Hacker News Reader

Comment by JohnMakin | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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)..."

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com