Hacker News Reader

Comment by rafaelero | Hacker News Reader

It's a bit distressing how organizations try so hard to keep a good reputation all the time. I mean, is it really that bad to publically admit that you are composed of people with questionable morals? For example, in the first company I used to work, I was always bitching about how things could improve. I got fired because I was "bringing the moral down" and was "working against the company". I could see why they would think that, but in my mind this kind of loyalty that is required is very immature: very good things arise from conflict, why would you keep that from coming? Or maybe I am being naive and a good reputation is much more important than everything else. I don't know.

View on HN

I obviously don't know your situation, but there's a difference between giving useful feedback and just constantly bitching about everything. You also have to consider that maybe you didn't have the full picture, and there actually was a good reason for what was being done, even though that would be a management failure to not convey why something needed to be done.

I was always ready to be part of the solution, so I don't think I was being empty when complaining about things. But I have to add that I wasn't maximizing for appearing polite. I never cross the line of not being respectful, though.

Indeed, the management could have a different idea of what was an ideal direction. I just happened to disagree. It was a very small company, so I don't think I had a lot of different information. But even if that was the case, this was a good opportunity to have a perhaps heated but interesting discussion.

> I just happened to disagree.

Did you continue to disagree after the issue had been aired and a decision had been made? That could definitely end up in the territory you describe.

During these conversations, there were never clear signs that the "decision was made and the path was chosen". My concerns were usually replied with "huh, ok". Therefore, I continually brought it up, since it was my interpretation that people were not convinced yet.

Honestly it sounds likely that management didn't handle this well, but possibly you pushed things further than you should have because you hadn't received a clear (to you) signal to stop.

People don't know how to disagree anymore. It's disheartening, because I like a good disagreement and the deep debates that can come out of them ... that is, as long as the conversation is void of emotional temper-tantrums (and in a lot of cases these days, fear of cancel-culture.)

What I find interesting is that Dale Carnegie published How to Win Friends and Influence People in 1936 covering this topic. Maybe that was the "beginning of the trend"... not really sure.

On the internet, anyone can drop in and out of any conversation they want. Combine that concept with anonymity/the ability to disparage people you will never meet, and you've got a recipe for disagreements starting from positions of extreme toxicity.

I agree with you, but this is where it's worth pointing out that really ugly conversations occur on Facebook between people who are clearly identifiable and in many cases acquaintances.

There needs to be trust for this. And there is always a power dynamic at play. Manager to employee. Or even employee to employee where one will eventually get promoted above the other.

Its actually really hard to agree to disagree. You need to have a situation where each person has the same propensity to concede an argument. Like a code review - just do what the other person suggests instead of arguing about it if it really doesn’t matter that much.

Idk if people ever disagreed politely? After all they had wars in the past. And feuds. And drunken brawls.

Founders, executives and managers are all emotional beings. They can only handle so much criticism, regardless of if it is the right criticism they need to hear.

Imagine giving a speech to your team, and there is one employee who is rolling their eyes and smirking at things you say, and who you know disagrees with you. It’s very difficult to block out - and their are few who can handle that. You may be 100% onboard after a heated discussion and not making any outward gestures, but your mere presence will leave the person imagining you are rolling your eyes. And this festers.

You need to find a way to put yourself in their shoes and really feel what it’s like to have someone very critical of things around.

Yea, reputation is everything and you should never be completely open and it’s why people water down everything they say and end up kissing ass.

Even people who say they can take any criticism can’t. This is the best lesson you can learn.

Not exactly the same as orgs but it reminds me of the very very difficult skill of "criticizing the king". It's possible, but it requires a lot of finesse and skill, and even then you might get beheaded.

And it goes without saying, overtly criticizing the king is pretty obviously a bad idea.

I guess you are right. After that experience, I was very cautious to work for another company, because I find it very difficult to keep my mouth shut. I love to discuss how things are wrong and how I had an idea of how to improve things. Now, I am building my own company and will try to walk that walk when bringing my own employees.

Critique is good but depends on whether it is constructive or not constructive.

And that’s a bit of a subjective call

Maybe I have a minority opinion, but critique does not always need to be constructive.

What would you say the purpose or goal is of unconstructive critique?

Introspection.

One example would be a food critic. They give an honest description of a restaurant so readers can decide if they want to go there. The article doesn't need to be helpful for the restaurant.

But I can't think of an example where a company keeps unconstructive critics on the payroll.

Food critic is a third party. If the description is honest and contains reasoning it can be constructive to readers (potential/current customer(s) and/or the restaurant(s)). Something along the line of "sucked, bad taste" contains no substance whereas "food was burned and flavor X and Y was a bad combination" does contain substance.

Because organizations are composed of people with questionable morals they'll happily eat the weak by using public admissions of culpability to tank competitors or just randos for the lulz if nothing else.

Because the reaction to organizations that don't is extremely harsh and any small incident can blow dramatically out of proportion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com