found Germans to be pretty straight shooters. On a scale of Duty to Californian, their def. closer to Dutch.

Somehow neutral directness of truth always gets mixed up as being equal to name-calling (e.g. "snowflakes"), but that isn't about bringing clarity at all; it's just attempting to lower another person or group in order to prop oneself up. The difference in language is subtle but they serve very different purposes.

"Directness" is an excuse that I sometimes hear to justify aggressive or rude behaviour, but it's possible to be direct in a polite manner. "This new plan is stupid" is rude, whereas "I'm frustrated about this new plan, it won't work because X" is assertive without being rude.

I disagree that your alternative is assertive, and that the former is inherently rude. It's only rude depending on each person's social communication expectations. Otherwise, it's an assertive statement, and like any other, it could seem rude. I find it rude when people are passive aggressive, but they might feel like it's polite.

"The new plan is stupid" is rude because it's not actionable. It doesn't say what specifically is wrong, why it's wrong, or how it could be better. The older I get the less tolerant I am of people simply venting or breathing out generalised criticism that doesn't help us navigate to a better place.

I expect people to bring criticism, but I expect them to do so constructively if they want to be listened to. "This plan is unworkable because X but if we did Y instead that would lead to Z which would work much better," is actually helpful. "This plan is stupid," isn't.

I am Dutch and this does not at all reflect my experience. I'd be curious to see some real data on this phenomenon.

We'll tell a higher-up why his new plan is stupid and that we're not very excited to waste our time it

I'm curious how this scales. In your culture, how do you deal with a thousand people in a company feeling comfortable telling the CEO how wrong he is? What happens when 500 people think one way and 500 think the other?

There are nuances to it. The criticism needs to be constructive and concrete. Saying “the new plan is stupid” without a coherent argument for why it is stupid won’t be listened to. If you have a credible, coherent argument you will be taken seriously by the CEO. However, offsetting this is the reality that in many parts of Europe that work like this there is a class consciousness — what will be taken seriously often needs to be on matters deemed appropriate to your perceived knowledge and ability. They don’t automatically trust that you have any idea of what you are talking about. It generally isn’t like voting on “rightness” or “wrongness”, it is about building a consensus on the true state of the world.

Lastly, you need to moderate your feedback because sometimes the CEO can take you too seriously! If you just lay out a coherent argument that something is stupid, it can look very dire to the CEO. Offering a thoughtful and slightly more optimistic alternative perspective can help a lot. I had to learn that I was unduly stressing CEOs in these situations, because they took the negative feedback seriously without proactively offering a counter-balancing optimistic scenario when that existed. The best approach is “this is won’t work but I have an idea”.

Even in cultures where this is considered normal, most people don’t do it, or don’t do it well. Constructive no-bullshit feedback is genuinely valued by CEOs at large companies. Being that person, which I naturally am, has been very high leverage across many large companies in my experience.

It depends on the subject, how the CEO is known to react (perhaps the CEO is not from here), a trainee might hold back a little bit more, and more such factors do of course play a role.

Our organisational structures are generally just as flat as our landscape, which might help promote more opportunities for people to speak their minds to upper management. I don't have data on this though.

A distant relative of mine always said his business would have never started making money if it weren't for the Polish ladies who worked in his factory complaining so much about their work areas. He had his lunch in the general cafeteria together with everyone else whenever he could, and that is not uncommon here.

Edit: We also have a concept called "medezeggenschapsraad" or "ondernemingsraad" (depending on context), which is a kind of employee panel with decision making power that businesses of 50 employees and up are required to have. Unsure if this is unique to the Netherlands though.

Not Dutch, but I imagine the CEO directly tells the 500 people who disagree to piss off.

If 1000 people want to tell the CEO he is wrong, he'd better listen.

If there is a choice to be made, he should make it, explain it, and live it.

I guess it promotes CEOs that are actually right more often than not

That assumes that the crowd is usually right. That's not my experience.

Being free to say what you think does not mean CEO will submissively follow all suggestions.

I think that's great and very interesting.

Unfortunately in many western cultures, criticizing is often synonym to mocking/shaming.

So if you are being honest but with a positive intent, people will still feel attacked because it's what the situation would mean in their own culture.

> Dutch directness.

This reminds of Edsger W. Dijkstra.

> "I don't know how many of you have ever met Dijkstra, but you probably know that arrogance in computer science is measured in nano-Dijkstras." -- Alan Kay

> It's accepted, it's respected, and it's even expected.

"I'm not rude, I just tell it like it is"

it's only rude if you're rubbing it in their face, rather than trying to inform them in a down to earth way.

And that's a (culturally induced) opinion :)

"We'll tell a higher-up why his new plan is stupid and that we're not very excited to waste our time on it"

There's a difference between 'what my instinct is' and 'thoughtful communication'.

It's possible in these kinds of situations that 'the plan is objectively dumb' and surely therefore someone might not be interested ... but I've seen more often than not people not really understand why something is initiated, what the objectives are etc. and just make narrow assumptions with belligerance, which they believe is 'being direct'. It's 'direct' in a way, in that it's a 'direct articulation of a narrow set of assumptions' - but that doesn't make it good or professional.

"This is dumb, I don't want to work on it" is surely direct, but it's also essentially an immature and unprofessional way of communicating.

More appropriately it would be: "I don't think this plan will achieve the understanding I have of the objectives for this, this and this reason, but here are some alterations that might work" - or "Technically, I don't think this will work because of this reason, but I don't understand what the non-technical objectives are so my feedback is limited to that scope" - or "I think these areas are more risky than implied, but these areas will work" or better "This won't work for these reasons, but fill us in on the strategic objectives and we can fill in the blanks with something that will, if we can".

I personally appreciate 'directness' a lot, but a lot of people misunderstand that to be 'what I think off the top of my head without trying to actually address the issue'.

And yest, there's way too much sensitivity around criticism going on. Legit criticism needs to be allowed. It's also really hard for some people to separate themselves form their critique or their work and so communications sometimes gets mangled on both sides.

Couldn't agree more. In my experience, self-proclaimed direct people are often just violent communicators.

George Carlin said, "Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?".

I think this thought applies to directedness as well.

I don't like your alternatives, because they are not the same thing. They also use too many words and assume you have mythical improvement.

But also, "this is dumb" is insulting. It is not direct, it it's just insult with 0 information.

"This won't work" or "this will cause issues" or "this is complicated" would be better equivalents, because they actuality hint to what your issue is and wont insult. The management, if it listens and have good reasons is then fully able to modify their own plan or stick with it while noting objections. They are also fully able to explain why they are doing it is objection seem to miss the mark.

Floor-level employees voicing discontent in only a few words to a director who just happened to walk past their station, is still infinitely more information than when they had kept their mouths shut and eyes down.

It's then up to that director to hear them out and find out what their concerns are really all about. Perhaps they should be given a bit more information, so they can also see the bigger picture and how it'll benefit them too.

Some really high leverage opportunities can come out of this.

Yes, it will land you in deep trouble with most Asian cultures. They may glower and not say anything, but you can expect that mentally, they would have crossed you off. This is unfortunately the reality.

Even if this is really true, does this actually translate to any measurable metric of success in the society? I'm not even comparing to the US, but to even the neighboring countries. It's not like I'm driving a Dutch car or sitting in a Dutch sofa..

Between Royal Dutch Shell (one of the world's biggest oil companies), LyondellBasell (one of the biggest petrochemical companies), and LDC (one of the biggest agriculture trading companies) you're almost certainly driving a car made with Dutch materials and sitting on a sofa made with Dutch-traded cotton fabric.

And ASML, biggest supplier of photolithography systems, which is probably involved with most computer chips you'll find.

Some aspects:

1. The Dutch were the pre-eminent traders in Asia after England.

2. Today, there are globally recognized Dutch brands like Shell, Philips, Unilever, and so on.

3. Dutch computer science has contributed to the advancement of technology in both theory and practice. Two representatives of those sides are Edsger W. Dijkstra and Guido Van Rossum. You may not be sitting on a Dutch sofa, but my money is on the that you do code in Python, which was developed at the Stichting Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, now CWI.

4. Even in art, Netherlands has contributed a huge number of painters like Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh, etc

For perspective : the population of Netherlands is 17 million, which is 1/20th that of the US.

Despite such stereotypes as "going Dutch" etc., the Dutch have contributed enormously to the modern world.

This is such a weird question, surely you’re aware of the absolutely staggering amount of confounding factors that must exist at this scale which means the usefulness this trait might not be easily measured despite having utility? Particularly with such simplistic measures of “successful society”.

the only things that exist are those that are measurable, didn't you know?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com