Hacker News Reader

Comment by hugh3 | Hacker News Reader

I don't care how good you are, how good you think you are, or how lucky you think I am to be working with you, the tone of this "list of rules" comes across as rude, and being rude to your underlings just isn't a good way to get them to work effectively (at least not in most cases).

The actual suggestions are pretty reasonable, though. As a fun exercise, you could rewrite this list so it sounds helpful and polite rather than rude and egotistical.

I've been around academia for long enough to have met a lot of really first-rate minds who are polite and humble, and a lot of second-rate minds who are rude and arrogant. And maybe I've met some first-rate minds who are rude and arrogant as well, but I haven't noticed because I've mentally sorted them into the "overcompensating second-rater" category.

tl;dr: Don't be a cunt.

View on HN

> As a fun exercise, you could rewrite this list so it sounds helpful and polite rather than rude and egotistical.

Okay:

-----

Hi! I bet you're super nervous about meeting me, but please don't be -- I'm just a big dork. And don't take it personally if I'm terse or appear impatient with you. 99% of my time is spent in meetings, so it's extremely helpful if we both skip straight to the point .. or "cut the bullshit", as my grandmother used to say. Here are some other tips:

If you have bad news, please just come right out and tell me immediately. I promise I won't blame the messenger, and I might even know a quick fix. If we have a regularly-scheduled meeting, don't wait for it; interrupt me with time-critical issues. Also, don't be afraid to ask questions or disagree with me; I promise I won't get upset. If, post-meeting, you find yourself regretting not having spoken up or asked a question, come right back and correct that problem. I'm a big follower of the philosophy that there are no stupid questions.

I've found note-taking to be extremely fruitful. Please bring a pen and paper anytime you meet with me; it impresses the heck out of me when someone catches everything the first time and I don't have to repeat myself.

If you have an appointment with me, and I'm in another meeting, go right ahead and interrupt it. Your time is important, too. But be prepared for someone to do this if our meeting runs late.

Often, there's only about five minutes of real content in a meeting. If so, there's no need to stretch it out. I appreciate such micro-meetings. You can foster them by identifying in advance what decision needs to be made and sending it around in advance. And don't be surprised if I make everyone stand.

I don't really like long emails. Instead, consider a micro-meeting, and set an agenda if it's a complicated issue. Then stick to that agenda!

Micro-update emails are great, though. I've found them to be effective for confirming commitments and mutual understanding. This is especially true after a meeting: It's super-helpful to get a (brief!) list of your agreed-upon commitment echoed back to me. I don't always respond to such messages, but I read every one. Oh, and to save time, please skip the greetings, "thank you"s, etc. (You'd be surprised how much time this saves on my phone's "message preview" screen.)

Finally, a few quickies:

* Instead of "It's being worked on", tell me when you expect it will be done. That's what I really want to know.

* List all the options, and tell me which you recommend. This is especially important if you come to me with a problem -- but if you don't have a solution yet, skip this step rather than delaying the news.

* Economic analyses are the best supporting arguments. (I insist on them when money is involved.)

* Don't worry about making reports for me, but if you do, check out the spreadsheets I've made and try to copy their design.

* Don't send me long documents. (Yes, I realize the irony.)

-----

You might think all the "please"s and other friendly words make my version too fluffy, but it's actually about 500 words shorter than the original.

Nice job. I like the rewrite 100 times better. I could actually see myself using something like this, but wouldn't consider the original.

This is great!

This is actually much better. More appealing on practically every level.

I think it comes off as weak. I don't want suggestions if they are really orders.

An order is merely a suggestion backed up by a penalty for failing to comply. You always have the "option" of disobeying orders. The difference between phrasing things as suggestions instead of orders is you sound like someone people want to work with instead of someone who needs to "check your ego at the door".

I disagree. If someone says they would prefer I take notes, I will say "no thanks, it gets in the way of my listening." If they say "you must take notes - it's part of the job". I will do it, and suffer the extra brain-load (possibly while looking for a new job).

If someone means "you must" and says "you might think about", then it's just weak. It frustrates everyone.

"You might think about" is weak. "I'll be impressed" is pretty clear. Impressing your boss is part of your job.

What's ambiguous about "please bring a pen and paper any time you meet with me"?

It's softened by "I've found note taking to be fruitful." Perhaps that's true for the author. I have found it to be a distraction.

If you're going to give me arbitrary orders, do it. Don't try to soften it with some meaningless explanation.

I agree that it changes the meaning, but I think it changes it for the better. I mean, if you can honestly do your job and never ask this guy the same question twice without taking notes, then it really is a suggestion. If he's trying to solve the problem of people asking him things twice, then there's no obvious problem with you not taking notes if you still meet that requirement.

Do we really need to soften everything? Are our egos so fragile that we can't take a little bluntness - as long as it's genuine and well-intentioned?

I find your version to be much, much weaker than the original. In many parts, the motivation of the writer is so obfuscated as to make the list little more than a vague and friendly pep talk.

Note taking - friendly productivity tip, or career-defining moment?

Interrupting a meeting the boss is in - does he really want me to do that, or was he just trying to sound friendly and approachable?

I think the biggest difference is that the original expects excellence, and implies penalties for not living up to it - while your rewritten version expects mediocrity, and implies rewards for rising above.

To each his own - I prefer the original, I find your version to be more patronizing, and somewhat hypocritical in claiming to "cut the bullshit". Many others will prefer your version. I guess the real trick is coming up with a version that will make everyone happy, while keeping the impact of the original.

My goal in writing that was to illustrate the opposite of the original. The correct approach is probably somewhere in the middle.

> Do we really need to soften everything?

It sounds like you're trying to create a strawman. No, we needn't soften everything. But we should probably soften some things. One could just as well ask, do we really need to be brusque 100% of the time?

> Are our egos so fragile that we can't take a little bluntness

Again, I'm not talking about "a little" -- reading between the lines, I can't help but wonder if the boss is like this all the time, if his reign is so brittle that he can't suffer a dash of kindness even in the memo that provides his first impression to new employees.

One of the hardest parts of leadership is knowing when to be harsh and when to let up.

No, we don't need to soften everything. We don't need to be rude about everything, either. What, specifically, so "much, much weaker than the original?

Note taking - friendly productivity tip, or career-defining moment?

Implying you'll be unimpressed if they make you repeat yourself is plenty forceful.

Interrupting a meeting the boss is in - does he really want me to do that, or was he just trying to sound friendly and approachable?

There's nothing more forceful about the way that was phrased in the original list, the only reason it doesn't sound friendly and approachable there is because the rest of the list is the opposite of friendly and approachable. (In fact, I have no problem with the way that was phrased in the original and might well have kept that.)

The original does not expect excellence, the original sounds like it's raising all these penalties because it's expecting you to be full of all the listed bullshit. I agree that the rewritten version expects mediocrity, but I would argue that that makes it sound reasonable, and that the author would be duly impressed by excellence.

I don't believe it sounds patronizing, it merely sounds reasonable.

How is it hypocritical in claiming to "cut the bullshit"? Keep in mind it's shorter than the original.

The impact of the original is to make a significant portion of readers not want to work with him.

In my humble opinion, he should take heed of his own #12: "...Check your ego at the door: I'm only interested in reaching the best, most elegant solution — I don't care if it's your idea or mine." The best solution for increasing productivity and effectiveness by cutting bullshit is to make reasonable requests to cut bullshit in a friendly way that people will listen to, not make people want to avoid working with you and decrease bullshit as a side-effect.

Truly excellent. Well done.

Your version is nice. You missed a point. The original sets the tone. The tone is blunt and to the point. The boss wants everyone to speak like that.

Conditional clauses are harder to parse. Sentence fragments are easy. Write like a Neandathal, people will read every word.

Instructions are simple. Anyone can guess the context. Explaining context forces readers to visualize, detracting from the message.

Your one is nicer. People won't every word. That's the point.

Now, I would never advise doing this if you didn't have the authority to do so. And it would pay to be extra-super-nice when you weren't in a "decision making" meeting, so people didn't think you were an evil robot. But the rule list does drive in some important points in a very effective way.

I like to read things written by people with mental disorders. Schizophrenic writing is particularly fun. This style reminds me of quite a few disorders. That isn't really a good thing.

If you talk to people like they're morons who can't process more complex sentences, I don't think that really sets a good tone - the original list to me sounds very much like "here is a list of shit that I expect you to pull, which I'm committing to paper so I can yell at you the first time you do any of it". Note that I hold this belief to be true regardless of whether or not they are actually morons who can't process more complex sentences.

> Now, I would never advise doing this if you didn't have the authority to do so.

If a communication style is only acceptable if you have the "authority to do so" then I think that is a good indicator that it is rude.

Short fragments are fine (if brusque) for instructions, but can be maddening to read if it's trying to put forward a complex argument. It's a bunch of disconnected arguments, all being barked out at once; which is fine if you can easily follow the thread (in the case of simple instructions). But otherwise you have to wonder if and how they are connected in the speaker's head.

As for being rude, telling people what to do and how to do it is something I find rude. But that's something that a boss can get away with.

I like the original more than the polite version, though. It gets the point across loud and clear. I guess that's not really important if everyone is already on the same page, but if they aren't then it's essential in a workplace.

Did you say "People won't every word" on purpose just to make a point that didn't work on me? :/

is it so necessary to be so polite and nice - considering its not a kindergarden we are running here,

> tl;dr: Don't be a cunt.

This is interesting. Because my initial though was; "who is this guy, and how the fuck do I go work for him?".

I liked this; simple and clear rules that attempt to force "underlings" (who are obviously historically supposed to ass-kiss) to think critically, force time with the boss, advocate their experience, stand their ground - and so on.

Perhaps this was couched in a fairly direct tone; but then I suppose that is what I like :) Others I can understand wanting it presented in a different way.

But this is definitely the attitude to give your employees.

I love my job, and my boss is awesome. And I can advocate my ideas sometimes. But I often feel bad speaking up - for example his advertising prose is not very good at all, and I have been trying to tell him that politely for the last year (still not got the hint, and this is why having a boss as a friend is a bad move!). But I can't change it when he gives it to me to put on the site... (edit; and, uh, the point I am making here is that as awesome a boss he is, he doesn't give me the feeling I can go to that level of criticism)

I'd love to think that when I become a "boss" I'd be able to have this sort of attitude - the sort that says "yes I make decisions, but if you think I am being an idiot, and can express why then sodding well tell me :)". But I suspect many bosses think like that, and most don't manage it. Fingers crossed huh?

agreed! Being direct = generally efficient

I'd love to work for someone like this if ... they lived up to their side of the implicit bargain.

I have had bosses who made demands of this sort but were stunningly, despicably unworthy of them.

I wonder what exactly is the breakdown between "demand exactness but doesn't provide it" and "demand exactness and does..."?

Yes.. that's the thing of course. And I suspect that the majority of people that say the things in the email the OP posted are... basically assholes.

However some aren't - and for me they are the people I want to work for and learn from.

As I said; Ideally I'd love to be that sort of person. Unfortunately I have this horrible suspicion that most people feel that way - and in reality are not at all like that.

I keep myself going on the hope that because I have figured out this irony I might not fall into it.. (and, yes, I appreciate the extra irony there).

I just hope that when my first underling tells me I am a dick I don't laugh at him.

Perhaps this was couched in a fairly direct tone; but then I suppose that is what I like

I like directness too. But this is also the oldest excuse in the book to cover up being an asshole. "Don't like how I call you a fucking moron? I'm just being direct. Quit being so sensitive!"

If I'm honest from the sounds of it this guy just gave out the standard sheet to anyone her interacted with - which is a bit of a douche move.

This attitude is the right one. But it must be pitched to the employee in the right way. This format synced with what I like, but I see others don't feel the same way.

If this isn't an ego-driven thing it rocks. If it is then it is more "meh". I guess context is everything.

This attitude is the right one.

No, it's not. You have to learn to read between the lines. The things he's saying aren't necessarily wrong. It's the attitude he's saying them with. It's very much a "Here's the way things are going to be. Don't like it? Tough." attitude.

Ok, so maybe you agree 100% with everything on here. What do you think is going to happen when you don't agree with something, and for valid reasons?

That's what I mean by context - if he is giving me this sheet after recognising the type of person I am, awesome. If he is handing them to everyone indiscriminately, uh oh.

If I'm being a fucking moron (it happens to us all) I'd rather hear it like that than couched in a half-hour of newspeak.

An asshole who gets things done is infinitely better than a friendly person who is utterly worthless.

That's a bit like saying a car with a flat tire is better than a car with a dead engine. Sure, one might get you a little bit further than the other, but neither one will get you very far regardless.

Know what's better? A person who is respectful (albeit not always popular) and gets things done.

I've seen far more projects pushed to a successful completion by assholes than "nice" people, so either assholes are statistically much more productive (making your "better" person basically irrelevant) or we have a vastly differing definition of "asshole".

I might agree about the better person being basically irrelevant, but I've seen a lot of projects run into the ground by assholes - I guess my basic point is that being an asshole is only weakly positively correlated with being a competent manager.

I disagree. Assholes can potentially do a lot more damage than someone who's merely worthless.

An asshole who gets things done has to work on their own.

That's interesting, my initial thought was; "who is this guy, and how the fuck do I get to the position (s)he's in?".

For the rest of it, my reaction was the same as yours. Simple rules simply rules.

Different people are different. Its not particularly profound. What is useful about this list, is that it establishes some boundaries in a working relationship. Establishing those boundaries are essential.

If you are an employee it is less stressful to know very clearly what your supervisor expects, and even if they are an asshole, knowing the kind of asshole is a good thing vs trying to discover it by bumping into various traps.

Larry Bossidy's book on execution [1] has some good discussion about how clear roles, and clear communication structures, are critical to getting things done in a timely way. When you are struggling to keep three or four different potential solutions to your current problem straight, if your peers are doing the same, its impractical to think your manager will be jugging the n x m set of potentials. Rather they are balancing the relationship of what everyone in their group is working on against things being delivered and things needed in peer groups.

This 17 rule missive in the blog posting reads like someone externalizing their tools for maximizing the important signals out of all the possible signals they are getting input on. I don't think it sounds 'rude' I think it sounds 'blunt.' The difference for me being that rude implies negative judgment and blunt implies negative tact.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/dp/0609610570/

I don't interpret these as rude and I quite like the tone. You know exactly where you stand and how to act - leaving the little time you have to do the job well. No messing around and no feeling your way into a relationship. I'm printing this out for my wall.

The world of academia is not under the same pressures as the business world where there are a completely different set of forces at work. I'm not sure thats a great comparison.

> [I personally think that] the tone of this "list of rules" comes across as rude

> I've been around academia for long enough

I wonder if these two things are linked. I'd love to receive a list like this from someone I'm meant to be interacting with - it shows me they're serious about the work rather than serious about egos.

+1 Couldn't have said it better.

I get the point of being focused but if anyone handed me this before a bigwig meeting I'd lose all respect and think they were arseholes straight off.

"7. Stand during micro-meetings."

Fuck off!

Number 7 is a great enforcement of 6. Standing for less than 5 minutes shouldn't be a problem for anyone without a medical issue, which would surely not fall under this "rule"

Standing during meetings is hugely helpful for keeping things moving. This is a common, but not common enough strategy.

I also like these rules, a lot. I've had bosses who used similar rules; they seemed to work pretty well.

The tone doesn't bother me. I've been a boss, too, and sometimes you really do have to get people's attention with a 2x4---especially when dealing with young whippersnapper subordinates who have a high opinion of their own capabilities [I should know; I used to be one of those].

How would you go about setting one of those young whippersnappers in their place?

I honestly think I am beginning to become one at my current job and need a reality check. I am also curious to hear wisdom from someone who has been through it. :)

> How would you go about setting one of those young whippersnappers in their place?

I've found it's best not to try.

First off, as to any given issue, the Young Whippersnapper might well be right.

Second, I seem to get best results by treating the YW with patience and respect---regardless whether I think he (or she) is right---and by trying to help him fill in whatever gaps I think he has in his knowledge, so he do a better job next time.

(In a given case, the knowledge might relate to how the YW can be a better team player.)

By no means should a boss tolerate poor performance forever, but pretty much everyone needs training.

@loungin, it occurs to me I might not have responded to what you were really asking. Some suggestions:

1. No matter how mistaken you think your boss is, once he (or she) has made a decision, your job is to support him as best you can, subject always to the fundamental constraints of ethics and integrity.

2. Loyalty up, loyalty down, and loyalty sideways, subject again to the fundamental constraints. Among other things, that means constant patience, courtesy, and respect for everyone else on the team, at all times (no backbiting).

3. If you don't know how to be humble and modest in your dealings with others, fake it. (It helps to remind yourself that, whatever Supreme Being might or might not exist, the odds are it's not you.)

4. It's no sin not to know what to do. When in doubt, take your best shot at formulating both a Plan A and a Plan B, and then ask your boss for guidance; he might tweak one of your plans, and/or might point out something you hadn't thought of.

But use your judgment---while your boss might want you to go through the learning experience of figuring things out for yourself, he might also not want you to spend a lot of time doing so before asking for help. You could ask him that, perhaps.

Consulting with peers sometimes helps, which is one reason it's good to be on good terms with them.

5. Don't take it personally if someone criticizes you, even harshly. While you might well have screwed up, that doesn't mean you're a failure as a human being; it means you played the hand you were dealt as best you knew how at that time, and now you have a welcome opportunity to learn from the experience; be glad of it.

6. A serviceable rule of thumb: Seek the best for others as you do for yourself.

EDIT: I posted an edited version of this on my own blog at http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/seven-ways-to-be-a-stand-up-g....

Most of these rules should go without saying and were instilled in me through jobs growing up and strengthened through college. I think the author wrote this for people who did not learn this yet in life, not because the author thinks they are the only one with these workplace values.

you could rewrite this list so it sounds helpful and polite rather than rude and egotistical

That's contradictory to what the article is emphasizing. When you're dealing with your own team, openness is essential, and efficiency should not be traded for politeness.

As an employee, I would hope my boss wants results more than my thank-yous. As a boss, I would hope my employees care more about results than thanking me. If you spend all your time making something politically correct, you spend no time getting things done. To me, this article isn't rude: it's to the point, and if my boss gave me this list, I'd smile and jump in excitement.

>And maybe I've met some first-rate minds who are rude and arrogant as well, but I haven't noticed because I've mentally sorted them into the "overcompensating second-rater" category.

Dijkstra seemed to fall into the category of very smart pricks, although he may be the exception that proves the rule.

Like many things, it depends on the delivery. If I received this as an email, a handout, or a lecture, my reaction would definitely be, "WTF?" But many terrific people I've worked with prefer to work this way and they're pleasant to be around. These are things you might have to learn as you work with them.

Aside: while you highlight the ego/arrogance of this individual, the last line of your comment - in an orthogonal sense - highlights subtle sexism in language (and hence [cough] thought...?).

cf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt

According to the article, you must be a "weakling" since you don't like his tone.

Funny, this list is about putting ego's aside and organizing work in an efficient way. Yet, your make it about your perception of it and start categorizing people. You don't get the purpose. It does not seem like you have a lot of working experience. It is really not about YOU. I would not want to work with you.

Putting egos aside and putting perceptions aside are two very different things.

Do you agree that working with a person who is competent and nice is better than working with someone who is competent and rude? Which do you want to be seen as?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com