The only problem I have with this sentiment is that in technical contexts, being direct and clear is very important and that can easily be mistaken for being an asshole.
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.
> 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?
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.
> You could have just say "This line here will have harmful impact on users".
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.
> 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.
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.
I think you misunderstood me, and I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. In my opinion your response is not helpful to having a constructive discussion. Since you insulted me directly, I will not discuss the details of this topic with you.
Your core point isn't wrong. If someone identifies a business-ending bug before it causes problems - absolutely you want to let the coder know how gnarly that is. I speak for myself, perhaps others, when it's this point that people don't like:
>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"
I agree with everything you said. I think it's also important to let them know that you wouldn't be having that conversation with them if you didn't trust them to learn from the experience. I don't support or promote chewing out, berating, or being abusive to someone in any context. I think that's what the parent commenter misunderstood.
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.
But you don’t know negligence is the reason. You are just assuming that you understand how the situation arose and what their internal state of mind was the led to it. But it could have ignorance, rather than “negligence”. They might not fully understand that specific code usage, in which case instruction and mentorship would be the remedy.
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’re focusing on your side of the communication, but to be really effective in any communication you need to focus on how it will be perceived by the recipients.
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.
You're totally right, I can agree with what you said, but adding to it: I would want the other person to understand how bad the situation is, that's all. I used the analogy (hyperbole) of misconfiguring a nuclear bomb's timer in a sibling comment.
Don't get stuck in the either/or scenario. It's possible to be direct AND kind without being an asshole. Not giving someone critical feedback isn't kind, it's just being a coward. Giving someone critical feedback without regard to the human receiving it, is just lazy.
Last place I worked I was direct AND kind towards my team about a data leak related to PHI and they chose to sweep it under the rug and never addressed it while I was there. I think I should have been a bigger asshole. Some ORGs just can't deal with negative outcomes in a positive way.
False dichotomy. "If you deploy this code as is to production there is a high risk of bug X which I think is unacceptable risk. We had a similar bug 3 months ago.". Click the request changes button. Simple.
If someone keeps making mistakes, talk to their manager maybe.
.
That problem is already caught, how do you make sure they know and understand that mistakes like that cause harm and it was a result of their negligent attitude? Fixing that mistake isn't the goal, making sure they exercise more care and understand the gravity of the situation is.
"making sure they exercise more care" is quite a vague concept. If things are important there will be checks and extra safety nets and people will learn over time. If the only thing stopping harm is people "caring more", then you have a ticking time bomb on your hands anyway. And yeah, you can just tell someone "this is very important and serious" to convey it's very important and serious. Adding asshole phrasing on top doesn't change much.
it doesn't work that way in reality. You can monitor/check for bugs you can anticipate, but some bugs fall through the cracks and you have RCE's and outages causing millions of dollars. There is a limit both in terms of imagination and available resources on what you can anticipate and prepare for. There will never be a world where humans won't have to catch corner cases and bugs that would cause severe harm.
I understand, considering those as well and this goes beyond software dev as well. All those things exist to catch mistakes, they don't exist to prevent them. There is no replacement for humans needing to be careful. This isn't even a tech issue, in every industry where safety is required there are many checks, balances, tests. But you still need to not screw up. I screw up, everyone does, but being responsible and not repeating mistakes, that is what I want to communicate better without being an ass.
The manager needs to judge if it is a one off oversight, a skill issue or an attitude issue.
I think it is better to talk to everyone civilly and respectfully regardless and then use fair processes to deal with these issues.
Broadly you have 2 possible issues:
1. People make mistakes and you need processes like code reviews and tests etc. to catch them. No one does 100% perfection. Avoid blame.
2. Someone is not performing well enough.
You deal with 1 as a team through continuous improvement. And 2 is usually manager and team member through feedback and perhaps performance improvements. It should be utterly respectful at all stages.
Linus has moderated his approach quite a lot, and I think he’s a great example of growing self awareness in someone who used to be in the top right quadrant of the genius / asshole plane. He’s moved a long way towards “stern dad” from “bringer of the righteous flame.”
>you can also tell the person "This is really bad, you messed up, this type of a mistake is unacceptable and horrific"
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?
it's relative isn't it? it may not even be code per-se. I'm implying for the sake of this discussion that for the people concerned, this is equivalent to making a mistake that made a nuclear power-plant go critical. A business-killer bug is like that for those involved. People get laid off, families lose their source of income, people commit suicide, divorce,etc.. as a result. I'm usually less concerned about financial loss than the human impact surrounding our mistakes.
I've screwed up, but I hope I never screw up so badly it starts messing with people's lives and well being.
You are the only one conflating being asshole and being direct. I will be direct myself: it's a common strategy by assholes and asslickers to defend assholery in the name of the good. You can be direct without being an asshole, you can be firm without being an asshole.
Ask yourself what you want the person to think about, not what you want them to feel. They'll feel anyway, but if you're not careful they'll not think about anything but feelings.
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.
> Going for someone's feelings is just kinda silly.
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.
I think the core issue is that everyone reacts differently to different approaches of conveying a problem. Some people you scream at them "You're trash, you suck!" and their motivation to succeed explodes. Do it to others and they just collapse and check out. Some people screw up big, get a gentle talking to, and walk away feeling like it's no big deal. Others are dead inside and know they can never make that mistake again.
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.
Feelings are important, people remember how you made them feel,not what you said. I want them to understand that mistake/approach was really bad, I want them to feel the gravity of the situation so that when they do work like that in the future, they recall that feeling and take extra care. I don't want them to think they're stupid, or any negative thing about themselves, but I also don't want them to think "it could have happened to anyone". Communication is hard.
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?
they don't have to feel the way I do, that's you misunderstanding what you're saying. They have to fee *bad* about what happened. I want them to associate negligence with "i screwed up and this could have been really bad", and then move on knowing they learned their lesson. I could have been then, I could have made that mistake. people forget words, but they don't forget emotions easily, that's why it's important for them to feel somber, to feel like you screwed up (but not like you're a screw-up), to feel like "I messed up and I never want to be in this situation again".
I've made really bad mistakes myself, I still fill horrible about it. When work that involves similar context comes up, I am extra careful and implement all sorts of checks and balances to avoid similar issues from arising. I only wish that for others.
If they repeat that sort of a mistake, they'll probably get fired, that's what's at stake. If nothing else matters, I would hope that at least matters to them. They should feel bad in the same way a person who mishandled a nuclear bomb's detonation mechanism should feel bad, that can't happen, it just can't. simply recognizing the problem, saying you won't do it again isn't enough, you need to feel and permanently have the gravity of the situation ingrained into your thought process.
>We lionized those who hurt others in the name of vision and made excuses for behavior that, in any other context, would be called what it is: toxic.
We wrapped cruelty in clever quotes and pointed to output as if it justifies everything that comes before it.
>[...]
>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:
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.
The tech industry is going through a difficult time now with neurodivergent people. They really want to make use of the gifts of neurodivergent people to make them money but the neurodivergent often struggle to deal with the ever changing social rules of the modern workplace. Training programs tend to be ineffective because the rules are in constant flux and are often non-specific as to allow them to be interpreted in whatever way benefits those enforcing them.
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.
This whole rant presents a false dichotomy, that you either communicate technical information with zero effort at interpersonal style, or you communicate with interpersonal style with no, or false, technical details. You frame turning criticism into constructive criticism as sugar coating or fluff. That interpersonal skill is the opposite of technical skill, rather than two different skills.
> 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.
There's been pretty substantial research done into the most effective ways to deliver feedback to students to maximize their development rate. However when it's not a student but a senior employee, manager or executive that did something they knew was wrong to cut a corner to make their job easier at the cost of making the company worse off, it's a different context and situation.
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 (e.g. whether the company has intense competition or a monopoly).
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
I guess the word "genius" (at least for me) implies Einstein or in more practical terms: Faraday, Watt, Newton, et al. Literally the hundreds of savants who propelled science and thus technology to ever greater heights.
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).
It’s the flip side of taking kindness for weakness, and in my experience people who do that reveal something concerning about their own character and worldview.
I've never had any problems with highly competent assholes. However, I cannot see any reason to consider a business man, let alone any "entrepreneur", a genius. What needs to stop is calling someone with no intellectual and cultural achievements a genius. Someone who doesn't have any intellectual achievements and hasn't contributed substantially to human culture like art, literature, cinema, theater, and so forth, is by definition not a genius. Whether they are assholes or not is not even relevant.
To be fair, this topic might be a bit of strawman anyway. I've never heard anyone unironically call a business person a genius.
hmmm?m
it's moronic to go along with any notion of genius
as bieng any single thing, that is present or not.
it is fairly reasonable to suggest that most of the lesser sheep are threatened and resentfull of anybody who offers real, implimentable, better, alternatives to the way things are bieng done now
Some number of "genius" people are also socialy aware and adept, and know when to just shut up, and let the drones, drone,on, timing and co ordinating the implimentation of there ideas and making there genius look like luck or better yet politics.
I don't think we really do conflate genius with being a jerk. More the problem is that some talented people are sociopaths, willing to climb to the top over a pile of corpses. Or, as they say of sewage, "the biggest pieces float to the top."
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.
It's the product of a ritualized society. People select one person, bump that person up, then hit it like a piñata.
If you dress someone like a piñata, people will hit it for the candy inside. One of the ways of doing that is shaming the piñata, like comparing it to an asshole, or portraying it as a weak troubled loser, or sexualizing it.
The article proposes we don't hit piñatas anymore. I agree. Furthermore, we should not make human piñatas in the first place. Let the geniuses and celebrities and leaders fade to normality and cease to exist as a thing.
Of course this implies many of our societal systems are piñata-based. Hierarquies, celebrities, leaders and so on.
I agree that collaboration is a key aspect to solving this issue. It seems, however, that human collaboration is very hard where there are piñatas everywhere. It's hard when kids want to grow up to be piñatas.
I am sorry that many cultures have this ritual so heavily ingrained as part of their whole identites.
In Brazil, the equivalent ritual is "malhar o Judas", or, "to beat the crap out of Judas", when an actual doll representing a traitor is beaten during street carnival festivals.
The only problem I have with this sentiment is that in technical contexts, being direct and clear is very important and that can easily be mistaken for being an asshole.
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.
> 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?
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.
> You could have just say "This line here will have harmful impact on users".
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.
> 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.
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.
I think you misunderstood me, and I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. In my opinion your response is not helpful to having a constructive discussion. Since you insulted me directly, I will not discuss the details of this topic with you.
Your core point isn't wrong. If someone identifies a business-ending bug before it causes problems - absolutely you want to let the coder know how gnarly that is. I speak for myself, perhaps others, when it's this point that people don't like:
>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"
I agree with everything you said. I think it's also important to let them know that you wouldn't be having that conversation with them if you didn't trust them to learn from the experience. I don't support or promote chewing out, berating, or being abusive to someone in any context. I think that's what the parent commenter misunderstood.
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.
Ha!
[dead]
But you don’t know negligence is the reason. You are just assuming that you understand how the situation arose and what their internal state of mind was the led to it. But it could have ignorance, rather than “negligence”. They might not fully understand that specific code usage, in which case instruction and mentorship would be the remedy.
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’re focusing on your side of the communication, but to be really effective in any communication you need to focus on how it will be perceived by the recipients.
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.
You're totally right, I can agree with what you said, but adding to it: I would want the other person to understand how bad the situation is, that's all. I used the analogy (hyperbole) of misconfiguring a nuclear bomb's timer in a sibling comment.
Don't get stuck in the either/or scenario. It's possible to be direct AND kind without being an asshole. Not giving someone critical feedback isn't kind, it's just being a coward. Giving someone critical feedback without regard to the human receiving it, is just lazy.
Last place I worked I was direct AND kind towards my team about a data leak related to PHI and they chose to sweep it under the rug and never addressed it while I was there. I think I should have been a bigger asshole. Some ORGs just can't deal with negative outcomes in a positive way.
If they don't care about a PHI leak it wouldn't matter how you presented it
Were you laid off? If so, the results suit them well, you didn't even need to be an asshole for their benefit.
Edit: sorry, my intention was to "diss" them, not you.
Not sure if you are dissing me or what. But, no I left for this reason and quite a few others. Healthcare IT is a cesspool of incompetence and grift.
False dichotomy. "If you deploy this code as is to production there is a high risk of bug X which I think is unacceptable risk. We had a similar bug 3 months ago.". Click the request changes button. Simple.
If someone keeps making mistakes, talk to their manager maybe. .
That problem is already caught, how do you make sure they know and understand that mistakes like that cause harm and it was a result of their negligent attitude? Fixing that mistake isn't the goal, making sure they exercise more care and understand the gravity of the situation is.
"making sure they exercise more care" is quite a vague concept. If things are important there will be checks and extra safety nets and people will learn over time. If the only thing stopping harm is people "caring more", then you have a ticking time bomb on your hands anyway. And yeah, you can just tell someone "this is very important and serious" to convey it's very important and serious. Adding asshole phrasing on top doesn't change much.
it doesn't work that way in reality. You can monitor/check for bugs you can anticipate, but some bugs fall through the cracks and you have RCE's and outages causing millions of dollars. There is a limit both in terms of imagination and available resources on what you can anticipate and prepare for. There will never be a world where humans won't have to catch corner cases and bugs that would cause severe harm.
I'm not saying the checks and safety nets have to be automatic. QA, reviews, design sessions exist for a reason.
I understand, considering those as well and this goes beyond software dev as well. All those things exist to catch mistakes, they don't exist to prevent them. There is no replacement for humans needing to be careful. This isn't even a tech issue, in every industry where safety is required there are many checks, balances, tests. But you still need to not screw up. I screw up, everyone does, but being responsible and not repeating mistakes, that is what I want to communicate better without being an ass.
The manager needs to judge if it is a one off oversight, a skill issue or an attitude issue.
I think it is better to talk to everyone civilly and respectfully regardless and then use fair processes to deal with these issues.
Broadly you have 2 possible issues:
1. People make mistakes and you need processes like code reviews and tests etc. to catch them. No one does 100% perfection. Avoid blame.
2. Someone is not performing well enough.
You deal with 1 as a team through continuous improvement. And 2 is usually manager and team member through feedback and perhaps performance improvements. It should be utterly respectful at all stages.
Linus has moderated his approach quite a lot, and I think he’s a great example of growing self awareness in someone who used to be in the top right quadrant of the genius / asshole plane. He’s moved a long way towards “stern dad” from “bringer of the righteous flame.”
>you can also tell the person "This is really bad, you messed up, this type of a mistake is unacceptable and horrific"
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?
it's relative isn't it? it may not even be code per-se. I'm implying for the sake of this discussion that for the people concerned, this is equivalent to making a mistake that made a nuclear power-plant go critical. A business-killer bug is like that for those involved. People get laid off, families lose their source of income, people commit suicide, divorce,etc.. as a result. I'm usually less concerned about financial loss than the human impact surrounding our mistakes.
I've screwed up, but I hope I never screw up so badly it starts messing with people's lives and well being.
You are the only one conflating being asshole and being direct. I will be direct myself: it's a common strategy by assholes and asslickers to defend assholery in the name of the good. You can be direct without being an asshole, you can be firm without being an asshole.
Ask yourself what you want the person to think about, not what you want them to feel. They'll feel anyway, but if you're not careful they'll not think about anything but feelings.
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.
> Going for someone's feelings is just kinda silly.
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.
I think the core issue is that everyone reacts differently to different approaches of conveying a problem. Some people you scream at them "You're trash, you suck!" and their motivation to succeed explodes. Do it to others and they just collapse and check out. Some people screw up big, get a gentle talking to, and walk away feeling like it's no big deal. Others are dead inside and know they can never make that mistake again.
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.
Feelings are important, people remember how you made them feel,not what you said. I want them to understand that mistake/approach was really bad, I want them to feel the gravity of the situation so that when they do work like that in the future, they recall that feeling and take extra care. I don't want them to think they're stupid, or any negative thing about themselves, but I also don't want them to think "it could have happened to anyone". Communication is hard.
Let me be more direct.
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?
they don't have to feel the way I do, that's you misunderstanding what you're saying. They have to fee *bad* about what happened. I want them to associate negligence with "i screwed up and this could have been really bad", and then move on knowing they learned their lesson. I could have been then, I could have made that mistake. people forget words, but they don't forget emotions easily, that's why it's important for them to feel somber, to feel like you screwed up (but not like you're a screw-up), to feel like "I messed up and I never want to be in this situation again".
I've made really bad mistakes myself, I still fill horrible about it. When work that involves similar context comes up, I am extra careful and implement all sorts of checks and balances to avoid similar issues from arising. I only wish that for others.
If they repeat that sort of a mistake, they'll probably get fired, that's what's at stake. If nothing else matters, I would hope that at least matters to them. They should feel bad in the same way a person who mishandled a nuclear bomb's detonation mechanism should feel bad, that can't happen, it just can't. simply recognizing the problem, saying you won't do it again isn't enough, you need to feel and permanently have the gravity of the situation ingrained into your thought process.
>We lionized those who hurt others in the name of vision and made excuses for behavior that, in any other context, would be called what it is: toxic. We wrapped cruelty in clever quotes and pointed to output as if it justifies everything that comes before it.
>[...]
>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.
The tech industry is going through a difficult time now with neurodivergent people. They really want to make use of the gifts of neurodivergent people to make them money but the neurodivergent often struggle to deal with the ever changing social rules of the modern workplace. Training programs tend to be ineffective because the rules are in constant flux and are often non-specific as to allow them to be interpreted in whatever way benefits those enforcing them.
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.
This whole rant presents a false dichotomy, that you either communicate technical information with zero effort at interpersonal style, or you communicate with interpersonal style with no, or false, technical details. You frame turning criticism into constructive criticism as sugar coating or fluff. That interpersonal skill is the opposite of technical skill, rather than two different skills.
> 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.
There's been pretty substantial research done into the most effective ways to deliver feedback to students to maximize their development rate. However when it's not a student but a senior employee, manager or executive that did something they knew was wrong to cut a corner to make their job easier at the cost of making the company worse off, it's a different context and situation.
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 (e.g. whether the company has intense competition or a monopoly).
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
I guess the word "genius" (at least for me) implies Einstein or in more practical terms: Faraday, Watt, Newton, et al. Literally the hundreds of savants who propelled science and thus technology to ever greater heights.
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).
It’s the flip side of taking kindness for weakness, and in my experience people who do that reveal something concerning about their own character and worldview.
"People who are brutally honest get more satisfaction out of the brutality than out of the honesty." -Robert J. Needham
I've never had any problems with highly competent assholes. However, I cannot see any reason to consider a business man, let alone any "entrepreneur", a genius. What needs to stop is calling someone with no intellectual and cultural achievements a genius. Someone who doesn't have any intellectual achievements and hasn't contributed substantially to human culture like art, literature, cinema, theater, and so forth, is by definition not a genius. Whether they are assholes or not is not even relevant.
To be fair, this topic might be a bit of strawman anyway. I've never heard anyone unironically call a business person a genius.
You can be a genius leader. If you disagree about that then yes, most of the article is not going to be interesting.
Surely you've heard people refer to Steve Jobs and Elon musk as geniuses. I simply don't believe you haven't.
hmmm?m it's moronic to go along with any notion of genius as bieng any single thing, that is present or not. it is fairly reasonable to suggest that most of the lesser sheep are threatened and resentfull of anybody who offers real, implimentable, better, alternatives to the way things are bieng done now Some number of "genius" people are also socialy aware and adept, and know when to just shut up, and let the drones, drone,on, timing and co ordinating the implimentation of there ideas and making there genius look like luck or better yet politics.
People aren't only condemned for being direct, they're condemned for being honest.
Yes, she is overweight, he is ugly, you did do a bad job.
BTW, Jobs was adopted, Musk had a horrible childhood. Not a reason for forgiveness, but some explanation of their cruelty.
I don't think we really do conflate genius with being a jerk. More the problem is that some talented people are sociopaths, willing to climb to the top over a pile of corpses. Or, as they say of sewage, "the biggest pieces float to the top."
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.
[dead]
or winner with asshole
Actual geniuses do not exist.
It's the product of a ritualized society. People select one person, bump that person up, then hit it like a piñata.
If you dress someone like a piñata, people will hit it for the candy inside. One of the ways of doing that is shaming the piñata, like comparing it to an asshole, or portraying it as a weak troubled loser, or sexualizing it.
The article proposes we don't hit piñatas anymore. I agree. Furthermore, we should not make human piñatas in the first place. Let the geniuses and celebrities and leaders fade to normality and cease to exist as a thing.
Of course this implies many of our societal systems are piñata-based. Hierarquies, celebrities, leaders and so on.
I agree that collaboration is a key aspect to solving this issue. It seems, however, that human collaboration is very hard where there are piñatas everywhere. It's hard when kids want to grow up to be piñatas.
I am sorry that many cultures have this ritual so heavily ingrained as part of their whole identites.
> Actual geniuses do not exist.
A genius was one of the Roman house gods lucky dwellers might cohabit with. One is not a genius, rather one has a genius [0].
There were many specialised genii, ones for helping with childcare, one to make great cooking, or loving etc.
A genius channels spiritual/cosmic energy. Creatives who understand genius feel their creative source in a higher power, helped by their genius.
To "have a genius" then, is the most humble expression and acknowledgement that your created work and achievements are not fully your own.
This is a million miles from the modern assholery of the arrogant poseurs and imposters mentioned in TFA.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius_(mythology)
Yes, etymologically close to the word gnosis, which means knowledge. To learn and teach is to channel the spirit, etc.
But words change, myths change, and sometimes you need to shake them off a little bit to encourage a shift in perception.
Talking about piñatas in this case seemed more appropriate for the problem at hand.
> piñatas
Thanks for that word. I'm probably not smart enough to get your exact point, but I just had a nice dive into Mexican culture.
Mexicans are kind people.
In Brazil, the equivalent ritual is "malhar o Judas", or, "to beat the crap out of Judas", when an actual doll representing a traitor is beaten during street carnival festivals.