Comment by bluegatty | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluegatty | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is not about candor, it's about framing and respecting what kind of power people have, who is responsible for what.

"Hey gang - I know I'm not Dear Leader anymore - and - I don't want to get in the way of your new Dear Leader, but I want to share with you a bad experience I had with this product.

A, B, C, D. E .. was really bad.

After thinking about it - I think much of this lays at my feet. In the Golden Era of MS we didn't think much about design, or 'Whole Product'. I have to take responsibility for that.

But these kinds of outcomes are really bad, and this has to be nipped in the bud now - and in the future.

I suggest this probably happened because Product and R&D criss-crossed here, the Release Managers and Product Marketing dropped a lot in between.

That there was a ball dropped here must be the responsibility at the VP/Executive level at very least, for not ensuring smooth handoff.

Furthermore - that this experience could be so bad means we have to rethink and extend our integration testing all the way to 'end user experience'.

Finally, I think you'll need to engender a culture of design right from the start - that's going to take 2-4 years and a different kind of thinking, that is not a fire that can be put out, or a process to be fixed. I'll have to lave that on the lap of the new Dear Leader.

Keep up the great work.

- BG"

That's how to write a 'candid' note.

That’s not candid. It’s candy.

It borderline infantilizing and buries the message under a bunch of saccharine. I can practically see the fake smile plastered across the face of the manager saying this. I would be insulted if my manager sent a message like this to the team.

Your version also took away literally all of the concrete detail, turning into a generic “it’s bad” that isn’t an actionable. It sounds like you sent it through an LLM.

I would also imagine that there are a lot of other emails flying around that are discussing the general pattern of concern while this is more of a drive-by honest review of a specific experience. This is the kind of blunt feedback that execs do not usually get about their products and probably need more of. This kind of blunt feedback from a respected leader can’t be waived away the way anecdotes from individual customers can.

> Hey gang

“How do you do, fellow kids?”

> After thinking about it

Just say the thing.

> kinds of outcomes

What outcomes specifically?

> nipped in the bud

“stop”

> I suggest this probably happened because

“I think”

> ball dropped

“failure”

> must be the responsibility at the VP/Executive

What does this mean? Fire the VPs who failed to do their jobs? Say what you mean.

> ensuring smooth handoff

“doing their jobs”

> rethink and extend

“fix”

> engender a culture of design

This is a meaningless phrase.

> different kind of thinking

What kind of thinking?

> or a process to be fixed

Processes are how things get done! If programmers push garbage into the list of installed applications, that’s a process failure. If a product team makes a download available but it can’t be found on the main web site’s list of downloads, that’s a process failure. When things get done wrong it’s definitionally a process failure. Process also doesn’t flow from culture, they each exert influence on the other. Bad process will lead to bad culture as much as bad culture will lead to bad process.

I will reiterate what a sibling commenter already said: Nothing about this mealy mouthed corporate jargon liberally drizzled in passive voice comes across as candid. Effective communication does not look like this. Effective communication is assertive. It offers direct actionable advice, or asks direct questions which result in actionable answers.

This such a ridiculous comment.

It feels like it was written by 'Dwight Schrute'.

---> First - the notes about language are completely glib.

It's perfectly acceptable for someone to use personal tone.

"> After thinking about it

Just say the thing."

"> nipped in the bud

“stop”"

... would be ridiculous feedback to give anyone.

It's perfectly acceptable for any writer to have some personalized inflection in their prose.

There's no misunderstanding or lost context.

The fact that you would even try to pick apart language at level is just weird.

---> Second - "Nothing about this mealy mouthed corporate jargon"

There is nothing 'mealy mouthed' about that prose, and there is no 'corporate jargon' in the note.

None.

The writer in that scenario mean exactly what they said - with some allowance for personal inflection.

That's it.

---> Third - "> engender a culture of design

This is a meaningless phrase."

No - it's not a 'meaningless phrase' - it means exactly that, in so many words.

Obviously, I'm not going to write full follow up paragraph on that in HN, the implication is direct.

---> Fourth - and most importantly - you entirely missed the point by trying to nitpick on arbitrary language someone wrote crudely on a HN comment.

The 'point' is to illustrate in quick and rough terms how one could be 'candid' with the feedback about a broken feature - and to also to frame it responsibly, to direct some feedback and as to where the responsibility might lie and where the process might have broken down, and then to more broadly indicate strategic concerns over culture, because there clearly is, particularly around 'user centric concners'.

Gates barfed some 'things that were broken' - instead of providing any contextualization at all - it was totally absent anything a leader would nominally provide.

You're getting caught up literally in prose and notions of 'process' which is besides the point. This is not about 'process' - it's about a leader framing feedback.

And FYI it was Satya that finally did 'change the culture' (although on different terms) to generally widespread acclaim.

Consider that three people have given you substantially similar feedback about your “candor”. Your attempt at a “personal voice” here comes off extremely fake. Compare your proposed “candid” message with the actual candor in your message at the top of this thread.

Rather than continue to dismiss the feedback, you should digest it and potentially learn something from it. Or not. It’s your choice.

> Gates barfed some 'things that were broken' - instead of providing any contextualization at all - it was totally absent anything a leader would nominally provide.

And yet you, simply by reading the email Gates sent, were able to confidently ascertain that the culture itself was failing here. You give too little credit to the recipients of this email when you imply that they can’t make the same assessment.

I would hate to receive an email like this.

Your point could be made by simply adding the following at the very top of the original email: “Besides fixing the specific issues in this flow, we should consider how it got this bad in the first place and make changes to prevent it from happening again. I’ll support you and provide whatever you need.”

Done. Let the people who are responsible figure it out. They’re smart and capable, no need to baby them. You’ve made clear that you see it and it’s not acceptable, but you also understand that to drive through bigger changes, you’ll need to back them up and chip in when they need you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com