People tend to be really understanding when you are brutally honest, and brutally cynical when you bullshit them even a little.
It's bad ones that think they can spin something negative into something positive. All it does is break trust and employees just think they're full of shit.
The urge to spin things positively is the common default though for new execs for some reason, telling the truth about bad news when it's hard to do so is part of what makes someone good.
It’s also possible they rationalize it in some way that they’re “protecting their employees” from the bad news. In practice people like to be clued in to the truth and are more likely to respond positively to honesty in my experience.
There was a period where it was a requirement for an executive that they be credible and have a solid track record of under promising, over delivering, before they would ever be considered for leadership. Part of that comes with the experience to know (as in know in their bones, from direct experience) how important it is to be straightforward while not causing panic, and to set a solid and realistic direction instead of lying about it.
People required that of their leaders because they had seen and felt the anguish and loss that doing otherwise causes when it is something important. We've had a insane run of peace and prosperity, and it's easy to forget that and take the fluffy fun face instead.
For most everyone else? There is often a need to provide at least some surface ‘here is why everything is not actually super terrible so you should stay’ sugar coating or it is not going to go down well.
The larger the group, the more apparent the effect and I suspect it’s due to lack of trust and/or familiarity with the speaker. If you’ve had your sleeves rolled up and been in the trenches with someone, you either know you can’t trust them already (and in which case, why are you still here?!?), or can trust them well and can see a positive outcome if it works.
If you can’t trust them, it’s just a signal that things are terrible and don’t know how terrible they really are - and what choice does someone have to anchor and assume it’s worse (or maybe a little better).
This does not apply to people who chose to go to a coding bootcamp?
> ... For those who are used to hard reality
This does not apply to people who chose to go to a coding bootcamp to avoid a life of a menial, lower-paying job?
- We really don't appreciate bullshit, all it does is erode trust
- No, no, let me explain how bullshit is actually good for you...- First, we need to clarify how we've changed the accountability model.
- Second, we need to clarify why we've changed the accountability model.
- Third, after we understand the bandwidth and instructor availability in this new model, we'll continue to tighten the proactive feedback on technical skills.
There is a reason 99% of politics is bullshit. shrug
Not like California is going Red anytime, well, ever, after all.
But I'm not sure that would work if you're pivoting constantly and in a downward spiral. There are simply too many decisions happening for "we need to cut costs" to feel valid all the time. Lambda school appears to be in that category so far as I can see.
The students would understand, yes, but not accept getting something other than what they signed up for.