Comment by mettamage
6 years ago
Favoriting your comment here. You just gave 2 "learn within 1 minute social skills" lessons within one HN comment.
There's a lot to unpack here.
1. Your way of analyzing on how it could be less threatening
2. The final answer to it being less threatening
3. Praise in public, criticize in private
I'm normally not a fan of simple sentences, but the sentence of (3) is one I'll keep in mind when I'll start my career.
Thanks!
In my (considerable) experience of working in large organisation (private and public), whether this works or not depends strongly on the power differential between praiser/criticiser and praisee/criticisee. Basically this is the most likely outcome:
- Powerless praises publicly and criticises privately: criticism will be ignored, praise will be milked.
- Powerless praises privately and criticises publicly: if played right, this is working, since the powerful cannot brush aside the criticism, but this is likely to lead to retaliation!
A way of making public criticism more digestible is to make it very constructive: "You are wrong because XYZ, I recommend ABC instead because <reasons>". Ideally the <reasons> align with the organisation's goals, e.g. "ABC is clearly in the interest of our shareholders / voters / students / environment because <other reasons>.
Make of this what you will.
The phrase "you are wrong" is one of the fastest ways to get someone's back up against the wall. In your example, completely removing that phrase doesn't change the meaning and it eliminates negativity.
I completely agree with you.
That's why publicly saying "you are wrong" is so powerful (and so dangerous). The powerful are not used to be challenged in public. They typically respond by a combination of
- reframing, changing the subject
- attacking, belittling you
You can see this in action in stand-up comedy with hecklers. If you anticipate this reaction, you can turn this around very effectively in a professional context (not in standup-comedy though): "I note you are NOT answering my question, instead ...".
With great power comes great responsibility.
1 reply →
I agree with you. However I'd say leading with, "You are wrong" is risky. Unless you have a very good working relationship with them, always start with empithy and praise. "I think this will really work well for our clients. How do you handle 'reason they're wrong'?"
Obviously, do what the situation calls for, but I pissed many people off, without being wrong, telling them they are. I found really looking at it from their point of view first helps. Usually they're trying to solve a real problem, so at least take the time to understand it and how they see it.
I always prefer X is wrong to You are wrong about X. Separate the error from the identity.
I find that 3 can become a mental down spiral for the carer.
Praise anywhere, criticise anyware, make sure to do it sometimes in public. Otherwise, it becomes a game of fools, which at scale may lead us all to insanity.
Care to elaborate? I don't understand why it's a "game of fools" or how it would lead to insanity.
Honest question.
What I observed among groups where public criticism is discouraged:
- Pressure on the good actors to communicate using the protocol. Basically being positive at all costs. It creates depression as feelings are constantly suppressed. - No pressure on the bad actors to correct their behaviour. Unless someone with the necessary authority notices the issue and had interests in taking the required action.
A game of fools, because, if a team is mostly made of good actors, then the frustration is tolerable, and perhaps the bad actors can be raised to the level of "good". There is a tipping point though, I've observed, where if the ratio of bad actors gets high, there is less and less of a incentive to do the right thing. Since criticism must be kept to none, or made in private, it becomes a battle of alliances. Things are said quietly. People end up spending more energy in sculpting a great image, rather than becoming better.
It's a game of fools. Fool participants, it's even contagious.
It also somewhat serves management as they only are to then decide how to compensate, promote, lay off every individual without risking any questioning from the contributors (everyone is equal by the sound of things, really)
When I say good and bad actors, I don't mean a category of people is bad while another is good. It's not about the intent, but about skills, performance, agile abilities, knowledge and wisdom.
It's important to have some tact, and respect. But I don't see anything wrong in calling out someone on poor execution. He may learn from it. And so what if it is made in public. Perhaps everyone needs to know. Again, tact and respect, it is not incompatible.