Hacker News Reader

Comment by mgaunard | Hacker News Reader

Will you be kind as well to the people who repeatedly fuck up and don't care about delivering good processes or products?

View on HN

Yes. They’re still human and they deserve to be treated with respect. But part of being kind is being direct and honest, and holding people to account. If you ignore it, or let it fester you’re being unkind to other people

There's a lot of kindness in clarity, even when it comes to bad news. Imagine a doctor has to deliver a terminal diagnosis; it would be very unkind to avoid or sugarcoat the news, just as it would be to trivialize the issue by joking "don't bother buying green bananas."

There's a great deal of nuance to how kindness is defined. It's very easy for one set of actions to be either very kind or very unkind, depending on definitions.

Listening, being respectful, and being empathetic may drive one person to bite their tongue and silence feedback that someone is performing poorly out of fear of hurting them or the morale of the team. Another may be driven by the very same things into giving candid feedback.

This article does not do a good job of exploring the difference. It just asserts "Being nice is the new punk".

Yes. Not being kind leads to defensiveness and not owning up to their errors.

I've worked in very competent teams and very incompetent teams. There were two types of incompetent teams. The type that always denied making mistakes, and the kind that owned up to their own incompetence. Being kind leads to the latter.

It still sucked being in an incompetent team, but when they admit their weakness, they get out of your way and defer to you. When they don't admit it, you'll face barriers all the way.

What would being unkind accomplish here?

What would be kind accomplish there?

Not make things worse, for example? Or maybe it can help convey the message across and make things better?

Not being an asshole in your own eyes. If that's not worth anything to you, then Idk, guess we live on different planets.

It's not about being unkind, it's about not being kind; these are not the same.

Being kind to a person that behaves as described in the grandparent comment could communicate that you find this kind of behavior helpful. Fine if that's really the case; problematic for everyone if not.

Kindness and enabling are also not the same thing.

This entire discussion needs to come to a screeching halt while people get together and hammer out some definitions. It's clear we're all working from different and contradictory assumptions about what these words mean.

I think people are conflating “kind” with a range of other behaviors. You can be kind while addressing poor performance, etc. You address the behavior, you might even have to fire someone, but those are not incompatible with kindness - if you’ve given someone ample opportunity, and clarity, then you’ve been kind. It’s unkind to let someone get to the point of firing without being clear that their job is at risk. It’s not unkind to take action when their performance threatens the organization, team, etc.

I think most people would agree Fred Rogers was kind - but I have to imagine he had to fire people from the show over the course of its run.

Yes. A person's performance on the job does not change how I treat them as a human.

Yes. I will. And I upvoted you because I think it is HN duty to help you out, and not bury you.

If someone is fucking up, they are in the wrong position. People need to work for a living, and shouldn't be under duress constantly. It is up to them and their manager to find a position that is rewarding and engaging for them.

If they don't care, they are also in the wrong position.

It is no reason to not treat them with kindness. You don't have to blow them, but you don't need to be UNkind, as several have said below.

The only people I don't treat with kindness are people who are legitimately trying to hurt me and people I love, or promote hateful ideas with glee. People who are failing at their job need help.

And if they still annoy you, then I think the problem might be in how you view the situation. Compassion helps with anger. Try to think about why you are so angry, and if it really matters or helps to be so angry. Especially if you are not the manager. If you are the manager, consider that maybe the job isn't for you. You shouldn't be pissed at work all day!!

Why would you invest time and effort in solving someone else's problems? As a manager your responsibilities are to the shareholders.

A business is not a charity.

Because we are all humans doing our best and we are forced to work our lives away by an elite ruling class.

(I don’t know you but you sound like every white male teenager who discovers Ayn Rand.)

That sounds like a borderline insult, but I'm not familiar with American literature so I can't really feel targeted by it.

If you're a leader with a strategic role, time is your most important and limited resource. You just cannot afford to spend time on something that doesn't further the goals of the business, even if you're a hippie or a communist.

Yep. You have to be. You can provide feedback to them or their manager if possible but the reality is that the employment status of your incompetent coworker is not under your control.

You're speaking under the assumption that "you" can't be a team lead or manager able to make the bad performer redundant.

Moreover as an IC there is a lot you can do; most importantly you can quit if you feel the team you're in is being mismanaged.

Well yes but you certainly can’t become a lead if you’re getting mad at people. At least in many situations you can’t. And yes you could quit, but the job market isn’t the best right now. And sometimes the jobs that pay more require dealing with less competent people so sometimes there are tradeoffs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com