Stop Conflating Genius with Asshole
joanwestenberg.com
joanwestenberg.com
Let's say someone made a critical error in their code. Now, it would be nicer and kinder to say "Perhaps you could have done that better, it might have harmful impact on users" and you can also tell the person "This is really bad, you messed up, this type of a mistake is unacceptable and horrific" which uses lots of sharp words and feels abusive, so which is better? It makes the person feel bad for sure with the second option, but isn't that the best way to communicate just how bad what they've done is?
It reminds of how Linux Trovalds tears into people sometimes, I disagree with him most of the time (takes it too far) but isn't the sentiment correct? In other words, you need people to feel very bad about what they've done, not as an attack on their personality, character or even competence but to help them understand the severity of the situation.
Personally, I have struggled with this working in the context of infosec, some mistakes are putting people's livelihoods and even their persons in way of harm. My conclusion so far is to draw a line, be direct but never say anything to anyone that you wouldn't want said to you if the situation was reversed.
I want people I work with and talk to (including here on HN) to communicate clearly and directly with me (and vice versa), without sugarcoating things when it comes to technical discussions and we shouldn't conflate directness and bluntness with being an asshole, just as much as genius (what is that anyways and who cares?) with asshole.
Edit: sorry, my intention was to "diss" them, not you.
Direct words like "We don't do that here, because we have a duty to have higher standards. Do you understand why?" can carry a lot of gravitas and make a person feel small and bad but that's not their intent. The intent is to make them think about 1. Their place in the org 2. The quality of their work 3. The importance of high standards.
Words like "This really is low quality work." Or "this is awful" are just playground insults and are actually not direct communication at all. They are designed to affect feelings not principles or the technical issues at hand. Going for someone's feelings is just kinda silly.
The fact that some people hold to high standards and also have a mean communication style is fine but not required.
It's also extremely counterproductive, because anyone who did care about their work being any good will quickly be turned into a grey rock by phrases like "you messed up", "unacceptable" and and "horrific".
And those who don't care about their work also don't care a jot what you think about it.
There is no magic response, it needs to be tailored to the individual, and being able to read what kind of response is right for which individual is part of what separates shitty and great managers.
It is generally a bad smell to manipulate feelings directly. If you were clear about the gravity of the situation they would have the appropriately bad feelings. Or maybe they wouldn't and would make the appropriate changes anyway.
If you have to go for feelings then you are not transferring context. Or it might be you lack self control to keep your own feelings out of it. (It's not about your feelings it's about solving problems).
Or it might be you wrongly believe that outward expression of feelings that you recognize as appropriate are a prerequisite for positive change. Why do you believe this to be universally true? Why do people have to feel the way you do to do good work?
You could have just say "This line here will have harmful impact on users".
The point here is to use negative words on the 'OBJECT', it can be code or anyone's work, not on ppl. You donot need to make an statement on someone's intelligence to make him understand the severity of an issue.
But I don't even care about that line, it's already caught and will be fixed. I want them to know it was their lack of care and their negligence, I want them to take personal responsibility for that and for future work they do. But I also would want such a person to know it isn't a personal attack, just a very serious area of improvement and a mistake that can't be repeated.
I suppose my point is, the receiver of the criticism should allow for negative words and personal criticism without taking it as an insult. but the phrasing should be focused on the problem with relation to the person that caused it. The moment the focus of the sentence becomes the person, that is probably inappropriate? Just thinking out loud.
If they messed up, you want to help make them better so it doesn’t happen again right? So really you want a positive outcome for everyone. You don’t have to sugar coat it tho, just share it in a way that makes it a learning moment.
Second, do you have any evidence that calling someone negligent actually leads to better performance? Is that an established best practice for reducing errors or does that just satisfy your own feelings of annoyance or dissatisfaction?
Third, “this is negligent” is not constructive. Neither is "This is really bad, you messed up, this type of a mistake is unacceptable and horrific". These are not actionable nor are they specific. They are emotional. Feedback outlining (or directing them to resources) on how to do a proper code review to catch mistakes like this, is actionable and specific.
Finally, the swiss cheese method of safety is always better than the “just stop making mistakes” method. Aviation safety does not rely on pilots “just not making mistakes”. There are studies of procedures, warnings, training, etc. to reduce the likelihood of an arror and redundant systems to make errors survivable. And there are checklists, so many checklists. Have you instituted checklists for code writing and review before it comes to your level? If something is so critical, is it negligent to allow code to be written and submitted based on each persons individual, subjective idea on what is thorough and what is a negligent level of review?
You are an asshole. Your lack of care and negligence in your interactions with your peers has a detrimental effect upon your team's productivity and internal communication. Please take responsibility for this failure in intra-personal skills and acknowledge the impact your lack of empathy will have on your future work. This is not personal, I am just directing your attention to an area you need to improve and where future mistakes like this should not be repeated.
>In other words, you need people to feel very bad about what they've done, not as an attack on their personality, character or even competence but to help them understand the severity of the situation.
So, yes, clearly communicate the bug is existential in nature, but make it "OUR" bug, not "YOUR" bug, that we will fix it together, express great trust and confidence in the person despite this. What you get out of that is - yes, actually you would be making them feel bad, in this case the guilt of disappointing someone who believes in them (actually probably they would feel worse here than a direct "nothing personal" attack), and at the same time preserving and even enhancing the trust and loyalty of your relationship. Directly making them feel horrible by chewing them out has the same effect, but at the cost of burning your relationship, trust, motivation, etc. Difference between "safe relationship" and "unsafe relationship"
The main thing I learned from this thread is to avoid making a person feel bad in the sense that they are alone in it or somehow they are incompetent and irresponsible. A lot of times, I lead with one of my great screw-ups just so they know I'm not talking down to them. it's more of a "screw ups happen, I've screwed up. and now so have you, we can't make mistakes like this, it was really bad" type of a discussion.
If someone keeps making mistakes, talk to their manager maybe. .
Is that supposed to be professional? Especially for 99.999% of code, outside of real life-and-death Therac-25/Fly-by-wire/nuclear plant control sotware?
I've screwed up, but I hope I never screw up so badly it starts messing with people's lives and well being.
>[...]
>Genius doesn’t look like domination. It looks like collaboration. It looks like the humility to know you’re not the smartest person in every room, and the strength to make space for those who are. If someone needs to belittle, berate, or break others to feel powerful, they’re not a genius—they’re a tyrant in a hoodie, a bully with a pitch deck, a tantrum in search of a title.
>And we should stop fucking clapping.
Did... they read their own post? It's an arrogant rant that pre-assumes the entire stereotypical "toxic" frame, without questioning a single premise. This is always implicitly denouncing men and masculine behaviors. It has been repeated ad nauseam and used to beat people over the head with to "just fucking shut up" and let the queen bees "civilize" the icky nerd club.
The feminine counterpart behaviors, namely Mean Girlsing, emotional blackmail, smurfette syndrome, the accountability musical chairs, ... are always absent from the discourse.
When actual tech disasters happen, the emphasis is then on managing appearances instead of addressing root causes. I wrote a different take a while back, which highlights these patterns in the Crowdstrike discourse:
https://acko.net/blog/the-bouquet-residence/
Despite wanting to talk, despite wanting to have "conversations", these sorts of arguments never get engaged with. Because the reason to critique "toxic" behaviors wasn't to get rid of them, but to demand a different set of toxic behaviors should take precedence.
Companies are slowly discovering that their ability to produce and operate is decaying from the inside by these types of policies. Rather than course correcting, many instead want to enshrine their hostile policies into law so all companies will be similarly hobbled. There have even been attempts to get companies delisted from stock exchanges for not going this route. It seems like there is some awareness in companies that this is harmful to the ability to function but there's no desire to undo the errors, with spreading the errors to all being the preferred solution.
> Complaints that tech is too "male dominated" and "notoriously hostile to women" are often just this. Tech was always full of types who won't preface their proposals and criticisms with fluff, and instead lean into autism. When you're used to being pandered to, neutrality feels like vulgarity.
Communicating with other humans effectively is learned skill like any other. You just refuse to learn because it is more difficult for you than neurotypical people. But the funny thing is that women are harder to diagnose with autism because girls are pushed more to learn to socialize than boys, so they learn how to “mask” better. Boys are pandered to and not pushed to learn a difficult but much needed skill. They are given a pass in a way girls are not, so the neutrality of being told it is an important skill, just like every other field where humans communicate with other humans, feels like vulgarity.
The answer is not to pretend interpersonal communication is a pointless skill. The answer is to acknowledge and work with both sides, understanding that it is a skill that cannot just be ignored, and understanding that skill levels vary and we should account for, and work with, those various skill levels. You know, inclusivity rather than pandering to the entrenched culture.
> But they start from the conclusion and work their way backwards. This is what the rewritten statement does: it tries to fix the relationship before fixing the problem… The people who build and maintain the world's infrastructure prefer the masculine style for a reason: it keeps civilization running, and helps restore it when it breaks.
The irony of this is that you work from the conclusion, that masculine style is what “works”. That the relationship of masculine style and “civilization” are causal. Instead of fixing the problem, that industries that are male dominated have been restricted to women for most of human history. Women are 50% of the population but anything “feminine” is treated as some sort of weird small minority that should adapt to live in “real” society or stay out.
The problem is "asshole" is an imprecise word.
There is nuance in describing good leadership, and which leadership is best depends on the context. A military leader in a war should have different qualities than an elementary school principal to be the best leaders they can be, and the same is true for technology company CEOs, even with differences between companies. "Wartime vs peacetime" CEOs and all that.
Generally Good: - provide any positive reinforcement first (point out what you want them to keep doing) - be direct and clear about the mistakes, but focus feedback on the mistakes/work and not their person - explain why the feedback is important, always ensure the "why" is understood - share consequences if the feedback is not followed, if there will be any (don't surprise someone with the consequences only once they are reached)
Generally Bad: - open up with a personal attack on their character - be vague about what they did wrong or what they should do instead - don't explain why following the feedback is important, don't justify it with a good reason - fire people without any warning or opportunities to correct their behavior
The examples from the blog, Jobs: a genius at marketing; Musk a genius at self promotion.
I don't hear the thousands of hardworking engineers clapping only the mediocre assholes for whom the cloak of genius is a convenient CYA (cover your ass).
To be fair, this topic might be a bit of strawman anyway. I've never heard anyone unironically call a business person a genius.
Lots of people hate confrontation. However, when confronted with someone like that, we have to be willing to draw the line. "No, it won't be my corpse you climb over." If more people would do that, there would be fewer jerks in the top ranks.