[HN Gopher] Ask HN: Do you assume good will at work?
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: Do you assume good will at work?
While reviewing code or interacting with your peers, how to not
fall into the trap of assuming everyone is stupid, has second
intentions, etc. I do it from time to time but a recent hire was
pretty angry at everything and seemed to think people were a bunch
of headless chickens trying to code. I was surprised but also
recognized I do that sometimes and I was wondering if people had
ideas for being more mindful and avoid falling for this at work.
Author : gtirloni
Score : 13 points
Date : 2022-07-11 19:41 UTC (3 hours ago)
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| My rule of thumb is to assume the best in regards to tech, and be
| skeptical in regards to politics. That includes your manager and
| your CEO.
|
| You should be advancing your manager's career. If you're not,
| you're at risk. So assuming good will in that situation is a
| recipe for nothing good.
| feet wrote:
| >You should be advancing your manager's career
|
| I thought feudalism was a thing of the past
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Let's put it this way. If you're not advancing your manager's
| career, you'll be let go.
| feet wrote:
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Having good emotional intelligence is one necessary tool. Being
| able to identify emotions, understand them, frame them logically.
| Down-regulating your own negative emotions is a big part of
| working with a team, as well as de-escalation, especially if the
| work may be wrapped up in ego (as I personally think software
| development is).
|
| Another aspect is understanding the reasons for choices.
| Sometimes we're just ignorant of a better way, and we need to be
| gently led toward that way. Sometimes we're aware of a better
| way, but we choose a "less-good way" for good reasons. Without
| understanding the reasons, we're liable to react from a position
| of ignorance, even though we may _feel like_ it comes from a
| position of superiority /authority. No matter the reason,
| patience is the most constructive virtue here.
|
| Then there's the psychological flaws some of us have, like
| perfectionism, anger, impatience. Sometimes we need help to
| overcome these persistent conditions; mentoring is helpful, but
| so is counseling. I have spoken frankly (but with respect) with
| colleagues in the past who had some persistent issues, and they
| did take the feedback and improve themselves. Won't always
| happen, but many people do want to be better.
|
| When someone is reacting poorly, if we understand that there is a
| reason they are reacting poorly (whether it be psychological,
| intellectual, social, or just having a bad day), we can react to
| it dispassionately and rationally, and help them calm down and
| work through the problem. And by "them", I also mean ourselves.
| :)
| tomohawk wrote:
| Whether you assume good or bad intent, your observable reaction
| and conduct should be the same - minimizing emotion and drama.
|
| After long experience, I always assume bad intent. I'm rarely
| disappointed, when, in the due course of time, that turns out to
| be the case. In the few cases where that turns out to not be the
| case, it is a pleasant surprise.
| haswell wrote:
| I've tried both approaches, and now I always assume good will. I
| think Hanlon's razor can also be helpful here, but gets at a
| different problem entirely, and one should be careful about going
| too far with their conclusions about incompetence or stupidity.
|
| Assuming the opposite is like a poison. And it's a poison that
| spreads to those around you. It spreads to your communications,
| and starts to manifest as a defensive communication style, which
| in turn starts to change how other people see you. It raises
| questions in other people's heads that wouldn't have been there
| otherwise, and the poison spreads.
|
| It starts to change how you think. You start spending time and
| mental energy thinking about things that have no reason to be
| true. You start to base foundational arguments and ideas on this
| distorted version of reality.
|
| To make this very practical, imagine a scenario which could be
| interpreted in two ways:
|
| 1. The other person has malicious intent
|
| 2. The other person has just as much going on in their life as
| you do, and doesn't always show up as the perfect version of
| themselves
|
| If you go about life assuming #1, and if everyone around you goes
| about life assuming #1, the only place this can lead is distrust,
| conflict, unwarranted conclusions, and a generally combative or
| at the very least, defensive mode of interaction.
|
| And it's because the same things you see in others are things
| that can show up in you or I. And chances are, you've done things
| that made someone else ask themselves the same question: "are
| they operating on good faith?". Of course, only you know the
| truthful answer, but I find it helpful to think about how someone
| else's default mode might change their perception of me.
|
| This isn't to say you should be naive about people who are not
| good actors. But assuming the best won't hide those bad actors.
|
| You don't have to look for the bad to find it. But if _all_ you
| look for is bad, that 's all you will find.
| matt3210 wrote:
| Most people are headless chickens trying to code, but it's not
| acceptable to tell them!! I usually assume people's issues are
| not intentional and treat them as oversights unless it becomes
| too frequent. People appreciate it and work better when you treat
| them like they are equals even if there not (purely with respect
| to skill and not any other characteristics obviously)
| gjvc wrote:
| To assume everyone is a good actor is naive.
| metadat wrote:
| Assuming positive intent is the right (optimal) place to start.
|
| Over time the bad actors inevitably expose themselves. They
| might not face negative repercussions from higher up, but at
| least you can then plan accordingly.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| The opposite of good will is bad will, not stupid.
| Url23nhn wrote:
| OrangeMonkey wrote:
| I've been told by people I trust, that I consider wise, that you
| should always assume the best. Maybe they had a bad day, maybe
| they are smarter than you and its you that can't understand,
| maybe they are trying but their own life is at a low point. I've
| been told that believing in the best of people will bring grace
| into your life.
|
| I don't know if that is true.
|
| What I do know is that every single time - every time - I assume
| bad intentions, it sours me, makes me less than I could be, and
| nothing good comes from it.
|
| Assume the best. We are all still people and still trying.
| derbOac wrote:
| I think I've grown more cynical as I've gotten older. I think I
| still assume competence and good intention usually, although not
| universally. However, I no longer assume good intention
| eventually prevails, or that the good intention isn't perverted
| by other motivations or problems. Even when you have a set of
| people individually following what seems like good intentions,
| sometimes collectively what they're doing leads to problems, and
| people can lack insight into the second-order effects of what
| they're doing.
|
| I've just been hurt too badly by being naive, and seen the
| rampant destruction that problematic behavior has caused. All it
| takes is one or two people in the right (or wrong) places to
| cause an avalanche of problems. Often, in fact, assuming nothing
| wrong makes it worse ("why would A be misrepresenting things?")
|
| My experience with problems, whether it be malicious or
| unintentional, is that the worst problems aren't with what
| they're doing at work, in the sense of the work tasks. It's in
| communicating with others, with managing, with fixing problems,
| mediating between individuals who disagree, effecting
| organizational change, and so forth. So for example, the coding
| is fine -- there might be something I disagree with, or something
| dated, or something imperfect -- but most of the time it's not a
| problem. Where the problem comes in is in discussing project
| goals, reconciling differences of opinion, how to inspire
| someone, how to address morale problems, water cooler
| manipulation, and so forth. _That 's_ where I get cynical or
| skeptical now. I still think most people are fine most of the
| time, but that remainder of people-time causes a world of
| problems.
|
| On the flip side of it I think people who are really good at
| management can address these issues and keep things in check,
| move people in a different direction that's more constructive.
| Everyone has down phases in their life, organizations have
| obstacles, and the right person or persons can really lead to
| good change. It's sometimes that person who takes an opportunity
| to do really simple things that could improve morale, mediate
| conflicts, and so forth, and does the opposite, that's the most
| disturbing to me.
|
| As for me, having said all that, I think I've only grown
| convinced the best thing is to be pretty open-minded and to try
| to consider all options. Sometimes I've thought people were being
| unfriendly or thought poorly of me, and if I had just reached out
| a bit, we would have both been happier. I guess that works both
| ways: I've tended to assume less in general, positive and
| negative, about coworkers.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-11 23:02 UTC)