[HN Gopher] How to give a senior leader feedback without getting...
___________________________________________________________________
How to give a senior leader feedback without getting fired
Author : RobinHirst11
Score : 350 points
Date : 2024-11-23 19:15 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (newsletter.weskao.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (newsletter.weskao.com)
| lisper wrote:
| Another tactic I like to use is a riff on the authors suggestion
| #3: "Is there a reason you did (or did not do) X?" This works
| because it's framed as accepting the decision and being genuinely
| curious about the rationale. Often the answer is: no, I never
| really gave it any thought. Other times there turns out to be a
| good reason that didn't occur to me and it turns into a learning
| experience for me.
|
| Another tactic that works for me is "Can I offer a suggestion?"
| The answer is almost always yes but it's a sign of respect to
| ask.
| calmbonsai wrote:
| This is excellent advice. In general, offering feedback in the
| form of a question is an extremely underutilized way of
| beginning a productive dialog.
|
| Unfortunately, likely due to surveys, most people are
| accustomed only offering declarations in lieu of
| interrogatives.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Depends on the profile, when somebody talks to me like that I
| immediately cringe in my head and lose all respect for the
| person.
|
| Probably a matter of culture too.
| lpapez wrote:
| Same here - whenever I see someone trying to get around
| giving honest feedback, and trying to frame it as "humble
| curiosity" instead, I immediately assume they read some
| "leadership" articles and are trying to apply it because they
| are second guessing themselves. I believe it depends a lot on
| the culture, but I am much more used to either keeping my
| mouth shut (when there is nothing on the line) or being blunt
| (when it matters). Either way, no sugarcoating or "being
| curious".
| lisper wrote:
| The problem with being more assertive is that there is
| always the possibility that you are wrong and the person
| you are "correcting" is right. Opening with an assertion
| makes it hard to save face in that case.
| thethirdone wrote:
| This seems like a very shallow way of thinking. "Losing all
| respect for the person" implies that you think this is NEVER
| an appropriate way to address someone. Phrasing a
| disagreement of opinion as a question of reasoning is often
| the best course of action.
|
| In particular if a choice has been made and going back to
| reverse it has significant costs, it is important to not say
| anything like "We should not be doing this" or "You made a
| mistake." Unless there is a good of action to reverse course
| that is simply being rude for no reason. Even in the case
| where there is a good way to reverse a decision, I would
| rather ask for the reasoning that led to the decision than
| strongly state the decision is wrong. If I am working with
| someone I respect at all, I must entertain the thought that I
| am wrong and they made the right decision with good
| reasoning.
|
| What would you say to a superior who made a decision that you
| disagree with, but don't think is worth reversing? My best
| guess is either nothing or something that more strongly
| asserts your belief, but I can't think of any better option
| than phrasing it as a question.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| > What would you say to a superior who made a decision that
| you disagree with, but don't think is worth reversing?
|
| "I don't understand ... it seems it has the consequence of
| ... My professional opinion in that case would be... and I
| would advise to... because of... Is there something I'm not
| seeing here?"
|
| Benefits:
|
| - I'm not faking it.
|
| - I already provide a lot of information up front to limit
| back-and-forth. This avoids assumptions and also works
| better for when you WFH.
|
| - The person knows exactly where I stand and where I want
| to go. It's not chit-chat, it's not politics, it's purely
| technical and I want to move on the issue.
|
| - If I'm wrong, I can get told right away. If I'm right,
| it's factual, and we can move on to solving the problem.
| And if the person's ego/social status is on the line, they
| can just BS their way out of it, and I'll just add nothing
| and move on.
|
| - The template drives the conversation enough that they
| only need a short answer to let us decide if it's worth
| reversing. And we can conclude on the price / consequence
| of that and move on if needed.
|
| I'll change that depending on the person. Some people are
| way better than me, in that case, I'll default to asking
| what I'm missing because it's likely they see something I
| don't.
|
| On the opposite, if it's a junior, I'll assume they get it
| wrong and help them to fix it (unless they can justify it).
|
| And of course, phrasing will depend of how much intimate I
| am with the person. Good friends will get a playful
| version, uptight clients will get the more formal one.
|
| Once you have done that several times and people know the
| routine and the relationship is good, you barely have to
| speak. You can just nod at something or raise an eyebrow,
| and start problem solving or get the info.
|
| But note that I can do that also because my clients value
| my opinion enough, have respect for my professionalism, and
| also know, because of my past interactions with them, that
| I focus on the problem to solve rather than blaming.
| kaffekaka wrote:
| In my experience, those phrases are more often used to disguise
| the real intent: "you are doing it wrong and I can't stand it".
|
| I think the best feedback comes from people who have tried to
| understand the reasons other people have, before asking "is
| there a reason ...?".
| lupire wrote:
| Your manager often admits they do bad things for no reason?
| lisper wrote:
| It's more like, "No, I didn't have any particular reason for
| doing it this way, if you have a better idea, go for it."
| switch007 wrote:
| > "Is there a reason you did (or did not do) X?"
|
| I think many people would take that as a direct challenge of
| their decision.
|
| I'm no human expert but personally I'd try something like "Man
| I bet you had to make some tradeoffs and juggle priorities over
| $X right ! ..." and then see what they offer up. At the water-
| cooler, bar etc
|
| > "Can I offer a suggestion?"
|
| It's not the done thing to say no to that but depending on the
| tone a lot of people would then just ignore whatever comes out
| your mouth
| danjl wrote:
| Actually this is good advice for giving feedback to anyone.
| flog wrote:
| This was one of the most exhausting aspects of working for a US
| company, especially as an H1B. Simply: just don't say anything,
| it wasn't worth it.
|
| I'm from cultures where we bluntly call a spade a spade and pride
| ourselves on disdain for hierarchy. There's far less fear in
| raising concerns generally to anyone, but it's quite possibly
| because of the far better employment laws.
| bradlys wrote:
| It's not just due to an employee being H1B. It's that 80% of
| your peers are Chinese and Indian H1Bs who bring that culture
| of deference to authority into the US.
|
| I don't even feel like I'm working in the US when I'm working
| for any tech company these days. If I'm at ads for FB, I may as
| well be in Beijing. Some others, I may as well be in Mumbai.
|
| It would be nice to work with Americans/westerners for once and
| actually be able to speak up about _something_ without getting
| fired.
| fcarraldo wrote:
| In my experience, Americans are much more likely to see
| criticism as a threat or an insult than in most European
| business cultures, where blunt feedback is common. I've seen
| many teams in different companies led by Americans where
| simply pointing out that a plan will fail in a public forum
| is tantamount to spitting in their face. It's absurd, and it
| destroys teams.
| csa wrote:
| > I've seen many teams in different companies led by
| Americans where simply pointing out that a plan will fail
| in a public forum is tantamount to spitting in their face.
|
| I've been put into the "practitioner of the dark arts"
| bucket twice when I predicted with detail and accuracy why
| certain large projects would fail.
|
| The folks in charge were offended when I presented my
| analysis, and they were just afraid of me after my
| predictions came true.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| I've found these situations to be no-win.
|
| When I had reasonable certainty of my next gig being
| lined up, I even put the question to leaders. "If I tell
| you why this project is destined to failure now in Q1 vs
| being quiet and playing along til end of year, will I be
| rewarded or punished any differently then?".
|
| The response was 100% nervous laughter. It turned out
| both layers of management above me were also well aware
| the marching order they were passing along were going to
| end badly, and had already lined up their internal
| transfers, which happened within days of my departure as
| well.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > The response was 100% nervous laughter. It turned out
| both layers of management above me were also well aware
| the marching order they were passing along were going to
| end badly, and had already lined up their internal
| transfers, which happened within days of my departure as
| well.
|
| If one has not read The Gervais Principle, it's highly
| recommended.
|
| https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-
| principle-...
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Yes it's quite explanatory
| bradlys wrote:
| The gap is much bigger between Americans and Chinese/Indian
| than it is between American and European.
|
| I'm not just talking about public forums. Saying anything
| to your superior (perceived superior or otherwise) would
| result in disciplinary action nearly 100% of the time. It
| is not even about blunt vs tactful feedback. It's about
| _any_ feedback. You do exactly what you're told and you
| shut the fuck up.
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| I found that out the hard way first time I worked in a
| company with European managers and majority Indian ICs.
| Acting European got me PIPed and then fired so damned
| fast for failure to shut up and do the needful.
|
| I don't think H1Bism is even primarily about depressing
| IC wages in the west, it's about middle managers being so
| burdened with pointless make-work from above that they
| just don't have time to lead. They need people who don't
| need to be led even if it costs in terms of quality and
| efficiency.
| 01100011 wrote:
| I don't agree with OP. I'm American and have mostly worked
| for American companies and have rarely had issues with giving
| honest, often difficult, feedback to superiors.
|
| But
|
| > 80% of your peers are Chinese and Indian H1Bs who bring
| that culture of deference to authority into the US.
|
| is sadly spot on. Even when the org is very receptive to
| feedback, one manager in the chain who possesses a cultural
| belief in absolute authority is enough to break the feedback
| chain and lead to an organizational abscess of festering
| dysfunction.
|
| It becomes even worse when your org's management has been
| taken over by a single cultural group and there is no one to
| turn to and your only option is to wait for the org to
| implode and be restructured from above.
| oreally wrote:
| This happens with any sort of foreign investments into any
| other country that has different sets of values. Even now
| the locals in my country are complaining about neo-
| colonialism and india/china-only perspectives in the
| companies they work for. Protectionist reactions are real
| and shape politics.
| tkiolp4 wrote:
| Interesting. I used to work mainly with european developers
| (dutch, french, germans, russians, spaniards, polish, etc.)
| and I always could speak my mind, and others would do so. No
| BS, no avoiding direct confrontation. But more recently I
| have been working with ex-faang american developers and I
| don't like it. It's not that they are like indians and the
| like, but definitely not as direct and straightforward as
| europeans.
| nvarsj wrote:
| I feel like Americans are all over the place. The top
| echelons of business in the US are very blunt and direct.
| The lower levels tend to be very indirect with lots of
| toxic positivity. I think this works out for capitalism and
| exactly fits the Gervais Principle.
|
| Brits are even worse than Americans at all levels (hence,
| the largely incompetent government and the fact most
| businesses are poorly run - it's literally The Thick of It
| at all levels).
|
| Indian/Asians are the absolute worst in terms of
| directness, these are all very strict hierarchies of
| business that only succeed if the top person is a genius,
| since they will never be challenged by anyone.
|
| Europeans definitely are most direct of all, so they don't
| put up with wage slavery, so business leaders can't
| maximize their extraction of value from labour, but they
| tend to have better quality of life all around :).
| kaashif wrote:
| As a Brit, I agree with your comments. I've had to
| overcome a lot of my own culture to be an effective
| leader, and even then I don't always do a good job.
| saltcured wrote:
| In my ~30 year career in the US, as a local, I have seen
| constant change. The FAANGs are even an amplified version
| of this. So when someone draws a comparison I always wonder
| if they are comparing contemporaries or rather an older
| experience versus a newer one, which is confounded by these
| temporal shifts.
|
| I think there are a few significant (first-order) factors
| in the evolving US tech culture.
|
| One is the often discussed age bias and growth rate, where
| these organizations are constantly diluting with incoming
| college grads and leaking their institutional knowledge and
| culture through low retention rates. It's not just H1B
| workers but all these new local hires who are "colonizing"
| the old tech world.
|
| The second is the way FAANGs have focused on general
| consumer markets, advertising, and pop culture. To my eye,
| other markets used to be more influential. These other tech
| problems and investments remain, but the new media gold
| rush has seized the attention for many years. Consumer tech
| has been merging with media in general, and I think the
| culture inherently shifts in the same way.
|
| The third factor is a bit recursive. The adoption of social
| media in the general population affects the way that
| culture evolves. This disproportionately influences young
| people, and a subset become the next wave of employees
| mentioned in the first point. But this is also why I wonder
| if these changes are more global, as my impression is that
| social media has accelerated the way regional cultural
| differences are eroding with more frequent and constant
| cross contact.
| lupire wrote:
| I don't like all the stereotypes people throw around, but
| among those stereotypes is that California tech bros are
| pathological delusional wannabe-hippie optimists who blow
| smoke and sunshine at everyone.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > It would be nice to work with Americans/westerners for once
| and actually be able to speak up about something without
| getting fired.
|
| In my experience Americans layer the "we're all friends here"
| on too thickly to ever be described as blunt.
| nvarsj wrote:
| I've had a pretty similar experience in big tech. Some
| cultures do really seem to struggle with feedback (both
| giving and receiving). It can be a very painful work
| environment as a result - given I'm an incredibly direct
| person.
|
| The best work culture I had was in a dutch firm. People just
| straight up called bullshit out all the time, and it got
| fixed fast. So refreshing. I've never been able to find
| another workplace like that.
| enugu wrote:
| Reasonable observations on office behaviour are being
| processed into glib stereotypes on culture. Employees
| _routinely_ show discontent in India, (just one instance
| https://www.reuters.com/world/india/workers-apple-
| supplier-f...). So much so, that labour disputes are
| considered a major obstacle to corporate investment. Like
| Europe, India has labour laws which make people hard to
| fire.
|
| There are other factors involved - if a H1B employee, whose
| job security is tied to the employer risks taking a 10x
| salary cut or more by going back home, then a fear for job
| security leading to such behaviour is a given.
| wnolens wrote:
| Too much my experience as well.
|
| Inside AWS felt like hundreds (thousands?) of Indians who
| have terrible jobs but don't do anything about it. Now that
| I'm out I can't believe what I put up with.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Perhaps you could present yourself as worthy through your
| work, rather than bemoaning that others as worthy were more
| conducive to being treasured employees?
| hackernewds wrote:
| What a ridiculous complaint and wild gymnastics to blame a
| cultural gripe on to the hardworking deferent immigrants
| tiznow wrote:
| It's not just H1-Bs from those cultures, either. I'll give
| everybody a fair shot but if your cultural mores are extreme
| deference to authority I'd like to be far away from you when
| doing anything serious. I'd argue that a certain level of
| distrust of authority is not only good but inherently
| American. And no, I'm not saying "Americans take criticism
| well."
| ninalanyon wrote:
| Sounds like you are Norwegian.
| INTPenis wrote:
| Or Swedish, Danish, German, Finnish, Dutch, and many other
| European countries where the laws protect workers.
| pharrington wrote:
| Kiwi.
| interludead wrote:
| This is why sometimes, "just don't say anything" becomes the
| survival tactic - especially when the risk of speaking up feels
| like it outweighs any potential benefit
| Hilift wrote:
| I call it the "smile and wave boys" response.
| lijok wrote:
| Astonishing. Completely backwards. This article describes how to
| give feedback to your subordinates, not to your superiors. If
| your superiors are unable to process no-fluff information,
| regardless of whether it's feedback or updates, they have no
| business lording over anyone and will sink whatever function they
| have oversight of. If you find yourself working under such
| people, don't bother giving feedback, start polishing your
| resume.
|
| The reason you fluff up feedback to your subordinates is because
| lower down the chain they tend to be insecure and don't yet have
| the experience to distinguish between actionable impartial
| feedback, and threats to their job security.
|
| The reason you don't fluff feedback, or any information for that
| matter to your superiors, is described in basically every
| handbook on highly effective communication in organizations.
| codr7 wrote:
| Thank God I didn't have to write all of that myself :)
|
| Well said!
| fny wrote:
| I think you're ignoring the "without getting fired" part. The
| implication is that you're in a situation where management is
| stubborn or even hostile to feedback.
|
| Most organizations don't practice "highly effective
| communication". It's often a nightmare riddled with politics
| and ego.
| Rygian wrote:
| > I think you're ignoring the "without getting fired" part.
|
| The "start polishing your resume" bit was quite explicit.
| fny wrote:
| I'd argue 99% percent of companies operate like this. No
| one likes blunt feedback--even in friendships and marriage.
| Good luck if you throw money and ego into the mix.
| harimau777 wrote:
| Unless you are the .1% of developer (and probably with a
| heaping helping of luck) you aren't going to end up working
| someplace that isn't terminally dysfunctional no matter how
| much you polish your resume.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Besides, who wants to work with someone that's only
| worked in these terminally dysfunctional workplaces.
| There must be something wrong with them.
| rqmedes wrote:
| Being in the top 0.001% of developers won't help if you
| don't have a large network or good brand
| Muromec wrote:
| I would say ego problem comes with a title.
| tyrust wrote:
| The advice isn't backwards, but some senior leaders are in the
| sense that they don't take feedback well. In this case, this
| advice is sound.
|
| Sure, in an ideal world you wouldn't have to fluff it, but I'm
| guessing many of us aren't in that world.
| wjnc wrote:
| This. I had to get a little used to not fluffing around my
| feedback. One of our managers just asked me to give it to him
| straight, directly and 1-on-1 and we'd get along fine. So we
| did. I still am having trouble with how little, what I see as
| fact based, feedback is needed before the average person has
| had enough.
|
| Example: I like to point out shitty work processes (one needs a
| hobby). Anything with a few loops and some rework goes for me
| to start my first time right story. People take offense. No
| stop, you are not the process. You didn't design it, you merely
| took part because we asked you to. Now stop and consider
| whether you think it is shitty and if so, what can we do? Can
| you do it? Do you need help? When? Organizationally, it's a
| good riff. For me, it's strange to do and see it help. It feels
| like delivering snake oil. (I rationalize this as delivering
| Lean in thirty minutes.)
|
| My communication plan is facts >> options >> opinions >>
| advice. This way I help people mentally separate "what is" from
| whatever opinion I'm holding. This works for both verbal and
| written communication. It's a coping strategy for being outlier
| direct.
| throwaway346434 wrote:
| I would give up a huge amount of my paycheck for a manager
| who heard me bitch and whinge about every little flaw; told
| me I'd made them too angry to continue the conversation but
| we should pick it up in ~48 hours with a mutually agreeable
| plan coming back with stats and analysis for where my opinion
| was simply wrong; vs where it was right.
| danjl wrote:
| It would be wonderful if the world could accept blunt feedback.
| It is certainly easier to give and more in-line with what most
| technical people would prefer. However, we work with humans,
| and we have learned an awful lot about how humans respond to
| language, especially criticism. The advice here applies to
| giving feedback to _any human_ , not just superiors. As you
| spend time working with humans, you learn, perhaps slowly that
| what you might consider "fluff" is really about helping make
| your point. Being direct doesn't always, or even usually, work
| as well.
| nithril wrote:
| Definitively agree. Being blunt, too direct is just the
| opposite of a good and effective communication.
| lucgray wrote:
| Being too blunt raises defenses and completely wipes out
| the effectiveness of your feedback. Folks that are invested
| in outcomes make choices for good reason, and they've
| probably got a track record to back it up. You have to meet
| them where they are, and considering their communication
| styles and how they make decisions will improve the chances
| you're actually heard.
|
| It's a fact of life that people shut down when approached
| with evidence that refutes their world view or choices. It
| doesn't matter if it's your boss or grandparents.
| nvarsj wrote:
| > It's a fact of life that people shut down when
| approached with evidence that refutes their world view or
| choices.
|
| I don't really agree with you. This is a basic quality of
| skilled leadership. You want people refuting your
| worldview with evidence! It lets you correct course and
| make things better.
|
| Only insecure people shut down like this in my
| experience.
| cle wrote:
| > If your superiors are unable to process no-fluff information,
| regardless of whether it's feedback or updates, they have no
| business lording over anyone and will sink whatever function
| they have oversight of.
|
| You're assuming that the subordinate's feedback is sufficiently
| important to the business. It might not be. It might also not
| be important to the business if subordinates leave b/c their
| feedback is disregarded. I can imagine plenty of scenarios
| where a leader could still succeed while not giving a crap
| about subordinate feedback. It depends on the goals and the
| dynamics of the business, the leader's experience, market
| conditions, labor environments, etc.
|
| > The reason you don't fluff feedback, or any information for
| that matter to your superiors, is described in basically every
| handbook on highly effective communication in organizations.
|
| You can argue in your exit interview that you were just
| following handbooks.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| It's even more important to give it bluntly if the feedback
| is irrelevant. That way you've wasted less time.
|
| Me: "we aren't giving enough guidance to new hires" Leader:
| "it's not a priority for us since we are freezing hiring"
|
| Perfectly good interaction, where you didn't waste time
| sneakily phrasing things you think you know better than the
| leader. And you learned some valuable info about the org
| priorities as a result.
| cle wrote:
| If the feedback is irrelevant, you'll waste the least
| amount of time by not giving it at all. (I think that's
| slightly different from your scenario though, where you
| don't actually know if it's irrelevant.)
| lazide wrote:
| And how would you know if it is irrelevant? See prior
| comment.
| cle wrote:
| Depends on the org and how information travels. Knowing
| tricks like this are the superpowers of people who move
| up quickly in large orgs and make things happen. You can
| sometimes do fine without knowing this, and going through
| the "official" route of the direct feedback loop. If you
| can figure it out elsewhere though, it'll usually build
| more trust with your superiors.
| lijok wrote:
| > You're assuming that the subordinate's feedback is
| sufficiently important to the business.
|
| That's for the superior to evaluate impartially, and if the
| feedback was not important, feed that back to the
| subordinate. Are you suggesting that it is reasonable for
| superiors to shut down when faced with uninteresting
| feedback?
|
| > You can argue in your exit interview that you were just
| following handbooks.
|
| I believe you skipped over the following part of my comment;
|
| > If you find yourself working under such people, don't
| bother giving feedback, start polishing your resume.
| drewcoo wrote:
| People get promoted by "managing up," which you call
| "fluffing."
| IshKebab wrote:
| > If your superiors are unable to process no-fluff information,
| regardless of whether it's feedback or updates, they have no
| business lording over anyone and will sink whatever function
| they have oversight of.
|
| Maybe, but the title is "without getting fired" not "without
| being _wrong damnit!_ ". Unless you have a significant number
| of shares in the company you should care about your own
| employment and success over the success of the whatever
| function this person has oversight of.
|
| > The reason you don't fluff feedback, or any information for
| that matter to your superiors, is described in basically every
| handbook on highly effective communication in organizations.
|
| And that reason is...?
| szundi wrote:
| Hard not to be cynical about your response but do you believe
| most of the superiors out there are on this level that you
| specify? Would be a joke.
| NAHWheatCracker wrote:
| I agree with you that's how it should be, but experience tells
| me that everyone is insecure and it's hardly correlated with
| position and job security.
|
| People lower down the chain are insecure because they could
| legitimately be let go at any time for any reason.
|
| People higher up the chain are insecure because any loss of
| face is debilitating. Especially having failings pointed out by
| someone "below" them.
| hashtag-til wrote:
| From my experience, you build that non-fluff boundaries in
| the first one or two meetings with a senior leader.
|
| I'd advise against going in the first one throwing punches.
|
| Go with actionable feedback and be honest about what it is
| and what is not something you can solve. From there, if you
| genuinely care about whatever you're complaning, you are more
| likely to be taken seriously.
| stavros wrote:
| > I'd advise against going in the first one throwing
| punches.
|
| I'd advise against going in _any_ one throwing punches.
| Instead, give actionable, honest, factual feedback with the
| intent to legitimately help the other person.
| jms703 wrote:
| This is the correct approach.
| rpmisms wrote:
| Simply be blunt about other topics to set the tone for
| interactions.
| inopinatus wrote:
| I don't know what godawful chain you are hitched to but I
| hope you can find a way off it.
|
| High-performance managers realise they are there to enable
| the talent. You're Brian Epstein, not John Lennon. The job is
| to create the conditions for folks at the pointy end to be
| wildly successful.
|
| One of the most defining characteristics of this attitude is
| the maxim "hire people smarter than yourself", a very fine
| sentiment with the only problem being that by induction it
| makes the CEO the dumbest person in the company.
|
| But I digress. If I'm fucking up, then I hope to god my
| trusted lieutenants will tell me without any pussyfooting
| around. It's practically what I hired them for.
| NAHWheatCracker wrote:
| I don't know you, but based on what you're saying, I guess
| you're in a much different environment than I've ever been
| in. You're probably also more of a "type A" person than I
| am.
|
| I've always worked in places that are essentially
| established businesses. People are mostly bureaucrats and
| lazy. I believe that's a large majority employers. If you
| honestly can't understand that that's how a lot of people
| work, then I think you live in a bubble.
| inopinatus wrote:
| I cannot disagree with your assertion that the majority
| of employment environments have a toxic pathology of
| hierarchical insecurities, and I've certainly worked
| within them.
|
| Albeit, yes, with a flagrant disregard for authority (I
| hesitate to label myself "type A", it's such a reductive
| term) that worked best when in the second and third
| decades of my career I was generally engaged on a
| consulting basis as a fixer/troubleshooter.
|
| So I would admit guilt to an accusation that I have
| placed myself inside my current bubble intentionally.
| It's a matter of psychological safety and self-respect. I
| wasn't kidding when I said I hope you can find a way off
| that chain, it's an outcome I'd wish on all my peers.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Can I suggest there is a difference between feedback and
| therapy
|
| We are all human, we have biases and blindspots.
|
| Your trusted lieutenants can come to you and tell you you
| forgot to do X and because doing X is something either
| within your personality comfort zone or just outside it,
| you can if reasonably adjusted take that on.
|
| But there will be things you are not reasonably adjusted
| for, things that require you to make significant
| adjustments to your world view and personality - things
| that you need to make serious compromises on
|
| Some people are so maladjusted they cannot compromise on
| stuff most of the world agrees on - generally we call them
| criminals. But this is a spectrum - bad managers usually
| have very poor matching between their personal problems and
| the needs of the role.
|
| But even good managers reach a point that their instincts
| and their rational mind cannot take them past.
|
| In short "everyone is promoted to their level of
| incompetence" is not a skills problem, but a character
| problem.
| YZF wrote:
| I agree with you in principle that's the correct attitude.
| However I don't think the comparison to the music industry
| is necessarily correct.
|
| A lot of managers in tech got there because they are
| technically strong. We can argue about whether that's
| correct or not but I think that's typically the case.
| People who perform well as engineers are the ones who are
| given leadership opportunities. People who do not are not.
|
| So first challenge is given you were maybe one of the
| smarter hires, of some smart people that tried to hire
| people smarter than themselves (let's assume), how do _you_
| hire people smarter than yourself? at scale?
|
| Where we end up typically in successful tech companies is
| with some degree of a mix of trying to make "folks at the
| pointy end successful" and some degree of "telling the
| folks at the pointy end what to do". Usually managers and
| directors are very strong technically and quite sharp,
| though more distant from the actual work because they don't
| do it any more. The precise mix depends on culture and
| circumstances but it's almost never this ideal environment
| of servant leaders surrounded by immense talent and just
| facilitating that talent doing great things.
|
| I've been in places that are very close to the "good" end
| of this spectrum and there's still going to be some pause
| in giving feedback to leadership that they've done
| something wrong. Maybe you have a great relationship with
| your lieutenants where they can be openly critical of you
| and you reinforce that. I think that's highly unusual in a
| social environment. It's a lot more likely there are
| certain things they won't share with you because they
| estimate the damage to the relationship is larger than the
| utility of being open.
|
| EDIT: I misread your statement about hiring people smarter
| than yourself, so I think we agree there. The problem is
| still that if you're the smartest person there's a bit of
| tension between that and creating conditions for the people
| under you to be successful. Btw, I still think you should
| try and hire people smarter than yourself ;) it's just hard
| to impossible to scale that - as you point out.
| inopinatus wrote:
| I don't want to rebut anything you say, but I will add
| one observation.
|
| > I think that's highly unusual in a social environment
|
| Agreed, but in my experience of startups particularly,
| this becomes more commonplace with older founders. It can
| also form the basis of an high-performance enclave within
| otherwise ossified large companies/institutions; these
| tend to get dragged down by the mediocrity police after a
| few years, but in the meantime you can get some good
| stuff done.
|
| Whether the music industry analogy is valid may be
| debatable, but I've had the privilege of seeing it first-
| hand, music was/is the family business, I grew up
| knocking around recording studios. So this mindset is
| engraved on my expectations of all talent-based
| professions, and I try to remember it whenever I fail to
| be humble.
| dahart wrote:
| > it's just hard to impossible to scale that
|
| The phrase "hire people smarter than yourself" is a
| platitude that is intended to foster an attitude, just a
| useful way of framing & thinking about people, mainly
| aimed at the manager, but has the byproduct of making ICs
| feel good about themselves. It's not really a literal
| measurable specific requirement or goal. One way to see
| that nobody is taking it literally is that nobody is
| reporting IQ on their resume, and nobody is giving
| standardized IQ tests during job interviews. (And of
| course I mean statistically nobody, I'm not claiming that
| it's never happened.) Often in hiring 'smart' doesn't
| really mean smart anyway, it means wisdom, experience,
| attitude, skill, communication, knowledge, motivation,
| creativity, adaptability, friendliness, culture-fit,
| etc., there are many different ways someone can be
| 'smarter' than you on at least 1 axis of whatever 'smart'
| means, and it's generally not hard to find them if we're
| realistic about how smart we are on all axes.
| Kamq wrote:
| > People higher up the chain are insecure because any loss of
| face is debilitating.
|
| You don't do it in public. There's no face to lose in private
| (you're a subordinate, face is only lost among peers and
| superiors).
|
| It is, however, not really a good idea to be 100% blunt out
| of the gate. There's a dance to it. But in public, I'm there
| to make my manager look good, and in private I'll tell them
| exactly what I think. Once they're confident I'm there to be
| at their back, it's never gone wrong, even in highly
| disfunctional orgs (I'm a consultant and get brought in to
| play "doctor" with hopeless projects a lot).
| lazide wrote:
| Most people can, some people can't - and the ones who can't
| can be incredibly dangerous.
| jajko wrote:
| Yeah good luck with getting anything, ever, out of folks
| that feel butt-hurt due to their fragile emotions, in my
| experience women often go the extra mile to hold grudges,
| while sporting big smiles publicly.. That gate is closed
| for good, and you really have no idea what to expect - be
| it silent treatment or even subversion and backstabbing.
|
| To summarize - each of us is pretty unique, and without
| going though it you can't know how words can affect other
| people, even those above you that should know better. But
| they didn't get to that elevated position via honed skill
| of listening calmly to their subordinates feedback, did
| they.
| lazide wrote:
| The challenge we all have is, that just leaves everyone
| angry with each other and unable to actually make
| progress or solve any problems together.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| > you're a subordinate, face is only lost among peers and
| superiors
|
| I disagree. Losing the respect of your subordinates is IMHO
| worse than of your superior.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| To a point. I have found that subordinates always have to
| feel that they have a "little secret edge" over their
| managers.
|
| In my experience, this is both harmless and necessary. If
| I, as a manager, can't handle that, then I'm kinda
| screwed.
|
| But it is also _highly_ dependent on the types of people
| we manage.
|
| _Source: Manager for over 25 years, of a bunch of folks
| much smarter and more experienced than me._
| vampiresdoexist wrote:
| If your superior is managing up well, then it truly
| doesn't matter if subordinates lose respect. Probably
| laying groundwork for new ones well in advance of that
| becoming a real issue for their status.
| Kamq wrote:
| You can lose the respect of your subordinates, but that's
| different than losing face.
|
| Although one may lead to the other, they are different
| things.
| Archelaos wrote:
| I think the OP meant: in private, face is only lost when
| criticised by a peer or superior.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| One of my favorite pieces of consultant advice, is _Beans
| and Noses_ :
| https://archive.uie.com/brainsparks/2011/07/08/beans-and-
| nos...
| namdnay wrote:
| in my experience, people higher up the chain are much more at
| risk of being let go at any time
| joz1-k wrote:
| I agree. And the insecurity that these managers feel makes
| them very poor leaders. They tend to be overly subservient
| to higher-ups and just pass all management decisions down
| the chain without too much thought. And they like to punish
| any disagreement (no matter how reasonable) from their
| subordinates. Insecurity is the opposite of a culture of
| trust. And where there is no trust, there is no real
| leadership.
| herval wrote:
| That's nice in theory. In practice, the likelihood of you
| working for someone who's unable to process the truth and will
| shoot the messenger is very high
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| I don't know if it's "very high". It can happen but on
| average I think successful people tend to be more reasonable
| and intelligent than average (not always obviously).
| lazide wrote:
| When times are good? You have a chance.
|
| When times are bad? Oh boy.
| jellicle wrote:
| If you've honestly never seen the types of leaders envisioned
| in this article you are very lucky indeed.
|
| For a large majority of supervisors, if you give them
| carefully-worded, polite, respectful, private, accurate,
| truthful, ego-preserving feedback about something they're doing
| wrong, their response will range between "immediate firing" and
| "hold a grudge against you, fire you as soon as they can find a
| replacement". There is _nothing_ that makes people as angry as
| accurately pointing out their flaws.
|
| The way around this is in essence to get the leader to think it
| was their idea to make a change, which is possible in some
| cases but not in others.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| It's surprising to me that such dysfunctional orgs exist
| where a single person can just fire someone immediately over
| some feedback. How have they even grown to be a business with
| that attitude?
|
| But sure, you do need to adapt your strategy for the
| environment you exist in. That's just common sense.
| hibikir wrote:
| The org has to be small for the firing to be immediate, but
| I have seen a "top of stack rank to unpassable PIP" be
| caused by a single conversation... and that's even in
| companies most of this forum would consider top performing.
| I would argue that trying to figure out the fragility of
| your management chain's ego is a key part of a successful
| career, even if what we are going to do with the news is to
| choose to change jobs.
| dheera wrote:
| > The reason you fluff up feedback to your subordinates is
| because lower down the chain they tend to be insecure and don't
| yet have the experience to distinguish between actionable
| impartial feedback, and threats to their job security.
|
| Rather than fluff it up, just make it explicit whichever you
| are doing.
|
| If you actually like their work and are making an actionable
| suggestion, just say that, and don't forget to praise them for
| the work that you like. Far too often I see managers _only_
| give the suggestion and then it ends up looking like a threat.
|
| > The reason you don't fluff feedback, or any information for
| that matter to your superiors, is described in basically every
| handbook on highly effective communication in organizations.
|
| The reason you _do_ fluff feedback to your superiors is that
| you 're on an H1B visa, are at risk of getting deported from
| the country and having to find a new home for your partner and
| new school for your kids (possibly in an unfamiliar language
| and environment for them), just for upsetting one superior.
|
| The reality is most people in large companies do not care about
| "highly effective communication". They are just trying to
| survive and not get deported. Once we can get rid of this
| stupid 60 day rule and insane housing and child-raising costs
| maybe people will start caring about their work. The most basic
| of Maslow's needs are not being met, hence the fluffing up to
| the authorities (bosses) who are in control of your livelihood.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Well yes, it's a higher variance approach. If you can't
| afford to look for a new job then by all means keep your head
| down and avoid all controversy. I would do the same in that
| situation. That doesn't apply to everyone however, so for
| those people it would make sense to try to make things better
| and potentially advance their careers.
| lupire wrote:
| If most people in your company are on s, your management is
| probably breaking the laws and is not the sort of person who
| appreciates honest communication.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| At [company that purportedly highly values candor], I've seen
| multiple people get canned by VPs or directors they've
| criticized internally. Granted, these situations were cases
| where this was communicated either in a larger feedback meeting
| that was supposed to be a "safe" space for such feedback, or
| via other communications that were visible to more than just
| the person being criticized. These criticisms were definitely
| high up in the PG pyramid and critical of the direction /
| vision / execution, not of the person themselves. The people
| who were fired from this were high performers who weren't
| otherwise on PIPs or anything like that. Leadership did the
| typical leadership dance of shifting blame, re-org, and carry
| on. It was sad and further eroded both trust and morale of
| others familiar with these situations.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| I suppose it depends on what type of "criticism" it is.
| Generally feedback is most valuable when it's constructive
| not critical. If you just say "X is bad" that isn't very
| useful no matter how you phrase it.
|
| I would be surprised if respectful constructive criticism was
| met with firing but I suppose it does happen. Probably not
| the best to be working for those people in any case.
| rqmedes wrote:
| Seen this dance many times
| Simon_ORourke wrote:
| I've seen this a lot, especially with junior folks getting on
| their high horse publicly about some direction or decision.
| Whenever it happens I make a point of putting a reminder in
| my calendar to check their corp Slack handle after three
| weeks to see if they're still employed. 9 out of 10 are
| deactivated when I check back.
|
| Hold your tongue, there's no such thing as a safe space in
| any all hands or group-level meeting.
| MortyWaves wrote:
| Sorry you work in such a toxic job
| neilv wrote:
| I had much the same reaction. To put it diplomatically, the
| article's advice is all about diplomacy.
|
| Much of their examples are a kind of diplomacy that you might
| use with a somewhat hostile, stupid, and/or petty person. Not
| in an environment of trust and respect.
|
| Or with an enterprise customer, where "business politeness" is
| expected, trying to gain advantage is expected, and no one
| expects you to be very honest.
|
| (Exception: In some cultures, it might be outright rude and
| mutually awkward to ever say anything critical-sounding
| upwards, or to offend someone by not going through the
| politeness motions, which would just be disrespectful. The
| article seems to be coming from some kind of environment or
| social expectations like that. I'm not talking about that here.
| I'm talking about, say, a US tech business environment that at
| least thinks it values speaking up with honest assessments.)
|
| Ideally, management welcomes straight talk, and will do the
| right thing with it.
|
| For example, if you've not been given reason to think the
| person above you is dishonest or unreasonable, and they haven't
| been given reason to think that about you, but you don't yet
| know them well, here's an example:
|
| "The team is having some serious difficulty. Is now a good time
| to talk very candidly and constructively about that? ... Two
| things. First, I think that people are feeling that they don't
| have a good understanding of what the goals are, and how
| they're supposed to be prioritizing, on a daily basis. The
| other thing that seems to be bothering people is that
| onboarding is rough, and people immediately feel like they're
| not doing well, and then they aren't getting out of that
| feeling."
|
| Note that this might sound a bit like some of the diplomatic
| framing of the article, in that it's not accusatory, but that's
| not what I'm doing. Some examples in the article attribute
| problems to the manager, and then use diplomacy, for cultural
| politeness, and/or to circumvent some pettiness they expect.
|
| By contrast, in this example, I'm instead respecting the
| manager as someone who will take the information
| constructively. I'm also not presuming to attribute blame for
| the problems, since I don't have all the information about the
| situation, including not knowing everything the manager has
| been doing and why.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > If your superiors are unable to process no-fluff information,
| regardless of whether it's feedback or updates, they have no
| business lording over anyone and will sink whatever function
| they have oversight of. If you find yourself working under such
| people, don't bother giving feedback, start polishing your
| resume.
|
| Sounds good on paper. Maybe true, oh 5 years ago. In this job
| market, polishing the resume is nice but you might have to deal
| with irrational superiors for a little longer. That's what the
| article is about.
|
| > The reason you fluff up feedback to your subordinates is
| because lower down the chain they tend to be insecure and don't
| yet have the experience to distinguish between actionable
| impartial feedback, and threats to their job security.
|
| It would all be nice and good if "subordinates" and "superiors"
| were some completely different, disjoint sets. Yesterday's
| insecure peers and your subordinates will tomorrow become your
| superiors. People who can - do, those who can't - manage. Their
| personalities and other qualities likely wouldn't change in the
| meantime. In a perfect world, everyone who is promoted to be
| anyone's superior will go through a strong leadership vetting
| process and they will take un-fluffed honest feedback from
| subordinates, without retribution. But I have yet to work for
| such an organization. Maybe you're luckier...
| lijok wrote:
| > Sounds good on paper. Maybe true, oh 5 years ago. In this
| job market, polishing the resume is nice but you might have
| to deal with irrational superiors for a little longer. That's
| what the article is about.
|
| Wouldn't it be better to just not provide feedback and coast
| along if you're in this position?
| cgio wrote:
| As a senior leader myself, that was my initial reaction. Then,
| I thought about myself and cohort and I would say,
| unfortunately, the advice in the article is required. There are
| challenges in feedback in both directions. E.g.the people who
| are best at receiving it are the ones who usually don't, either
| because they are strong in many other things than the feedback
| domain, or because they seem so self confident that people are
| intimidated. On the other hand, people who are not good at
| receiving feedback are also the ones who would be vindictive
| and their reactions may poison feedback as a practice. And also
| people may switch from one category to the other transiently,
| because of other pressures etc. In summary, in my own practice,
| while I am opinionated, I have never given negative feedback
| either to managers or subordinates. Not that they were all
| perfect, but I found it is usually up to me to work with the
| people and their strengths and weaknesses and by focusing on
| strengths I have not corrected any weakness, but have often
| made them irrelevant to me. Some may say this is a weakness for
| a leader, and I would agree but still focus on my other
| strengths.
|
| Edit: an additional consideration as I am digesting my
| response. People are more open to discussing how to improve a
| process or a system rather than a person or even more so
| themselves. Feedback is sometimes personal, that's why things
| like post mortems, process reviews etc. can work miracles when
| we manage to keep them about the process or framework rather
| than the people who are assigned to them.
|
| An additional slightly cynical point on feedback received as a
| subordinate (no matter how high up you most probably report to
| someone unless you are at the top). If someone gives you
| feedback about what you should do to get promoted/a raise etc ,
| you are 90% not going to get those even if you heed to the
| feedback. These things happen for things you do, and the
| broader perception of yourself not on the basis of a checklist,
| and if they use a checklist against you, they don't really care
| about You. If someone mentors you, you will get it. Learn to
| read the difference between the two.
| zabzonk wrote:
| Well, "senior leader", if this is the kind of
| incomprehensible stuff you routinely come up with, I'm amazed
| your teams produce anything.
| ctxc wrote:
| Formatting/phrasing could be improved, but
| incomprehensible? I don't think so.
| cgio wrote:
| Well, I must be good in other things right? Not known for
| being very comprehensible indeed. We all have to play to
| our strengths.
| swisniewski wrote:
| I think you may be making assumption: that the feedback you are
| trying to give is clear, articulate, and constructive. When
| speaking to someone significantly more senior than you it's
| entire possible that your feedback may not be.
|
| And that is really the point of the post. Here is advice on how
| to make sure your point is clear, articulate, and constructive.
|
| As someone becomes more senior 2 things happen:
|
| 1. They acquire more authority 2. They have more demands on
| their time.
|
| In these situations, you need to work to make sure you are
| communicating what you intended to communicate. That requires
| effort.
|
| I wouldn't view this advice as "how to deal with fragile egos",
| but instead would view it as "how to make sure you are not
| misunderstood when having critical conversations with high
| stakes".
|
| In that regard it is good advice.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I think not raising anyones hackles with your feedback applies
| pretty universally. It's too much to expect senior leaders to
| not be human.
| haliskerbas wrote:
| 25% of my manager and above in big tech have acted in the ideal
| way you describe, and the rest have been back stabbing,
| childish, two faced, toxic, and many other negative traits,
| making any open honest or direct communication impossible
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Honestly, if you've had decent management 25% of the time,
| you're doing much better than the rest of us.
|
| Management is hard, because it makes significant emotional
| demands on us, and a lot of people deal with the combination
| of power and emotions badly.
| runeblaze wrote:
| My limited corporate experience is that you fluff feedback to
| the less effective leaders so that you can still influence
| them. The more effective leaders you talk to them directly and
| team up with them to accomplish great things together. It is a
| matter of different strategies.
| kijin wrote:
| Less effective leaders are like GPT.
|
| You need to be both careful and creative with your prompt in
| order to get them to produce the result you want. :)
| majormajor wrote:
| I'm not a fan of a lot of the examples here for feedback up or
| down.
|
| > "We may need to give even more guidance to new hires."
|
| Up or down, "we may" and "even more" are weasel words that
| weaken what you're saying. It's trivial for someone to
| interpret that as "they think maybe we could do more, but they
| seem to also see that we do a good amount already."
|
| > "I used to struggle with this, and when I tried X, it really
| helped."
|
| This one I think is good for managing down; bad for managing
| up. It's less weasel-y but it risks coming off very aggressive
| - "I already figured this out, what is wrong with you?"
|
| > "The team made amazing progress when we all focused on the
| website update last month. It might help to have one or two
| clear priorities for the team this month that everyone can
| rally behind."
|
| You have a great example, "it might help" is again weakening
| your POV compared to something more like a direct "what are the
| top priorities this month that we can all rally around?"
|
| > "When we were able to dedicate that first week to training
| Steve, he got up to speed pretty quickly. The bit of upfront
| time seemed to have paid off, and taking a similar training
| approach for our next hire could help them ramp up just as
| fast. What do you think?"
|
| Here we've taken a lot of words to state the obvious, which IMO
| both runs the risk of losing the urgency in the verbosity and
| coming off as pandering and over-explaining the obvious.
|
| I think "what are your thoughts on" and "one approach might be"
| are better in both up-and-down directions as long as associated
| with a clear specific "here is something I noticed that I think
| is sub-optimal" situation.
| awanderingmind wrote:
| I agree strongly - if I worked at an organisation where the
| linked article was the 'necessary' way of communicating I would
| look for a job at a less dysfunctional company. The context of
| the article seems to be a workplace with a sense of hierarchy
| that is inimical to honesty if it threatens insecure managers'
| egos or social standing.
| Simon_ORourke wrote:
| > If you find yourself working under such people, don't bother
| giving feedback, start polishing your resume.
|
| Never a truer word said than this. It's incredibly naive to
| think that any unfiltered feedback upwards to senior management
| will be welcomed. In reality, no matter how accurate the
| feedback may be it will be regarded at best as useless, and at
| worst as a direct threat to leadership requiring a response.
| This response may come in the form of a re-org, team move or
| headcount reduction.
|
| While totally disingenuous, your best strategy is to simply tow
| the corporate line while looking for a new job.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| > If you find yourself working under such people, don't bother
| giving feedback, start polishing your resume.
|
| Yeah, I'm not going to change a job just because one of my
| superiors is insecure (and the other things are good). This
| all-or-nothing mentality is just thought-stopping.
| lijok wrote:
| > Yeah, I'm not going to change a job just because one of my
| superiors is insecure
|
| You likely are, willingly or not.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| > start polishing your resume
|
| What if you have reached the optimal level of income, and the
| work itself you like? Anywhere else would be a cut in either
| one of those 2.
| spoiler wrote:
| I guess distance yourself emotionally from your job, but
| continue looking and be picky about your next role.
|
| I'm in a similar boat, but my engineering manager wants to
| get rid of them, so I'm being dragged into office politics
| now.
|
| Other than a few rotten apples, the company is great. So, I'm
| also somewhat reluctantly looking for a new role.
| roenxi wrote:
| There is some important piece of context there though - if
| leaders aren't capable of the emotional intelligence to process
| blunt feedback, they are bad leaders _and there is no hope of
| change_. Learning to recognise them and just leave them alone
| is one of those valuable life skills that most employees learn
| sooner or later. Some people are just not going to take
| feedback and if they end up in management that is that; there
| is nothing to do but enjoy the show as best you can.
|
| In that situation fluffing the feedback will do nothing. It
| might take years of effort to get marginal improvements and it
| is more productive to focus on something that is ... well ...
| more productive.
| joz1-k wrote:
| There is a lot of truth in this, but especially when
| developers are semi-randomly promoted into leadership roles,
| they should be given enough time (and mentorship) to learn
| from their own mistakes. Some will learn very quickly (those
| with enough emotional intelligence), and some will learn
| nothing no matter how much time you give them. Being a good
| manager with formidable leadership skills is something you
| can only get through experience.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| > there is no hope of change.
|
| There is an off chance that management (I'm not using the
| word leadership here deliberately) is taking leadership
| coaching, that the coaching is good, and that the coach will
| actually intervene and bring about change. Small likelihood
| of course, but not zero.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| You are not entirely wrong, but I think you're underestimating
| the value of respecting human emotion. If people are leaving
| the team or it is missing deadlines, angering customers, making
| more work for other teams etc., your manager doesn't need your
| blunt feedback about performance and sustainability.
| scotty79 wrote:
| This article gives a good advice how to give feedback to anyone
| without souring relationship.
|
| Everyone can be insecure and if your superior happens to feel
| insecure about you that day the damage can be severe.
| atoav wrote:
| You must be very lucky. The majority of places where I worked
| was headed by people with fragile egos that you had to slowly
| guide to the right conclusion without the presence of an
| audience.
|
| If you told them something that could be interpreted as a
| criticism of a decision in front of others they would in
| principle not accept it and play to the audience. If you just
| told them a fact thst they disliked they would argue against
| it, I had a superior argue against _fundamental laws of
| physics_ bscause he disliked the conclusion that followed from
| that lae being true.
|
| Luckily I am a very diplomatic person and have no issues with
| that -- but apparently things within organizations aren't as
| they _should_ be.
| Arech wrote:
| Exactly this. Somewhat an issue here though, that this is
| essentially a matter of a person's culture. What you've said is
| most likely true for WEIRD (acronym) people, but for other
| cultures where retailiation is quite possible, one either have
| to dance that silly dances, or indeed polish their CV.
| whateveracct wrote:
| > If your superiors are unable to process no-fluff information,
| regardless of whether it's feedback or updates, they have no
| business lording over anyone
|
| and yet here we are...
| est wrote:
| Good lord the comments section surely blew up. Can we just give
| this "fluff-up feedback" job to LLM already?
| 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
| >The reason you don't fluff feedback, or any information for
| that matter to your superiors, is described in basically every
| handbook on highly effective communication in organizations.
|
| This is the key assertion underlying your comment, yet you just
| wave it off by referring to unnamed "[handbooks] on highly
| effective communication in organizations".
|
| My no-fluff feedback for you: Your comment would've been far
| stronger if you simply specified these unnamed handbooks, and
| summarized their argument, as opposed to fulminating + offering
| a handwavey argument-from-authority.
|
| (Curious to see how you'll take this no-fluff feedback. Let's
| see if you're management material by your own standards.)
|
| EDIT -- here is a LinkedIn post by a lady who wrote a book on
| workplace communication called _Radical Candor_. Her post
| recommends plenty of fluff for the boss, and to be frank, I
| think she makes some pretty good points:
| https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kimm4_how-can-you-practice-sa...
| 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
| I was curious, so I used Perplexity.AI as a quick sanity
| check for lijok's comment. Here's the result:
|
| https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-are-some-handbooks-
| on-...
|
| None of the books identified by Perplexity.AI appear to
| endorse lijok's claim. Of course, it could be a confabulation
| -- this is just a quick sanity check, to see if the claim is
| as manifestly true as lijok seems to think.
|
| (Putting this in a separate comment so people can downvote
| separately if they want. If people don't like this sort of AI
| sanity check on HN, that's fine. Thought it was worth trying
| as an experiment, though.)
| dingnuts wrote:
| more like an insanity check. Did you ask the AI multiple
| times? usually if I ask a yes or no question and simply
| repeat the prompt a few times the model will tell me yes,
| no, and maybe, for any question.
| 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
| Here's a link the AI cited, a LinkedIn post by the author
| of the book _Radical Candor_
|
| https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kimm4_how-can-you-
| practice-sa...
|
| >How can you practice safe Radical Candor with your boss?
|
| >...
|
| >Start by asking for feedback before you give it. You
| want to make sure you understand the you're boss's
| perspective before you start dishing out praise or
| criticism.
|
| >...
|
| >Tell your boss what you appreciate about them. This is
| not "kissing up." It's praise, which is an even more
| important part of Radical Candor than criticism.
|
| >...
|
| >Say something like, "Would it be helpful if I told you
| what I thought of X?"
|
| >...
|
| >If your boss says yes, start with something pretty small
| and benign and gauge how they react...
| svnt wrote:
| Did you read the result you linked?
|
| > Several handbooks on highly effective communication in
| organizations are:
|
| 1. "Winning" by Jack Welch and Suzy Welch, which emphasizes
| clear communication, open dialogue, and transparency in
| organizational success.
|
| 2. "Fierce Conversations" by Susan Scott, focusing on
| transforming everyday conversations at work to achieve
| success.
|
| 3. "Radical Candor" by Kim Scott, which promotes empathetic
| yet direct communication in professional settings.
|
| In your reading of those titles and summaries, do they seem
| likely to recommend communicating layers of fluff to
| executives?
| 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
| Scroll down to the 2nd question: "What advice do these
| books offer to a subordinate who wants to give feedback
| to their manager? What's their reasoning for the advice?"
| axpy906 wrote:
| Ah, Jack Welch is the top source in 2024... hm
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I'm always curious when comment responders glom on to the
| least important part of a comment and dissect it to no end. I
| took "is described in basically every handbook on highly
| effective communication in organizations." as essentially
| "the standard for communication in effective organizations is
| to be direct and to the point." It did not warrant a
| "SOURCES??!!" response IMO because it wasn't saying anything
| that was uniquely attributable.
| 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
| The claim didn't ring true to me, based on what I've read
| about the topic in the past, or based on my personal
| thoughts and experiences. So I wanted a source. It should
| be easy to provide a source, if sources are as plentiful as
| lijok says.
|
| >the standard for communication in effective organizations
| is to be direct and to the point.
|
| Sounds very nice, but empirically humans often struggle
| with frank feedback. I think that goes for both
| subordinates and superiors, for different reasons.
|
| I would argue it can be worthwhile to spend an additional
| 25% time to make it clear that it's nothing personal, to
| avoid risking a deterioration of your relationship.
|
| Obviously, it's good to have friendly relations with your
| coworkers, including your boss.
|
| If you have a high-trust relationship with your boss where
| there's no risk of deterioration, and you know your boss
| likes it when you speak your mind -- more power to you. Be
| direct and to the point.
| joyeuse6701 wrote:
| I agree, I think there was a Buddhist analysis of
| conversation, right speech, which I find useful as a
| guide to giving and receiving information: Is it well
| intentioned? Is it kind? Is it timely? Is it beneficial?
| Is it true?
|
| I suppose that if you can craft feedback with this
| criteria in mind it'll have a high chance of going over
| well.
| navane wrote:
| Are you replying to your superior? He didn't say always no
| fluff, just that as a superior you should be able to handle
| it. That actually is the key assertion, the power imbalance
| direction.
| lijok wrote:
| > My no-fluff feedback for you: Your comment would've been
| far stronger if you simply specified these unnamed handbooks,
| and summarized their argument, as opposed to fulminating +
| offering a handwavey argument-from-authority.
|
| I know.
|
| That post you linked to is great. I especially found
| insightful the part where she said "If your boss says no, let
| it drop and polish up your resume! "
| interludead wrote:
| If you find yourself needing to tiptoe around a leader's ego
| too often, it might signal deeper systemic issues
| alistairSH wrote:
| There a lot more subtlety to this than you seem to indicate.
|
| I'd never give negative feedback to an exec (+2 levels above
| me) in a large meeting. I'd wait for a more private setting.
|
| With my immediate boss (director) I'd provide feedback in a
| small "managers only" group if I thought there was something to
| debate as a group, but not an open team meeting.
|
| But your comments about subordinates is true. Generally try to
| keep feedback positive/constructive. And time it so they don't
| feel attacked.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| For (most) management. Absolutely do NOT do this:
|
| "I'd wait for a more private setting."
|
| Only do this IF you think management is well adjusted human
| being that is not ego driven. I leave it to reader to decide
| exactly how much of management falls into that bin.
|
| If management is not, they will know that you are a threat to
| them and work to undermine you and get you removed. If you
| provide feedback publically they can less afford the
| reputational hit (if you're correct in your publically aired
| assessments).
|
| In either case you must play nice with your coworkers and
| subordinates.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Fair point. "More private" not 1-on-1. I'd probably have my
| manager in that conversation (and quite possibly run my
| thoughts by them before offering them to the exec).
| lijok wrote:
| Fully agreed. I would consider not pointing at people's
| faults in a public setting to be basic etiquette.
| chipdart wrote:
| > If your superiors are unable to process no-fluff information,
| regardless of whether it's feedback or updates, they have no
| business lording over anyone and will sink whatever function
| they have oversight of.
|
| You're arguing based on how you think the world should be
| instead of how the world actually is.
| lijok wrote:
| Are you suggesting that functions overseen by those unable to
| process no-fluff information, are often successful and do not
| sink?
| fellowniusmonk wrote:
| Yes, many "superiors" would be better replaced by AI because
| they would be better able to process accurate feedback
| dispationately.
|
| Where have you worked my dude that you have this perspective?
| After a long and storied career I can safely say you must have
| a narrow experience and there is nearly endless literature
| about the need to manage up.
|
| Or maybe you're a bully boss yourself and it's just an empathy
| disconnect.
|
| Or maybe you've only worked in relatively large corporations?
| Idk, the thick skinned executive isn't a trope and it isn't a
| trope for a reason.
| rybosworld wrote:
| This is very much a "the world _should_ work this way" view
| point.
|
| But this attitude is not particularly useful in a world where
| things aren't black and white.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| Do not give feedback to your boss.
|
| https://www.manager-tools.com/2012/02/do-not-give-feedback-y...
| antiframe wrote:
| Would you be so kind provide a summary of your link? The show
| notes cost $15!
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| NotebookLM is very decent at giving summaries to lengthy
| audio files:
|
| The sources strongly advise against giving feedback to your
| boss, even if your boss claims to be open to it. This is due
| to the inherent power dynamics in organizations and the
| potential negative consequences. Here's why:
|
| - _Power Differentials_ : Organizations have vertical
| structures where bosses have more power, authority, and
| responsibility [1-3]. This means that certain behaviors, like
| giving feedback, are reserved for those in higher positions
| [3].
|
| - _Risk of Negative Reaction_ : Even if a boss claims to be
| open to feedback, they might react negatively, consciously or
| subconsciously, to criticism from their subordinates [4-6].
| This can lead to:
|
| - _Damaged Relationships_ : The boss may view the feedback as
| insubordination or a lack of respect, straining the
| relationship [7]. Stalled Career Progress: The boss may hold
| a grudge, potentially impacting future promotions or
| opportunities [7].
|
| - _Job Security_ : In extreme cases, giving unsolicited
| feedback could even lead to termination [8].
|
| - _Misinterpretation and Misunderstanding_ : Bosses often
| interpret upward feedback as a challenge to their authority
| or a lack of understanding of the complexities of their role
| [9, 10]. They might feel that the direct is overstepping
| their boundaries or does not have enough experience to offer
| valid criticisms [11].
|
| - _Breakdown of Hierarchy_ : Allowing upward feedback can
| blur the lines of authority and lead to a situation where
| directs feel empowered to dictate their boss's actions [9].
| This can create chaos and undermine the effectiveness of the
| team.
|
| - _False Sense of Openness_ : Many bosses want to believe
| they are open to feedback, but in reality, very few are truly
| capable of handling it maturely and constructively [12, 13].
| Their initial openness might just be a facade that crumbles
| when faced with actual criticism [14].
|
| The sources highlight that while it's tempting to give upward
| feedback, especially with good intentions, it's generally
| unproductive and carries significant risks. They advocate for
| focusing on alternative approaches like offering suggestions
| during brainstorming sessions or providing input through
| formalized channels like 360 reviews, while exercising
| extreme caution even in those situations.
| codr7 wrote:
| I don't think tip toeing around people like this is a solution at
| all. But I've never worked in the US.
|
| Some important questions:
|
| 1) Why are they a leader at all?
|
| 2) Why are they your chosen leader?
| parpfish wrote:
| Just like there are plenty of employed, bad devs there are
| employed, bad leaders/managers.
|
| Maybe they aren't good at it, or maybe they're new to managing
| and this is one skill where they will get better.
| codr7 wrote:
| I'm thinking maybe we should be more careful in general with
| who we give these kinds of responsibilities to.
| parpfish wrote:
| People can grow into their roles. You don't expect junior
| devs to know everything one day one, so why would you
| expect a "junior[1]" manager?
|
| [1] I know the article is about senior managers, but it
| reads as though the mean "somebody more senior than me" and
| not "somebody who has been managing a long time"
| codr7 wrote:
| The difference is the damage done.
|
| I don't think training managers on real people is a good
| idea.
| loup-vaillant wrote:
| Genuine question: how do we train managers, then?
| Surgeons have pigs, but even then it's not perfect, and
| there comes a point where they have to perform surgeries
| on actual humans (hopefully under supervision).
| notnmeyer wrote:
| pretty interesting. i think i fall on the blunt end of the
| communication spectrum, so this gave me some things to think
| about.
| cess11 wrote:
| It's not a senior leader if they aren't spending a lot of time
| prying out this kind of information from their team already.
|
| Looking at their web page this author seems like a professional
| bullshitter that pivoted into enabling other bullshitters, for a
| fee.
| kybernetikos wrote:
| Most of those examples (not giving enough direction, not training
| new hires enough, not being clear enough on priorities) are
| probably not going to be surprises for the person, and if you
| give feedback that shows you want someone to behave differently
| without having given some thought about why they aren't already
| then your feedback talks more about your own lack of experience
| and empathy than anything else.
|
| To give good feedback to anyone you need to understand something
| about the pressures and challenges that they are facing. And
| remember that everything is a trade off. For example, perhaps
| they're incredibly busy, and would like to spend more time with
| new hires, but are struggling to find time because they aren't
| getting enough blocks of concentration time to work out clear
| priorities and they have been told they need to give their
| trusted colleague more opportunities to grow so they delegated it
| to someone.
|
| Most likely, if you think something is a problem then they do
| too. They don't need to be told that or criticised for it, they
| need help _solving_ the problem that causes the problem.
|
| Imagine the difference between "I want to give you feedback that
| you aren't spending enough time with new hires" vs "I know you've
| been wanting to spend more time with the new hires, why don't you
| take them for lunch and send me to your status meeting over
| Tuesday lunch time this week."
|
| As I started doing more leadership, I became aware that a lot of
| the things I might previously have cited as predictable examples
| of leadership incompetence causing problems were not surprises to
| leadership. They knew that this course of action would cause
| problems. The reason that they went ahead anyway was because they
| believed that the problems caused by the other courses of action
| available to them would be worse.
|
| Of course, there are situations this advice does not apply, maybe
| the leader genuinely is clueless or evil or mistaken about the
| severity of a problem, but a good leader when presented with a
| problem elsewhere needs to start from a position of respect and
| learning and if you want to give advice to a leader you should
| start by trying to model good leadership yourself.
| cdavid wrote:
| > Imagine the difference between "I want to give you feedback
| that you aren't spending enough time with new hires" vs "I know
| you've been wanting to spend more time with the new hires, why
| don't you take them for lunch and send me to your status
| meeting over Tuesday lunch time this week."
|
| This is the proper answer. Ultimately, feedback should be about
| changing something. My experience is that most people are
| neither good at giving or receiving feedback, and that includes
| myself. There are more effective ways to change things.
|
| OP's is useful when you have to give feedback, which is
| expected in most large companies in some form or other (evals,
| etc.).
| danparsonson wrote:
| Delegation is the managers job - it's not up to the
| subordinate to delegate on their managers behalf IMO.
| cdavid wrote:
| One of the surest way to get your manager's back is to help
| them make their goals and put some stuff off their plates.
| Like other people said, most semi competent managers are
| aware of issues happening in their team. If you come up w/
| some proposal to solve those issues, it will improve the
| team much more effectively than some feedback.
|
| It also depends on your goals, but fixing some issues
| encountered by your manager is one of the most reliable way
| to promotion in up to mid size companies, unless your
| manager is a a*hole.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| I think the best feedback is pointing out problems (and then
| trusting the other party to act or at least explain why things
| are that way). You never have the full context so just telling
| someone they need to behave differently may not even be ideal
| given the information they have.
| lupire wrote:
| I don't think a manager will be impressed by a report saying "I
| know you can't do your whole job, so let me handle face time
| with the execs so I can take your job from you."
| kybernetikos wrote:
| I can only speak for myself, but if someone I trust wants to
| solve some of my problems for me, enabling me to be better at
| my job, I love that and will push for their recognition and
| promotion.
|
| If I don't trust them to represent me and the team, then
| obviously that suggestion wouldn't work, but I'm trying to
| express the difference between someone pointing out a problem
| as if the problem is just yours or offering to help take
| responsibility for the problem as part of a team with you.
|
| I've worked with people who made it a point of pride to
| always bring a concrete, workable suggestion whenever they
| brought me a problem. We didn't always go with their
| suggestion, but they were fantastic to work with.
|
| Thankfully, I've never had to worry about keeping good people
| on my team down out of fear they'd take my job.
| creer wrote:
| > I don't think a manager will be impressed by a report
| saying
|
| It's funny because it could go exactly the two opposite ways.
| If you "report the problem", you might be - totally as
| punishment - volunteered into the position to work on it, in
| addition to your normal workload. If you "report the problem
| and volunteer to do something about it", you might be shot
| down. Hilarious, right?
|
| That's back to the fundamental problem: you need to work on
| building an understanding of your manager. You have the
| workload assigned to you, then you have everything you need
| to do to further your own career.
| Wurdan wrote:
| I would be impressed by one of my reports saying "We've
| worked together to get me ready for the next step in my
| career, and I think more face time with our execs will help
| me take that step. Can you help me find opportunities to get
| it?" This is assuming we're on the same page about how ready
| they are to take that step. But if we're not on the same
| page, then I've already failed in performance reviews and
| feedback.
| Zeebrommer wrote:
| I agree that most leaders will now they are fallible, and also
| have some idea of which things are problematic. As an
| inexperienced leader, I still valued getting "known feedback".
| It gave me a better idea of which problems were growing too
| large, and which ones remained minor annoyances. In addition,
| acknowledging the points that were brought up and explaining
| why I hadn't gotten to addressing them (besides being human)
| usually gave the person giving the feedback a more positive
| outlook.
| somishere wrote:
| Leaders don't hold all the power. As others have said, I think
| this is a good approach for everyone - showing a bit of empathy
| and "you don't know what you don't know" when corresponding with
| people. In fact it's good leadership 101.
|
| Edit: can anyone suggest any good (free) tools for eliciting 360
| feedback? Potentially anonymously?
| terminalbraid wrote:
| I disagree with much of the premise and frankly don't think this
| person should be giving advice. Some of what's in there isn't bad
| like "be thoughtful about what you say". However, if you already
| feel something needs to be changed to the point where you're
| thinking something needs to be said but then you follow the
| article to force yourself to ask questions like
|
| > "Can I live with this? How much does this bother me? Is it
| worth giving them feedback and what are my chances of success
| doing it?"
|
| _and doing multiple rounds of this_ you are compromising with
| yourself at an early stage. This frequently leads to things
| escalating (the problem didn 't go away and in fact got
| incrementally worse because there was _no negative feedback_ )
| which makes it a much harder situation.
|
| This article is also written with examples like, if you don't
| make small changes to your wording, you'll get responses like
| "You think I don't know that I need to give new hires guidance? I
| obviously gave them guidance. GTFO." which clearly catastrophizes
| outcomes based on small nuances in your own already inoffensive
| language.
|
| Feedback is like gardening. Take care of small problems early and
| gently but relentlessly. If there's a wolf in your garden you
| should probably do something about the wolf instead of working
| around the wolf and spending your life in fear, even if that
| means finding a different garden.
|
| I will recommend the book "The Coward's Guide to Conflict" which
| helped me get a healthy perspective.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Cowards-Guide-Conflict-Empowering-Sol...
| bambax wrote:
| In aviation this is what Crew Resource Management is about, and
| in particular, how to make sure the monitoring pilot, who may be
| the least experienced one, can effectively supervise and review
| the actions of the other. Many crashes were the result of
| copilots' fear of speaking up.
|
| Business life could learn from this. The person in charge is not
| a king, they're simply the person tasked with making decisions.
| There is nothing scandalous in having another person evaluate
| those decisions against a set of principles or common sense, and
| speaking up when something doesn't feel right.
|
| Better that than crashing into a mountain.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| That story in Gladwell about the (IIRC) Korean Air having to
| switch cockpit languages to English in order to escape the
| intrinsic layers of deference built into the language was
| hardcore. They were going to get delisted in Canada if they
| didn't do it.
|
| Yeah, better than crashing into a mountain. That cockpit voice
| recording was really chilling. Gladwell gets a lot of flack,
| but he's told some interesting stories.
|
| And your further point about businesses needing it too should
| be expanded to organizations of all kinds. This is a human
| problem, which means it's an ego problem, on both sides.
| ptx wrote:
| > _Gladwell gets a lot of flack, but he 's told some
| interesting stories._
|
| Isn't the flack he's getting due to exactly that, that his
| stories would be interesting if true but often aren't?
| MrMcCall wrote:
| I haven't followed stories about him, but I doubt that all
| or even most of his stories were made up. I mean, the
| Korean Air (IIRC) one can't have been fudged, right?
| specialist wrote:
| He recently did a mea culpa about the tipping point stuff.
| Glad he did.
|
| I really, really disliked Gladwell. And yet Pushkin (his
| podcast network) carries some of the best stuff ever (Jill
| Lepore). And I found I was agreeing with a lot of Gladwell's
| (and Michael Lewis') overall "punching up" worldview. So I
| was having trouble reconciliing my two views of him.
|
| As we've seen with Lewis' recent hagiography for that crypto
| freak: people are just people, they make mistakes, everyone's
| got blind spots, we don't have to agree on everything to
| learn from each other.
| Mawr wrote:
| > Better that than crashing into a mountain.
|
| Quite literally: https://youtu.be/kamyxB-yKrc?t=1479
|
| Or rolling off a cliff: https://youtu.be/0ga8UFy1M04?t=742
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| It's fascinating how resistant pretty much every industry is to
| taking lessons from aviation, considering how much empirical
| evidence there is compared to almost every other management
| paradigm, which basically amounts to "just trust me bro".
|
| It particularly shocked me working in shipping where the
| lessons can be implemented pretty much without modification
| since it's all the same work except they move in 2 rather than
| 3 dimensions.
| loup-vaillant wrote:
| The difference is how measurable the consequences are. In
| aviation when there's a screw up people die right then and
| there. People dying is a very hard to game metric, and it
| provides a very strong incentive.
|
| The consequences of bad management in a software project on
| the other hand are much more nebulous. And nobody died as a
| direct consequence of some manager being a jerk... oh wait,
| I'm sure some did (committed suicide or gone postal), but
| it's easy to just blame the worker instead of the working
| place.
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| It's not that. MV Sewol killed 304, many of them
| schoolchildren. The captain was put away for life, and
| rightfully so, but it's not an incentive to do much else.
|
| For some reason only air crashes seem to make any lasting
| impressions.
| vacuity wrote:
| Even kings (nominally) have advisors and some level of contact
| with the people they rule over; they aren't expected to just
| make decisions from an empty room with exactly no room for
| being swayed. In theory, a good king is like that. A bad king,
| and similarly a bad business leader, shouldn't be used as
| exemplars though.
| flymaipie wrote:
| Why on earth would someone deserve to be fired based on mere
| "feedback"? As long as it's not an outright offensive rant, it
| should be handled sensibly. But even if it is an offensive rant,
| firing should be a last resort. The amount of toxic subordination
| that's assumed to be normal is sickening.
| IshKebab wrote:
| It's exaggeration. You might not get fired but it will
| absolutely affect your raises & bonuses.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| If you're not on a visa and don't have kids I'd recommend simply
| not caring if you get fired by insecure leadership. You're better
| off elsewhere if they would do that.
| brunooliv wrote:
| I found strange to see so much criticism of the post as usually,
| anything that Wes Kao writes really resonates with me as a senior
| IC. Usually there's a great balance of nuance and depth to the
| advice that makes it easy to digest and pick small bits and
| pieces to try out on my own context
| 01100011 wrote:
| Nearly 30 years in the business here and I think most of what
| was said in the article is spot on if you are in an appropriate
| situation.
|
| Many commenters seem to take absolutist positions on this and
| think no one should ever allow themselves to be under a bad
| manager but it happens and then you need to effectively deal
| with it and these are some good techniques to do so.
|
| The techniques even apply to working with a good manager. You
| shouldn't just vomit every criticism or critique to your
| superior. You should engage in introspection and internal
| dialogue to see if your perspective is correct and if there is
| more you can do to address the issue before spamming your
| manager.
|
| If someone is offended by the article they might need to take a
| step back and ask if their ego has grown beyond its useful
| size.
| lucgray wrote:
| Yeah I mean to generalize even further, these are techniques
| that can apply to your direct reports, your friends, your
| spouse.
|
| Giving feedback is definitely an art and a thin line between
| getting your point across in a clear way vs running up
| against ego or impatience.
|
| If you care about your org's success it's critical to know
| your audience, their approach and value system, and how to
| tailor your message to account for what will resonate with
| them. It's really tough stuff.
| apeescape wrote:
| I absolutely hate having to say stuff in between the lines or
| trying to interpret veiled intentions. There's def no need to
| be pointlessly rude when giving criticism, but to me, beating
| around the bush is exhausting and often frustratingly
| ineffective.
| fny wrote:
| These are all rhetorical techniques to make your idea _their_
| idea. If you ever want to get anything done in painfully
| structured or faux-flat orgs, this is the way.
|
| Why this psyop works:
|
| 1. People like to take credit for things.
|
| 2. People don't like to be wrong.
|
| 3. People get irked when a good idea wasn't their idea.
|
| 4. People don't like to feel threatened.
|
| 5. Just remove the duck.
|
| The examples given are a little contrived, but the techniques
| applied are gold for more tricky scenarios.
| bargainbot3k wrote:
| Why is there a watermelon there?
| slater wrote:
| What watermelon?
| zahlman wrote:
| Based on other comments similarly barely making any sense,
| I think that account is some kind of chatbot tuned to try
| to make generic comments that fit in on HN.
| loup-vaillant wrote:
| > _These are all rhetorical techniques to make your idea their
| idea._
|
| Ok, cool, I've heard this a gazillion times by now. I don't
| disagree, it does looks like it's better at getting shit done.
| Just one question: _how do I get credited for anything?_ I have
| my career to look out for too.
| fny wrote:
| You involve yourself in executing the idea and talk up those
| contributions. If it turns out you were wrong, hide.
| peppertree wrote:
| Feedback is pointless. Vote with your feet. If a team has high
| churn it's guaranteed the leadership is garbage.
| terminalbraid wrote:
| I agree voting with your feet is good and underutilized, but
| it's also extremely expensive for both sides. There's no
| successful group that didn't need feedback or even internal
| conflict (with healthy resolution) to be successful.
| 5cott0 wrote:
| Captain Miller: "I don't gripe to you, Reiben. I'm a captain.
| There's a chain of command. Gripes go up, not down. Always up.
| You gripe to me, I gripe to my superior officer, so on, so on,
| and so on. I don't gripe to you. I don't gripe in front of you.
| You should know that as a Ranger."
|
| Private Reiben: "I'm sorry, sir, but uh... let's say you weren't
| a captain, or maybe I was a major. What would you say then?"
|
| Captain Miller: Well, in that case... I'd say, "This is an
| excellent mission, sir, with an extremely valuable objective,
| sir, worthy of my best efforts, sir. Moreover... I feel heartfelt
| sorrow for the mother of Private James Ryan and am willing to lay
| down my life and the lives of my men - especially you, Reiben -
| to ease her suffering."
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhbObZEF0Mc Saving Private Ryan
| thanksgiving wrote:
| I don't get it. He said gripe to his superior but he is
| basically kissing ass?
| inopinatus wrote:
| No, that is exactly how you inform a superior officer that
| you believe the mission is a waste of time, effort,
| equipment, and manpower, and will probably get everyone
| killed for next-to-no benefit.
| mulmen wrote:
| By saying the exact opposite? I don't get it.
| rendall wrote:
| I interpreted it to mean that he was still Captain and part
| of his job was to keep up morale and model positive attitude.
| Even hypothetically, he was not going to gripe to his troops,
| and as far as they are concerned, he believes it is a worthy
| mission. He was jokingly modeling the proper, positive
| attitude. All this was understood by his men.
| mulmen wrote:
| So he was griping to his men?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| It's best understood in the context of the story. I highly
| recommend the movie.
|
| He's being sarcastic about his approval of the mission
| they're on, but is making the point of not overtly
| complaining to his unit.
| jen729w wrote:
| This is a lesson to us all, though. Like it or not -- and it'll
| vary depending on your geography and industry and so on, I know
| -- this is _an issue_ of at least _some_ proportion.
|
| So, just be aware. Many of us are someone's boss. You might not
| feel like you're 'senior', but to them you are.
|
| Be open. Listen. Don't react (immediately). Consider. Just stop
| and _think_ for a second. Realise that these other people 's
| views are, at the very least, worth considering. (They may, of
| course, be wrong.)
|
| One of the most rewarding things I did before I left the
| corporate world was have a 26-year-old grad as a direct report. I
| was 46 and had 'Head of...' in my job title. She was as smart as
| anything and it was an incredible experience. Hopefully, for us
| both.
| palata wrote:
| In my 13 years of experience, I would say it's never worth giving
| feedback to your manager. Either they are good and it's useless,
| or they are not and they won't learn from you.
|
| I have come to a simple rule: if the manager is good, there is no
| problem. If the manager sucks (often that's because they lack
| experience, but it's all the same), just lie to them in order to
| preserve yourself. No need to have empathy for them: there is no
| karma out there. Bad managers usually have no problem climbing
| the ladder, even if it means making your life miserable. Work for
| you, not them.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Largely agree, 19 years here. Good managers and bad managers
| alike have weaknesses that are largely in-built personality
| traits. Telling them won't change how they've spent decades
| behaving.
|
| The two worst managers I had clearly had anger management
| issues and some sort of inferiority complex, theres no feedback
| to fix that.
|
| Try to stick with good managers as long as you can, especially
| if their weaknesses that don't bother you too much, understand
| where it's coming from, and try not to take it personally.
|
| The 3 examples at the top of the article - unclear guidance,
| unable to set priorities, and not training new hires .. these
| are good benign issues that I've seen repeatedly from good
| managers.
|
| You can remind them in a friendly tone why things are happening
| -(as they raise yet another low importance high urgency task)
| "if we keep switching to these urgent but less important tasks,
| the long-term important things (give examples) you are unhappy
| with the pace of will continue to be slow". The best outcome
| tends to be a 20% reduction in the undesired behavior, over
| many months. It doesn't go away or get unlearned.
| jayd16 wrote:
| So bleak. It's fine to protect yourself but your managers are
| people too. You _can_ build a report with them and be frank
| with them.
|
| When I manage folks, I much prefer honesty over someone who
| just bullshits you.
| lupire wrote:
| People who are busy thriving at work aren't hanging out in
| this self-pity party thread.
| palata wrote:
| Not sure what you are trying to say here.
|
| I personally have good managers right now, so I don't
| bullshit them.
|
| I have had mostly bad managers in my career though, and my
| advice in this situation is: bad managers are adversaries,
| behave accordingly.
| devjab wrote:
| There is a difference between treating someone as a human and
| bullshitting your manager though. I'm painfully blunt to the
| point where the management staff had to spend 3 hours in a
| crisis meeting discussing whether to fire me an another
| developer over our opinions given on a department meeting.
| Which to be fair was the wrong place to throw a couple of
| managers under the bus for something we'd been telling them
| for months, but hey. Anyway we didn't get fired and nothing
| changed either. I stopped stressing about it after I had
| spoken my piece though so it worked rather well for me. Less
| so for the company, but it's not like the two of us were the
| only ones management wouldn't listen to.
|
| So I like it when I can be frank with managers. I think I'm
| also notoriously hard to manage because one of my character
| flaws is that I don't respect authorities. I'm not stupid
| though. I'll absolutely bullshit managers in situations where
| there isn't really a "win" to be achieved. Obviously this
| will mainly happen with bad managers, but there will always
| be great managers who won't like, understand or have a good
| connection with you.
| jayd16 wrote:
| I think this is an example of a different issue. It sounds
| like your managers listened to your feedback often and even
| let high profile disruptions slide.
|
| In general I think honesty is a good policy and management
| should be receptive to hearing out problems and possible
| solutions but that's not the same thing as implementing all
| feedback.
|
| Maybe you're right or maybe your pet peeve just isn't a
| priority or can't be done for countless reasons. I'm not
| saying you did this but something I've seen often is
| employees confusing being heard with taking the advice.
|
| As professionals I think it's our job to give advice and
| respect management's decision to take it or not. That's it
| I also think it's management's job to explain the
| reasoning.
| devjab wrote:
| I mean, this is one example which fits the discussion.
| Also one that I cherrypicked because I was actually
| right. I've had plenty of managers who were good at
| listening, however, I think most have been great. I have
| also worked management a few years myself and taken
| education in that direction before figuring out it wasn't
| for me, so I certainly understand the financial and
| political parts of management and that you as an employee
| never have the full picture.
|
| That being said, I have also had managers that I've
| played board games with on our free time who I haven't
| actually given my opinion on certain issues with because
| they weren't very good at taking that advice. Sometimes
| I've also not done it because I knew managers of my
| manager wouldn't take it well if it made I up the chain.
| I view this more as an issue between me and the
| organisation I work for. If I'm not invested I'm not
| going to help it beyond what they pay me to do because it
| rarely comes back to me in a positive way.
|
| There are many aspect to it. I've also had a manager who
| was a total waste of space as a manager, only caring
| about the "good story" whether it was true or not to push
| their own career. Who was also rather cold in regards to
| management employee duties since they really didn't like
| the negative sides of it. Who was then the warmest nicest
| person in their personal life.
|
| So it's a very complex situation as you pointed out, but
| it's also one where it's perfectly reasonable to not try
| to lead upwards if you don't want the hassle. At least in
| my opinion.
| Blackthorn wrote:
| Managers aren't just people, they're people who have your
| employment in their hands. Reports will act appropriately for
| that fact.
| comprev wrote:
| "Don't bite the hand which feeds you" is a common phrase
| for what you described.
|
| In my experience (20yr) good managers don't need any
| feedback. They were good because of clear communication as
| to what both parties expected of each other. Bad managers
| rarely listen to feedback and few make changes.
|
| At my current role I'm thankful for the high level of
| autonomy received and being shielded from anything not
| relevant to my primary tasks.
|
| I'm constantly asked to do "side quests" for others due to
| being a subject matter expert in several things (relative
| to my colleagues).
|
| Every request gets the same answer - if my line manager
| agrees to it then I shall help - provided it does not get
| in the way of my primary tasks.
|
| IMHO unless you own the company, your number one customer
| should always be your line manager.
| palata wrote:
| I feel like you took only half of my point. If the manager is
| good, then there is no reason to bullshit them. But believing
| that a bad manager will suddenly become good because you as a
| report taught them with a few carefully-crafted politically-
| correct statements sounds extremely naive to me.
|
| Let me give an example: to a good manager, you could say "I'm
| under a lot of pressure because I have two many urgent things
| on my plate" and they should try to improve your life by
| maybe de-prioritizing some of them. In a way you gave
| feedback "it's not going well for me", but you did not try to
| guide your manager in their role. So that's not the kind of
| feedback the featured article talks about.
|
| Now a bad manager will maybe be nice and say "I understand, I
| really appreciate the late nights and weekends you spend
| getting closer and closer to a burnout, you are a really
| valuable employee to me", but that's completely useless.
| Trying to tell them "you know, in a previous job I had a
| manager who in these situations would try to de-prioritize
| stuff so that I could live normally" is completely useless.
| If they aren't doing it yet, it means that they should not be
| your manager in the first place. Best case they say "thank
| you for the feedback, I appreciate that you feel comfortable
| speaking up" and don't change anything, worst case they get
| pissed because you "overstepped" (they are the manager, they
| know they know better, remember?).
|
| There is no world where they say "you're right, I sucked
| until today, but from tomorrow on I will magically know how
| to be a good manager".
| Wurdan wrote:
| Crazily oversimplified view of people. Just one thing
| you've missed: in addition to the axis of good/bad there's
| an axis of experienced/inexperienced. Managers can be both
| good and inexperienced, in which case feedback is
| absolutely necessary to improve their lives and yours.
| palata wrote:
| > Crazily oversimplified view of people.
|
| Then proceeds to add one axis, getting the total up to 2!
| :-)
|
| > Managers can be both good and inexperienced, in which
| case feedback is absolutely necessary to improve their
| lives and yours.
|
| If they are good and inexperienced, I don't think they
| need to be taught that if they don't set priorities, they
| should not be disappointed when they realise that... no
| priorities have been set. So they are still good.
|
| If they are bad "because they are inexperienced", then
| they are still bad. They should not be a manager. They
| can acquire experience without being a manager though,
| e.g. by having a manager in the first place.
| stavros wrote:
| I disagree. Superiors are people too, and they make mistakes.
| I've had subordinates give me feedback (which I followed), and
| I've given feedback to superiors (which they've followed). Both
| ways were extremely positive experiences and everyone involved
| was happier for it.
| palata wrote:
| What kind of feedback was it? My guess is that those were
| pretty minor things that slightly improved your life. But the
| fact that it worked hints towards the fact that the managers
| were already competent, so the reports were already in a
| pretty good situation. No need for the advice of the featured
| article for that, right?
| stavros wrote:
| The most recent instance, a few days ago, my feedback to
| the CTO was that, while the org restructuring he proposed
| was a good idea in principle, the way he did it was
| terrible, and that he ignored and disrespected his highest
| performers. I said he hogs all the growth for himself and
| doesn't let any of his reports grow into more
| responsibilities, and he's showing that he doesn't respect
| the people who are integral in the company's functioning. I
| also told him that there are people who do a ton of work to
| correct others' mistakes and don't get any credit or
| recognition for it, and he failed to recognize those.
|
| It kind of made him sad, which wasn't great because he's a
| nice guy and a competent CTO, but his latest move was
| catastrophic and he needed to hear it.
|
| > No need for the advice of the featured article for that,
| right?
|
| I mostly agree with the other commenters here, giving
| feedback upwards is easier and you don't need to sugarcoat
| it as much, because you can't fire the person above so they
| aren't going to be insecure about your feedback. Then
| again, they _are_ people, and giving constructive feedback
| gently is better than giving it harshly, so I can 't say
| the article is entirely unnecessary. Maybe partly.
| palata wrote:
| > a few days ago, my feedback to the CTO was
|
| Did he completely change course because of your feedback?
| stavros wrote:
| It's only been one working day since, but, knowing him
| and the rest of the senior leadership team, I do expect a
| large correction.
| palata wrote:
| Right. But you mentioned feedback you gave that was
| followed. Do you have examples?
| stavros wrote:
| I've told the CTO that he needs to push the CEO for some
| specific things I've needed, that he needs to be more
| assertive with certain issues, that he shouldn't talk to
| the teams I'm running because he confuses them, and many
| other instances like that. He's followed feedback every
| time I gave it, usually immediately.
|
| I try to do the same when my reports give me feedback,
| and they've also been satisfied with it. Most recently, I
| was told I shouldn't abstract things too quickly, which
| was good advice, and following it has gotten good
| results.
| jeremycarter wrote:
| This is very accurate
| kstenerud wrote:
| Closing in on 30 years now.
|
| The trick is to get into a company where the mission is sound,
| the direction makes sense, and your manager is good (i.e.
| protects you from above, and makes sure shit gets done in a
| timely and orderly fashion).
|
| Then, help your manager out. Everyone has their flaws, bad
| situations etc. Be a true team member and help your manager out
| on those rare occasions where they really need it.
| palata wrote:
| Agreed! Unfortunately not always easy to end up in such a
| position, but definitely something to look for!
| specialist wrote:
| Yes and: Churn moots the entire notion. That whole _storming -
| > forming -> norming -> performing_ team maturity model stuff.
| Have a bad boss? No worries; wait 3 months and you'll have a
| new boss. Thereby resetting the team(s) and relationship(s)
| back to storming.
|
| Lather, rinse, repeat.
|
| Best feedback I've ever gotten was from peers (other bosses).
| And that was only after years of working together. Sadly, that
| was a long time ago. I'd kick a puppy to work on a stable,
| durable team again.
| Kiro wrote:
| I love that I live in a country where I can just tell my
| superiors exactly how they suck and never risk getting fired. It
| might not be wise for other reasons but fire me they cannot.
| anticorporate wrote:
| > If you don't speak up, you're robbing your organization of your
| good insights.
|
| No you're not. If your organization does not giving feedback
| easy, and safe, they're the ones who have failed. You don't owe
| them anything.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| - ChatGPT, give me a few ideas on xxx
|
| - These are a few points for you to use
|
| Write an article with that. Get mentioned on HN.
| UltraSane wrote:
| One of the most annoying things in companies is how criticism
| only flows downwards and praise usually only only flows upwards.
| passwordoops wrote:
| Without getting fired? "That's a _brilliant_ idea! The only
| reason we won 't execute is incompetence."
|
| Deviate and your career will stall at best
| postit wrote:
| I hope corporate ling like this stops for good. Seriously. Bad
| management is the norm, not the exception. We're all suffering
| from poor leadership at every level; I bet you all can count the
| good managers you've had on one hand.
|
| I'd rather live in a world where we could give blunt and direct
| feedback like, "You suck as a manager, why are you still
| insisting on this?" However, we live in a situation where the
| system will always push back against any dissenting voices, and
| in the end, back-patting and corporate camaraderie are what keep
| the wheels turning.
| rietta wrote:
| What about the simple, "may I talk to you for a minute in
| private?" And then clearly state the information that you need to
| share.
| dakiol wrote:
| At work I always give positive and friendly feedback, regardless
| of who is asking. I don't need to put myself in a position in
| which the receiver didn't like or misunderstood my feedback the
| wrong way. What for? I couldn't care less about their
| professional development, and I don't want to be a blocker in
| their path to promotion.
|
| I do my time, I get paid and move on. Don't need drama at work.
| asdefghyk wrote:
| I assume the mentioned feedback could be interpreted as critical.
|
| First I'd start by mentioning something they doing well OR
| something positive about them that relates to their job. Ie they
| have good attitude or get on good with co workers etc.
|
| Then I would move on to what it was thought needed "some
| improvement" Id mention the "positive outcome" that would result
| if the feedback I was about to give was implemented. I could even
| tone it down ...with the words "...my opinion ..."
|
| ie My opinion , is if we ( meaning the manager ) where to do "...
| what ever ..." it could result in this "....more desirable
| outcome..." I could soften it more by saying .... we tried this
| at my previous job ... and it gave "...whatever the positive
| result is "
|
| ( Giving effective feedback is a skill. I learnt how to do in a
| speech training program called "Toastmasters " We had a internal
| Toastmasters club for the company I worked add ( Not in the US )
| with about 30 members. Often the other members where >several
| levels< above me. Me - a very junior person at the time. So had
| to give feedback to Senior staff about their speech. )
| inopinatus wrote:
| This is entirely the perspective of an abusive CEO. As we say
| here in Australia, get fucked. What an entitled grub.
| firefoxd wrote:
| I think this article is teaching you how to dance on a song that
| isn't being played for you. Unless the feedback is something that
| is going to benefit, or improve your own work, then toss it
| aside. My experience [1].
|
| Unless your company is in pursuit of a noble human endeavor, just
| make sure you get some good work done, and make good connections
| along them way. The truth is rarely what a company seeks. So if
| your manager is imperfect, don't sweat it.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21766903
| ideasphere wrote:
| I agree that bluntness is often mishandled, but the sort of
| language in this article just reads as wildly disingenuous.
| Obfuscating your actual point (and visceral, human
| feelings/opinions/experience!) to hopefully confuse your subject
| into compliance. Makes me think of that brain-dead article a few
| years back about how you should dodge offering support in close
| personal relationships. "I don't have capacity," "I'm not paid to
| perform emotional labour" etc. Sad! Promote humanity!
| yodsanklai wrote:
| > How to give a senior leader feedback (without getting fired)
|
| I don't do it because it can play against me in the worst case.
| And I won't get anything out of it. People can be more sensitive
| than it seems and unsolicited feedback isn't always welcome.
|
| My company is big on feedback, so we're expected to give peers
| and managers feedback. I never fill the "constructive feedback"
| part of the form, or I just put something harmless. We also have
| anonymous evaluation forms. If something is wrong with manager or
| leadership, it'll show there.
| j45 wrote:
| One rule I try to remember with leaders is to speak for impact
| and not impressing them.
|
| Dealing with senior leaders (VP/Director, not C-suite) can be
| different too.
|
| Managing up and influencing others may work well, or not at all.
|
| Working one's way up in different workplaces, industries and
| regions can vary wildly and I would probably caution from my own
| experience in a lot of verticals that it's best to get to know
| the scenario and see if you can recognize what might help.
| GianFabien wrote:
| My very simple process: Do you want the job?
| or Do you want to be right?
|
| If you choose to be right, then get a job where you can be right.
| Probably means becoming a manager.
| creer wrote:
| One foremost aspect I see missing in the discussion is:
|
| "It depends"
|
| It depends massively and that's the main problem. So I'd focus on
| understanding how that works with this specific manager M you are
| concerned about. It will be different with another manager. After
| that it's detail. Managers are human, flawed, not anywhere near
| rational (not fully rational anyway), and in some cases crooked
| or insane. Just like their reports and bosses, kind of? Try and
| feel out how that manager operates before "doing anyone a
| service".
|
| In particular, it means not relying on the idea that they would
| reason the same as you do.
|
| Because for example, absolutely "providing info so they get to
| look good, privately so there is no loss of face" will blow up in
| your face with some managers. Even if it's to the detriment of
| that manager.
|
| In some cases, it will be even worse than this because that
| manager will be well ahead of you and already have their own
| plans in place for their own future. In a case like this it's not
| even necessarily possible for you to imagine what reaction you
| might get.
|
| To be fair, there is a general plan available for you: Cultivate
| a network, keep your resume in front of people. Then you can be
| bolder.
| cryptozeus wrote:
| Superiors love to solve their problem first, its as simple as
| that. Not in a bad way but they are dealing with 10 times issues
| compare to your own level issues. Manager > Team Lead > IC so
| start there. Dont just complaint about superior, try to deal with
| it from problem solving approach.
| ph4evers wrote:
| I'm too Dutch for this kind of indirectness. Say it without the
| fluff and not in public and everything will be fine.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| I love the Dutch 'no bollocking around' method, but it
| translates horribly to non-Dutch. Which is a real shame. With
| my Dutch friends, one colleague, I know exactly where I stand.
| Everyone/ everywhere else (often Americans, but the Brits are
| catching up), fluffs and huffs and puffs - and then start
| 'things' in the background.
| ilitirit wrote:
| This title of my article doesn't make much sense to me. Why would
| you get fired for giving feedback? Is this just a US thing? I
| give feedback to my superiors all the time, and expect my
| subordinates to do the same. In fact, as far as my team goes,
| you're more likely to get into trouble (not fired) if you rarely
| give feedback.
| lazystar wrote:
| when your boss is a one-upper who doesnt understand your teams
| product, they will do everything possible to sabatoge your
| efforts and spin metrics to make you look bad. attempting to
| give feedback to such a person will get you this response: "you
| need to earn trust and learn to disagree and commit".
|
| idk if this is a US thing; its mainly a thing where a manager
| is tasked with supporting a product that they dont understand.
| managers in these situations attempt to treat their managerial
| role as if the product itself does not matter - the team has
| metrics to hit, and to them thats more important than the
| product.
| ilitirit wrote:
| > give feedback to such a person will get you this response:
| "you need to earn trust and learn to disagree and commit"
|
| Sure, but you won't get fired, right?
|
| Even so, this is just about dealing in general with people
| who have ego (for the sake of brevity) issues. I don't
| understand why this should be advice for dealing with senior
| leadership in general.
| lazystar wrote:
| > Sure, but you won't get fired, right?
|
| in my experience, they will start an email paper trail as a
| precursor to a PIP.
| StefanBatory wrote:
| It's not only US thing, eastern european too. We're on
| average rather alright developers but culturally there's no
| skill of good management - we have been destroyed in this
| aspect by Soviet occupation and communism.
| rawgabbit wrote:
| American workplaces are very toxic. Waves of managers ride on
| the coattails of the latest dude in charge. That they are
| completely clueless doesn't prevent them from getting the job.
| If you point out their failures, you will immediately be
| labeled as part of the opposition.
|
| In other words, this is pure Machiavellian politics. The truth
| doesn't matter. If you don't kiss the donkey's ass, the best
| advice IMO is to shut the hell up, collect your paycheck, and
| go home and kiss your wife. Your family is the only people who
| matter. The farce will go on for years. Like all Ponzi schemes,
| it will eventually collapse. But it may take years.
| switch007 wrote:
| That's an incredible summary, totally matching my experience
| loup-vaillant wrote:
| > _Why would you get fired for giving feedback? Is this just a
| US thing?_
|
| Possibly: in many places there they have "at will" employment,
| where they can basically fire you with little to no severance
| at any time for any reason. There are limits, but compared to
| most of Europe that's the gist of it.
|
| So yeah, you can be fired just because someone doesn't like
| you. And giving feedback is a good way to not be liked.
| bdangubic wrote:
| every employment should be at will!! is there a
| constitutional or birthright to employment at XYZ company?
| these discussion always look at one side, like "employer
| can't fire employee X without paying severance and other
| junk" but if I started a company and said "if you leave the
| company you have to pay severance back to the company for
| leaving" everyone would be up in arms about it...
| loup-vaillant wrote:
| > _every employment should be at will!!_
|
| I would agree in an ideal world where salaries are tied to
| a _qualification_ (a notion a tad more nuanced than just
| diploma), instead of their _job_. While there is no (nor
| should be any) constitutional right to work at any given
| company, I think people should have an inalienable right to
| live. Which in practice means food, shelter, and health
| care at a minimum, regardless of their ability (perhaps
| even willingness) to work anywhere.
|
| The compromise most EU countries have settled on is that
| once you're employed _and_ past some probation period (in
| my line of work that can last up to 8 months), then they
| can 't fire you without a damn good reason or a hefty
| severance (the better the reason the lower the severance,
| basically). But it cuts both ways: I personally can't leave
| immediately, I have to tell my employer 3 months in
| advance. It is in a way a kind of severance.
| bdangubic wrote:
| I think this arrangement would be fair if you had to pay
| back to the company the same amount they have to pay you.
| to get a notice for some period of time makes sense (both
| ways) but I can't see a reason why this is all not equal
| on both sides.
| Wurdan wrote:
| And I can't see a reason why it should be equal. Even if
| you strip the relationship down to its most basic
| principle, there is asymmetry. One party provides work
| with the expectation of pay, the other party providess
| pay with the expectation of work.
|
| But the asymmetries don't end there. Terminating
| employment is a far greater threat to the employee than
| the employer. This creates a power imbalance which could
| easily be exploited by malicious or incompetent
| employers. That power imbalance is fundamental to this
| relationship and is reason enough (in the opinion of many
| countries) to bolster worker rights.
| loup-vaillant wrote:
| > _I can't see a reason why this is all not equal on both
| sides._
|
| I can.
|
| Think of what employment _is_ for a second: shareholders
| (or company owners) own the capital, and the employee
| gets to follow orders. Structurally, the company pay
| workers _less_ than their actual value: shareholders
| gotta hold, and they squeeze the margin out of the
| employee. The margin may be thin, but it 's never meant
| to be zero (except for non-profits, but they're the
| exception).
|
| Such a relationship is fundamentally asymmetrical, such
| an exchange fundamentally unequal. If you want any hope
| of restoring fairness from this system, termination
| conditions have to be asymmetrical as well.
| fhfjfk wrote:
| I live in a US state that has at-will employment.
|
| I once had an owner of a small business threaten to sue me
| for quitting because it would cause financial harm to the
| business. And that was with giving 4 weeks notice.
|
| At-will employment laws protect employees that want to
| quit, not just employers that want to fire.
| rendall wrote:
| This is all cultural. As an immigrant from New York to a Nordic
| country, I have been lucky enough to experience two working
| cultures intimately. New Yorkers are considered blunt and no-
| nonsense, but I had no idea. Nordics are utter minimalists when
| it comes to feedback. It is unadorned and without any frills
| whatsoever. None of this couching the ouch between two positives.
| Nordics make New Yorkers look like Californians.
|
| They will genuinely be confused by American-style feedback. Did
| you ever notice that we use a lot of superlatives? Something we
| like is the _best_ , we _love_ it, it 's the greatest _ever_?
| That 's not bad, it's just our style of talking, but the
| untrained Nordic will take that seriously. I have to tone that
| way down: "That code is really well done."
|
| Moreover, you are _required_ to give truthful feedback, here. It
| 's not optional. If you think something is a bad idea and you
| don't say anything, you are doing a bad. If somehow you're caught
| _not_ saying something, or worse, lying and saying you think it
| 's a good idea, you will be in trouble and lose reputation.
|
| This approach to giving and getting feedback took some getting
| used to, but I find it refreshing and I am afraid I'm spoiled for
| any other way.
| sixhobbits wrote:
| There are a lot of comments about the up vs down hierarchy thing,
| but I think it's not really the most important factor for "giving
| feedback", which here seems to mean more "advocating for change".
|
| The important factors are
|
| - do you have a good understanding of where your goals and
| priorities differ and where they overlap? Maybe you want to
| reduce tech debt and your manager wants to hit q3 goals. Then
| saying "spending 1 week addressing this issue will allow us to
| implement features a,b,c in 2 weeks instead of 4" is stating your
| goal with an emphasis on how it helps manager get to theirs.
|
| - do you have an existing relationship of trust? Humans are
| pretty tribal. If person you're talking to up or down defaults to
| "this is an ally who usually says competent things" then you can
| be much more direct and blunt. "Your idea is stupid because of
| these flaws that you didn't consider". If you don't have that
| trust, then some of the sugar coating "fluff" is necessary to
| avoid emotional reactions.
| hcfman wrote:
| Re-title the article to be called
|
| "How can I suck up EVEN MORE than I am now"
|
| I understand the wisdom that they are trying to convey. But
| sucking up to those on higher pay grades like this for the
| greater good of the company? I think if it's that dangerous
| providing feedback to the company then upper management need to
| put even more effort into determining who makes good leadership
| material.
| throwaway346434 wrote:
| This is all bad advice. A bad manager is rarely ignorant they are
| bad; they are often going to be insecure having moved outside of
| their comfort zone. A good leader is going to be aware they often
| act terribly and invite you to their world view - who knows, you
| could be wrong.
|
| You can coddle bad managers as this article suggests; but take a
| step back and look at the bigger picture.
|
| Will this person cause harm, death, or injury due to their
| decision making or lack there of? Attempt to fix them for a
| limited duration or get the hell out. Do it in a collaborative
| way, where you can enable them to make the right choices. That
| doesn't work? Get out. Don't enable them to cause harm.
| localhost3000 wrote:
| In my experience one of the best ways to "get ahead" is to give
| direct 1:1 feedback to someone higher up in your management chain
| for something that you are obviously right about it (some wiggle
| room here, but be sure to be atleast mostly right on a non-
| trivial topic). It demonstrates to them that you have good
| judgement and have backbone. They will trust you more and start
| to think of you as more of a peer than merely someone in their
| span of control (obviously you need to do this tactfully / not be
| a dick about it but also be firm). This has been a huge unlock
| for my career. ymmv.
| humanfromearth9 wrote:
| Actually you just don't give feedback to your superiors. But you
| really may/should plant the seeds of ideas in their brains. You
| discuss concepts, fundamental stuff that will grow into their
| brain and make them change. This takes time, patience and
| repetition, like educating a kid. It's actually the same, nothing
| has changed there.
|
| And you remain modest and ready to learn and listen. Especially
| because your superiors always have information that you don't
| have and which might explain decisions which you don't
| understand, and won't without this information.
|
| And you don't "tell", you ask about topics, and show interest.
|
| Then you might be able to propose real help to your boss, and
| suggest him to delegate some responsibility to you. And that's
| where you have some agency to create meaningful change. Bingo.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| > Actually you just don't give feedback to your superiors.
|
| Concur. In hierarchical organizations, with power over your job
| security and prospects held by the person above you, _bad news
| does not travel upwards_.
| ninalanyon wrote:
| > If you do speak up, you might put your employment and well-
| being at risk.
|
| I'm so glad i spent most of my career in Norway where that is so
| much less likely. In fact it putting your employment at risk is
| really so unlikely as to not be worth consideration. Well being
| is of course a bit harder to quantify and control.
| bravetraveler wrote:
| Back pressure is an important characteristic of a functional
| system. Don't dress it up.
| plank wrote:
| Dutch person here (have been told we are some of the most direct
| people): my experience is that it is not the words but the
| intention. E.g. the 'give more training' example: 'I do not
| understand why we do not give more training. It seemed to help
| with Steve, why are we not doing more so'. And being genuinely
| interested in the answer. Do not assume you are always right in
| assuming more training helps, but ask yourself why it may not be.
| Having an open mind can really help. And perhaps you were right
| to be astonished in 95% of situations, in 5% (or more) you might
| learn something. Other things are certainly true: it may be
| better to ask that question in private, as opposed to while the
| leader addresses the whole staff.
| greybox wrote:
| Should be renamed: "How to not offend people with fragile self-
| esteem"
| meindnoch wrote:
| Very simple. Make sure the feedback is positive. You can give
| negative feedback on Glassdoor.
| mikkom wrote:
| What an awful title and premise. Senior leaders who can't take
| feedback without firing you should be fired immediately.
|
| Br, CTO
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| It's also important to note that scrum masters, product owners
| and business analysts, despite what the company org chart may
| lead you to believe, belong to middle management and need to be
| treated accordingly.
|
| Scrum masters are particularly dangerous because they are highly
| skilled at blending in by speaking and acting like developers.
| That's why they are so popular to spend project money on despite
| their apparent uselessness.
| wtcactus wrote:
| The moment I'm in a position where I can't say - politely of
| course, like I do to any other person at work - that I think the
| direction they are taking is wrong, is the moment I'll start
| searching for another job.
| loup-vaillant wrote:
| One important option seem to be entirely missing here: _Start. A.
| Union._
|
| It seems the real problem here is the power difference between
| people, combined with the powerful side not having a thick enough
| skin... or lacking the actual competence that we ought to expect
| of their position.
|
| A competent leader will not be offended or feel threatened by a
| piece of feedback, however negative: either the feedback is crap
| and they'll calmly say "nope, trust me I know what I'm doing
| here", or the feedback has enough truth in it for them to say
| "oops, I'll do better next time", _and then proceed to actually
| do better_.
|
| An incompetent leader however likely know they're incompetent,
| and they're less likely to meaningfully judge feedback. They're
| more likely to look for social validation, and more importantly
| _secure their position_. Any negative feedback threatens that
| position, and when that feedback comes from below, the solution
| is obvious: slap the peasant down, perhaps even fire them.
|
| Often there's little you can do around those people. For
| instance, I once applied for a contracting gig that would involve
| cryptographic work. I was rejected because I was "more competent
| than the project lead". My guess is the hiring manager there knew
| that if they brought in someone more competent than the project
| lead, things would go bad. Quite the indictment of the project
| lead if you ask me.
|
| My best project lead on the other hand had no problem being a
| worse programmer than the people under him (the tech lead for
| sure, and I probably). He worked on the parts he could, trusted
| us to do our thing, and I trusted him with telling me the
| priorities. Best gig of my entire career.
| foldr wrote:
| >A competent leader will not be offended or feel threatened by
| a piece of feedback
|
| Replace 'competent' with 'perfect'. Most people are very easily
| offended or threatened by negative feedback. One can argue that
| they shouldn't be, ideally, but I don't think you can really
| say that anyone who's not maximally receptive to negative
| feedback is incompetent.
| sgt wrote:
| Jesus, most of this is just tip toeing around feedback, turning 3
| words into 30. Just be direct but say it in a friendly, yet
| humble way.
| virtualritz wrote:
| Sounds culturally biased. From working in northern Europe and
| especially with people from Scandinavian countries, I'd say that
| for each of those examples the 'wrong' choice would be the more
| likely to be exchanged and taken at face value.
|
| Whereas when I work with people from the US a lot of fluff is
| always needed or offense may be taken. Just as the article
| purports.
|
| And there is also body language. Here is one of my favorite
| exchanges I once witnessed, between two senior leaders, one
| Spanish, one Finnish, after a few beers at a company party. I
| leave it to the inclined reader to guess who is from which
| country.
|
| Sergio (gesticulating, grinning): Lauri, why don't you use your
| hands more when you're talking?
|
| Lauri (hands flat on the table, straight face): Because it's not
| efficient.
| zug_zug wrote:
| The interesting thing in my mind is how dysfunctional I've found
| reporting chains' behavior (to the company). I've found the same
| thing others here have found -- certain cultural backgrounds or a
| large preponderance of H1Bs create a culture where upward
| feedback is silenced.
|
| And in the end usually the company loses out - directors forge
| ahead with ill-informed projects (rewrite entire system X), don't
| measure/cherry-pick/game-metrics, and create a major threat to
| anybody on the team who surfaces any contraindicating metrics
| (e.g. "Our pipeline still takes Y hours and nobody is happy about
| it, including us").
| zuppy wrote:
| i was in that position of receiving a negative feedback over
| certain things from one of the people i manage (and i believe any
| manager has been at least once). surprise, i'm not perfect :-)
|
| the best way to tell it is to be direct, with examples. i want to
| know that, i want to improve myself. i only expect perfect
| honesty.
|
| it's good for both parties. i'm a no bs guy. tell me things
| straight, good and bad, i will do the same always in a fair
| honest way. i expect nothing else and there are no repercussions
| for that. in the end, if you are unhappy and you do nothing about
| it, nothing will change.
| xyst wrote:
| I used to be able to tell my bosses to "fuck off" (usually ones I
| got well with) when asked something absolutely absurd; or just
| tell the plain truth. Now in this hypercapitalistic world, you
| have to fluff your feedback so you don't hurt their fragile egos.
| la64710 wrote:
| And then from her other article :
|
| Give enough context to avoid back-and-forth follow ups. Don't be
| coy when you can be direct. Don't speak in stream of
| consciousness. Assume your manager is task switching or checking
| your Slack message between meetings--make it super easy for them
| to catch up on context and dive into what you want to discuss.
| interludead wrote:
| The "even more" technique is brilliant because it bypasses the
| natural defensiveness that feedback can trigger, especially in
| hierarchical settings. Framing suggestions as amplifications of
| existing strengths is genius.
| everyone wrote:
| If I'm gonna be fired for being honest and trying to do a good
| job, then I'm quitting.
| pmarreck wrote:
| This is not the first conversation on HN about management and
| feedback I've seen where the wide range of opinion and
| disagreement may reflect only 4 possible things:
|
| 1) There is some ideal way to interact that exists, but is not
| yet known, so we're all essentially still just fumbling in the
| dark and occasionally encountering light from an as-yet-unknown
| source
|
| 2) There is some ideal way to interact that is more or less
| understood by some but not all because it is simply not being
| communicated well (the rate of incoming employees is greater than
| the rate of knowledge spread- incidentally, this is the same
| problem I suspect exists with functional languages being
| perennially less-popular)
|
| 3) There is some ideal way to interact that is understood and
| known but is incompatible with existing and persistent (stable
| dysfunctional equilibrium) dysfunctionalities in orgs
|
| 4) There is in fact no ideal way to interact in a hierarchy
| because it is largely dependent on the individual personalities
| of the participants as well as the setup of the org
| cyanydeez wrote:
| Mmm. There's also the 4th option is probably better expanded
| to, individual perception of communication are encoded and
| decided using fundamentally incompatible protocols because of
| entirely differing status, background, wealth and social
| structure.
|
| I don't think personality real encapsulates it. I don't believe
| Elon musks personality has changed, but his fundamental GIGO
| has.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Just don't. It will never work out in your benefit. Just dont.
| callc wrote:
| I'm sick of dealing with managers and bad leaders, and want to
| get back to coding and building cool stuff.
|
| Is there any solution for this? Co-op? Contract work?
| Consultancy? Union? Flat org structure? Self employment? Start a
| company with a couple of engineer friends and have flat org,
| based on trust?
|
| I'm guessing only the last two options are promising. I'd
| appreciate hearing everyone's stories, as I am genuinely
| interested.
| maxnevermind wrote:
| I hope that in the future maybe AI will be to organize people
| better in larger organizations so people are more focused on
| doing productive work instead of endlessly aligning on things
| and the hoard of people doing alignment in large organizations
| can find a better use of their time.
| kunley wrote:
| Once I got fired because commented when boss smoked weed at work
| and liked to be intoxicated at workplace by other means as well.
| Who can beat that
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-24 23:02 UTC)