Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

jorgegalindo.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 260 posts

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#131

Post by lotsofpulp »

steveBK123 wrote: post #115
lotsofpulp wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Eventually you will end up firing them without much warning when a cut actually has to be made. Think Amazon PIP. I would bet managers on the east coast keep under performers around just to have people to cut also, doesn’t take a genius to figure out the strategy. You invest in people you think can improve and help you, you get rid of the ones that hurt you, and you keep the so so ones for when you need to sacrifice…

Most companies don't run an Amazon style PIP program where you HAVE to cut X% annually on every team. Therefore, keeping around people who genuinely deserve firing is a drag on delivering. As a result it is always in your interest to get improvements out of your team members, whether by upskilling, role changing, hoping they leave on their own or worst case actually laying them off. I've worked in financial service t…

>Most companies don't run an Amazon style PIP program where you HAVE to cut X% annually on every team.

I cannot comment on pervasiveness, but I thought the "fire bottom x%" (or stack ranking or yank and rank) strategy started on the east coast, with businesses like GE, hence it would not be a trait isolated to either coast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve

>The people in the middle aren't just "for when you need to sacrifice".. they are simply the middle 50%. You obviously want to see them improve as well.

Everyone wants to see everyone improve, but time and energy are a scarce resource, so it is just a matter of how much you want to bet on each person.

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#132

Post by BeetleB »

mgaunard wrote: post #46
mydriasis wrote: post #6

Work is hard and stressful. If we're sweet and kind to one-another, we get through it more easily, no matter how smart each of us is individually. Being kind is an investment, and its dividends pay out enormously as your organization grows. Like the article says, it's infectious. I believe that. I believe that if I show kindness, especially to people who are new to the organization, they'll mirror it right back, and…

Will you be kind as well to the people who repeatedly fuck up and don't care about delivering good processes or products?

Yes. Not being kind leads to defensiveness and not owning up to their errors.

I've worked in very competent teams and very incompetent teams. There were two types of incompetent teams. The type that always denied making mistakes, and the kind that owned up to their own incompetence. Being kind leads to the latter.

It still sucked being in an incompetent team, but when they admit their weakness, they get out of your way and defer to you. When they don't admit it, you'll face barriers all the way.

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#134

Post by olddustytrail »

BeetleB wrote: post #128
codelikeawolf wrote: post #59

Ever since that back and forth about "East Coast being kind vs West Coast being nice" thing a while back[1], I think it's important to distinguish the two. Because they are noticeably different (at least to me) and shouldn't be used interchangeably. I want someone to be kind to me in a meeting. I think niceness could seriously inhibit progress. A kind person will tell me that an idea I have won't work, but they'll of…

I have to say: It's really annoying that some idiot who wrote a book in the 90's has resulted in everyone redefining "nice", when they should have invented a new word. As far as the English language goes, what you define as "kind" is also "nice".

Considering how many different things "nice" has meant over the past few hundred years, I doubt one more meaning will make a difference!

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#136

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

moandcompany wrote: post #81
baazaa wrote: post #77

If we tallied up all technical projects in the Western world that failed, how many would be failing due to lack of kindness versus, say, straight-forwards incompetence? Because 100% fall in the latter category in my experience. One of the problems with engineers counter-signalling engineering values (like actual technical competence) is that we live in a world where those values are extremely underrated while every m…

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

and the kindest best of correct)

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#137

Post by mrfinn »

To be kind is one of my specialties. I firmly believe that it's a requirement of any human group so people collaborate at heart. Yes people can be productive anyway without any kindness, but if people really collaborate then they actually multiply their forces and the result is incredibly powerful. If people fight each other that energy is terribly wasted.

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#138

Post by codelikeawolf »

BeetleB wrote: post #128
codelikeawolf wrote: post #59

Ever since that back and forth about "East Coast being kind vs West Coast being nice" thing a while back[1], I think it's important to distinguish the two. Because they are noticeably different (at least to me) and shouldn't be used interchangeably. I want someone to be kind to me in a meeting. I think niceness could seriously inhibit progress. A kind person will tell me that an idea I have won't work, but they'll of…

I have to say: It's really annoying that some idiot who wrote a book in the 90's has resulted in everyone redefining "nice", when they should have invented a new word. As far as the English language goes, what you define as "kind" is also "nice".

Well, unfortunately nobody did invent a new word. Considering a cursory search of the definitions of both words:

Kind: of a sympathetic or helpful nature

Nice: pleasing, agreeable

I would argue that they are actually different.

Post reply on HN