We Kind of Suck at That Right Now | Hacker News Reader

We Kind of Suck at That Right Now

cutlefish.substack.com

37 pointswapasta40 comments

I could not possibly agree less. The type of work environment where an honest statement like "wow, this is not very good" or "we are not doing very good at this" even if stated "crassly" (although personally I cannot imagine being offended by the word "suck," but that doesn't seem to be the issue, the sentiment is the issue) is perceived as threatening or offensive is not one I would like to work in. This kind of willful ignorance combined with an unwillingness to address issues directly, over years, IME, creates situations where things are hopelessly shitty and impossible to untangle because everyone's afraid of stepping on a single toe, or hurting someone's feelings.

It's work. If you can't separate your emotions from your work you should work on that, not blame someone for speaking honestly about a situation.

Agreed. The "monopoly rule" (i.e. Hasbro Monopoly board game, not an economic monopoly) of company building - that you must build evenly to succeed, trying to make large improvements in say Engineering and Sales but no improvements in Marketing or Security leads to ruin, and rather companies need to make improvements evely - applies all the way down the totem pole. It's rare for companies to actually build evenly though. Noting that some part of the business hasn't reached the same level of maturation as the rest of the business should not, in and of itself, be offensive; indeed, it is the expected order of things.

Now, there's surely better and worse ways to phrase that, but it's not a personal failing. It's not a judgement call of anyone in any way. If the company can't honestly discuss internally which areas are mature and which are not, then some areas will surely fall into underdevelopment, and that will probably have a material impact on the company's chances of succeeding.

For sure, and I agree - it’s terrible for the company. I’m more speaking from my perspective as an IC, or even as a lead/manager role - it erodes my morale faster than almost anything else, having to sit in meeting after meeting about very obvious issues that are never directly addressed, even though a lot of people in the room know the exact problem, due to this fear of stepping on any toes or gasp admitting we had a shortcoming or failure somewhere.

I will either get promoted or moved off the project in such situations, and almost nothing in between - I am completely discontent to sit in a room and pretend something I know isn’t something I know due to fragile egos. The worst is when I get hired for this trait (I am very up front about it) and end up in this environment anyway, because the management wants a “disruptor.” What they’re really doing is using you as a proxy, and it’s annoying and miserable.

I can sympathize with both sides. The fact is people react negatively to any threat to their sinecure, so we should be mindful of this, but not let it prevent us from seeking genuine improvement.

If someone does get really mad over something like this and act out, that's a perfect excuse to leave.

Yea I should probably qualify my parent post here, if you happen to find yourself in what I'd call a toxic positive environment, then this is probably good advice for surviving in it until you find a better place to work. Some of the advice in his bullet points will have you absolutely run over by someone more opportunistic and with less scruples than you have in such systems, and do not really care what people think of them (I have had to be this guy before).

I agree, but it represents a cavalier attitude, because the worst-case is you get fired.

If you know some other company will take you in, or you have "fuck you money", that's great, but it represents a culture of privilege that very few people have these days.

Eh. There's a right way and a wrong way to do what you’re talking about IMO. Being direct and honest is important and good. Attacking peoples character is not. Emotional safety is essential because if you don't have it, then folks are afraid to speak up because they might get their heads chopped off.

This is all way more of a cultural idiosyncrasy than you may realize.

If you take a dozen people of different backgrounds and ask them to rate a statement like this by how much it "attacks someone's character" or is "emotionally unsafe", you're going to get a whole spectrum of responses.

Likewise, you'll find similarly varied responses to how and whether character judgment makes someone afraid to speak up, and how and whether a organizational demand for "emotional safety" makes for a more or less comfortable workplace.

This is the sort of stuff that people really mean by "culture fit" in organizations and especially on intimate teams. You and the person you're responding to probably wouldn't thrive in the same work environments. That's okay, though, because there are a lot of work environments and (among skilled craftspeople with job mobility) those of us who recognize these cultural differences have the insight to seek the right orgs/teams for ourselves.

I had a formative experience fairly early in my career where I had the privilege of working closely with a team geographically located in mainland China - there was a culture shock, but it opened my eyes to this kind of thing and how different engineering cultures can be, even within the same company. I appreciate these differences, but I guess my original comment was mostly expressing what disdain I have for the work environment it sounds like the person who wrote the blog post exists in. It makes me so miserable.

There is a right and a wrong way.

First, you have to be right. Saying "we suck at that" if we are good or even just so-so is counterproductive.

Second, you need a foundation of trust. People listen to negative feedback most when delivered with shared interests.

Third, it has to be delivered to the right audience in the right forum. People who are unable to act on it should not be included.

Fourth, it needs to be oriented in a positive direction. It can be negative. But the goal is improvement, not degredation.

Fifth, it has to be clear. Clarity and specificity are effective.

---

These things are nuanced, and without being in the situation, it's effectively impossible to judge what is done the right or the wrong way.

is "we suck at this right now" attacking anyone's character?

If you're in a toxic environment where people will hear that and start looking for culprits.. then yes, accidentally.

I used to work with a founder who would deliver product ideas and our roadmap by saying things like "If we were smart, we would [do X, Y, and Z]." Implying that we (the company in general, or engineering in particular) were not smart now, but need to change our ways to smartness and do X, Y, and Z. I'm not sure how else to interpret these kinds of passive-aggressive jabs.

My immediate reaction is to wonder whether he/she is privy to some information I'm not which would make X, Y, and Z a priority, whether he/she is overlooking or ignorant of some other factor which would make them not worth doing, or some combination of the two. As such, I'd likely try to strike up a conversation to see if we could reach a mutual understanding. I'd certainly hate to be working on the wrong thing because I was the one missing something.

I suppose if it happened regularly enough, and it was clear the founder usually spoke from a position of ignorance, I'd eventually disengage and start to dismiss them out of hand, but I can't say I'd ever take it personally.

While the founder could just as easily have said "I think we should do X, Y, and Z" instead, I'm more than a little concerned at how easily someone would shut down over the original statement, which strikes me as mostly harmless.

I don't know your old founder and can't speak for them, but generally, that kind of phrasing is just idiomatic, and not meant to be parsed literally.

It's just a colloquial way of saying "I've earnestly thought about X, Y, and Z and think it's the most effective way path forward" or "my intuition is telling me X, Y, Z is the best way to go"

It's a way of expressing that they have a strong sense of how to proceed and the "passive-aggressive jab" that you hear is just an artifact of the idiom not being familiar or natural to you.

Or it’s a shitty boss who’s averse to direct conflict and leaves little hints for their employees to interpret like tea leaves.

Can’t really tell which situation it is without more information but both are common

Yea, it's hard to convey the non-verbal cues that came along with the phrase. The way he would say it was just dripping with superiority and sarcasm: "If we were -smaaaarrt- [pause to look at the rest of us peasants]... then we would make this so much better..." The unspoken message was really not hard to interpret: "If I was blessed with SMART engineers rather than a bunch of dummies (and I'm looking at you)..."

The article is interesting, but the action points at the end can easily lead to disaster if they’re not implemented correctly.

I’ve gone through many of those same steps back when my company was in a rapid growth phase. I believed I was being helpful by stepping back and staying less opinionated, but after a year, I found that most new team members had no real opinion of me—or worse, they’d constructed misguided opinions out of thin air.

Back to the articles point, ultimately people who feel personally offended or “attacked” by a simple statement like “We suck at that” will inevitably create problems. Our company decided that wasn’t the kind of culture we wanted to build, so we chose to move away from (or avoid hiring) those who couldn’t handle that straightforward level of honesty.

If people take it personally when you point out process or product problems it means you're on a team that can't handle criticism, and will run off a cliff telling each other how great they are.

Do with that what you will. I usually take it as a sign that the team is toxic.

I agree with the key insight: "meet people where they are" and "respect your environment". Different situations/groups/cultures require different approaches.

But then they proposed a bunch of context-free solutions.

Advice like "Wait for an invitation" might work at the specific company/group they are in right now, but it definitely won't work everywhere. Anyone here can come up with a counterexample to every single one of the bullet points.

A person with strong social skills knows when to talk and when to listen. They know when to take credit and when to give credit. They know how to share bad news in the least hurtful way. You will not learn this from a bunch of "always/never" commandments.

We all know that social skills are just as important as technical skills, but I'm not sure we talk enough about how to develop your social skills.

>If you've been a long-time reader of this newsletter, you've probably guessed by now that I'm biased toward seeing individual competency in the context of a broader "system."

The primary problem is that this is not the majority view, and so saying stuff like "we kind of suck at that right now" is how

- As a suit, you scare the shit out of your employees and cause them to overwork, burn out, lose faith in you, leave, etc

- As an IC, get fired, get your team laid off/outsourced/replaced, etc

Then again, it’s really frustrating to work at a company where you feel like you’re not allowed to point out problems because you might hurt someone’s feelings.

I’ve been in situations where I see a major problem, while also having extremely limited time to communicate it to someone who can do something about it, so I end up just ignoring it rather than raising the issue because I don’t want to risk communicating the issue in a way that offends someone.

Other times I communicate a problem and an entire team is extremely thankfully and appreciative that I raised it to their attention.

If someone is saying “we suck at this” they’re probably communicating something quickly off the cuff without thinking. The alternative for that person is likely to not raise the concern at all for fear of hurting feelings, or spend a lot of time obsessing over how to perfectly word the feedback.

It’s a difficult balance and particularly difficult in companies that need to move quickly and iterate fast, e.g. startups.

Usually when theres major problems, who ever is in charge allowed those problems to occur. Probably they got promoted, while causing those problems. So youre directly challenging their status and job.

FWIW, my comment was from the perspective of a founder with no concern about my own status. But you’re probably right in other contexts.

I did this a few weeks ago.

In hindsight, I should have explained more about "why we kind of suck at that right now," and what we are doing to improve on it. I realized I could have used a more positive positioning to describe the team's shortcomings.

"This process isn't the best right now and can be improved. This is how we can improve on it..." sounds a bit softer, but people will listen.

Most people, when they hear the word "we... suck..." they probably aren't going to listen to the rest of what will you say. These comments can make people feel uncomfortable, especially in today's working environment.

It's probably easier to say this in a small, trusted team meeting where folks can laugh. I wouldn't rely on this is just how this person is. It's easy to get a new manager or start working with a new team where this kind of behavior wouldn't fly and would work against you.

Anyone can say this sucks. It's good to explain why it sucks or how it could be improved.

Most folks will hear you out if you have a good reason or give them new ideas to explore. If the problem is cannot be solved now, it may better to document. I've been pointing out issues in our app for years, and now some folks are using my documents as the starting point to solve some of these problems.

"I wrote about that issue a year ago. Happy that document was able to give some context!"

Depending on your 'personal' philosophy or your corporate 'shared' meta philosophy... If the problem is not your problem to solve, it might be best not to comment at all, as it is not your burden to bear.

This seems like a situation where the adage "praise in public, criticize in private" would have helped.

It's important to have hard conversations about a team's ability - if for no other reason than expectation setting - but maybe in front of the entire team is not the right place.

As someone who recently started their first internship, I really needed to read this. I've already been on the receiving end of this, and it helps to know that it wasn't a personal insult. The bullet points at the end seem very useful as well, even outside the context of work.

That said, surely there must be a less blunt way of saying it? Something like "I believe in the team, but we still need improvement".

Software is not an industry famous for socially/emotionally aware practitioners. Lots of people make perfect the enemy of "good enough", or leave useless PR nits to show that they are participating, or disregard the level of effort involved and cut straight to their pet grievances. These are all ways of disrespecting somebody's work that you're going to encounter a lot.

One piece of advice I give all new jr devs (I've mentored more than 100 at this point) is: "Don't feel feelings about your code, because your code doesn't feel any feelings about you. Investing emotions in your code is entering into an abusive relationship".

It's hard when you're proud of something you made and it gets criticized, or replaced in production in a short amount of time, or immediately polluted by somebody who doesn't seem to care as much as you did. Try to realize that the actionable grievance is the wasted time and effort. It can be hard to get people to respect your feelings, but it is pretty easy to make a case that wasting your time and effort should be avoided.

I don’t know—I work with tight teams of people who respect each other, but who don’t feel like we need to be the best at everything. We’re good at what we’re good at, and we suck at what we suck at. If an aspect of a task falls in the quadrant where we suck, maybe we decide to take the time to get good at it… but more likely we buy in commercial software or professional services to handle whatever it is.

I’ll caveat that I’m not sure what exactly OP was saying “suck” about: there’s a form of that that’s just an insult, and those are never helpful or appropriate.

But I and my team, for example, suck at writing and vetting kernel code, and at vetting every single package in the supply chain—so we’ll hire Red Hat or somebody. We suck more than we think we do at cryptography, so we’ll use a library rather than try and spin our own.

With respect to your alternate phrasing—when I say we suck at a thing (to our team who all communicate that way), I don’t think that means we need improvement and I don’t believe in our team to realistically wake up to be kernel hackers—they would agree—and I think that’s fine! Nobody wants us to be! Being honest and realistic about our self-appraisals helps us make better choices. As does routinely being appreciative and supportive of each other about things we don’t suck at.

My advice if you work at a place like this where taking these kind offenses is the norm is to make sure it’s not a startup and your equity is paid liquid. You can trust me on that

This just makes me happy to work on a team where I can say things like that (if they're true) and no feelings would be hurt.

I used to say "I just dont want to suck"--because a large part of being competent is merely not doing stuff badly.

And my experience was that there was so many bad performers that simply not sucking made someone stand out.

The one challenge of this is that a lot of these better behaviors are not viewed as 'leadership', so by being more effective you may be less rewarded.

It seems like the advice is primarily relevant if you are already very talkative and/or complaining too much about everything wrong. In that case, it will not hurt to take a step back sometimes: this is also leadership.

> Talk less

In the context of the author's experience:

>And you said it in front of their boss.

this advice:

> Talk less. > You don't need to share everything you know.

Makes a ton of sense. For a very tactful individual, "consider the audience" is good advice. But for the rest of us, it is often better to remain silent.

On this topic, the problem I have with "talk less" as advice is that although simply by 'talking less' you make room for silence and other people to fill it in, it doesn't actively instigate other people to talk. I want other people to pro-actively give their opinions and thoughts.

Nobody is going to share their thoughts if you work at a place where this phrase is considered offensive / politically threatening

This is genuinely really good advice for some people, the only difficulty is making sure that it goes to the right people.

If you're focused on stuff like this you're just playing in a office politics space rather than doing anything productive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com