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

Give it five minutes

37signals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: Give it five minutes

#61

Post by r00fus »

einhverfr wrote: post #55
youlost_thegame wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel you, I also have this little voice that shouts "NO!" inside my head during meetings. But I've learned to say "I don't see it that way, but it's a good idea, let me think on that, please", which has won me a lot of respect. Even if my final answer is negative, the fact that I took some time to consider it is perceived as very positive by coworkers and managers.

There's another tactic too... one I use frequently for better or worse. So I see someone who says something I don't entirely agree with but I want to see where they are coming from. I start arguing with them, asking the harder questions, pointing out things I see as problems, not to push back or prove that I am right, but to prove the merit of their ideas. Sometimes I will say something to indicate why I am doing it,…

So this is the "trial-by-fire" approach. I inadvertently use it a lot as well. I'm trying to soften the approach however.

However, you can also wrap that in a friendly approach as youlost_thegame mentions - simply acknowledge the potential of the idea first (ie, positive energy) then go in with the tough questions.

I find even with friends and close colleagues, if I stick to the "nice first, then difficult questions combined with enthusiasm", I can often critique the idea while making the entire conversation positive. Often the faulty idea gets discarded by it's owner after consideration.

Re: Give it five minutes

#62

Post by tertius »

silvestrov wrote: post #57
analyst74 wrote: post #11

I come from the opposite direction, where I was thinking too much. In the sense that I am quiet in most conversations, because I need to think about what to say back, and most conversations flow quite quickly, and I end up with a response well past the point it's applicable. This is bad for two reasons: 1, if you don't say anything, the default assumption is you don't know anything, unless you have well known achieve…

if you don't say anything, the default assumption is you don't know anything This is an US-ism. In northern Europe it is often the opposite: constant talking heads are regarded as empty and being concise is a valued skill. We're just nice to the talking heads and let them fill the air with words, but we don't regard them as better than the quiet ones. I've often experienced that the longer the quiet persons don't say…

Being a immigrant (to the U.S.) I completely agree. Many people can't stop talking because of insecurity, a little of what Jason said in the article about himself.

Re: Give it five minutes

#63

Post by einhverfr »

r00fus wrote: post #61
einhverfr wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's another tactic too... one I use frequently for better or worse. So I see someone who says something I don't entirely agree with but I want to see where they are coming from. I start arguing with them, asking the harder questions, pointing out things I see as problems, not to push back or prove that I am right, but to prove the merit of their ideas. Sometimes I will say something to indicate why I am doing it,…

So this is the "trial-by-fire" approach. I inadvertently use it a lot as well. I'm trying to soften the approach however. However, you can also wrap that in a friendly approach as youlost_thegame mentions - simply acknowledge the potential of the idea first (ie, positive energy) then go in with the tough questions. I find even with friends and close colleagues, if I stick to the "nice first, then difficult questions…

Yeah. Basically you can divide people into two groups:

1) Those who know what's going on and treat it as a sign of respect.

2) Those who don't and where you have to show externally that there is respect involved.

For the first group, getting into an argument on technical merits doesn't have to involve a whole lot of pleasantries. It's largely informal. I try to save this for groups I am a long-standing member of.

For the second group, you are right, a softer approach is necessary.

Re: Give it five minutes

#65

Post by yepreally »

I think 5 minutes is too little time when you've taken offense to something. A day is usually the right amount. For idea consideration, I think 5 minutes may not be enough for some and may be too much for others.

Re: Give it five minutes

#67

Post by fckin »

silvestrov wrote: post #57
analyst74 wrote: post #11

I come from the opposite direction, where I was thinking too much. In the sense that I am quiet in most conversations, because I need to think about what to say back, and most conversations flow quite quickly, and I end up with a response well past the point it's applicable. This is bad for two reasons: 1, if you don't say anything, the default assumption is you don't know anything, unless you have well known achieve…

if you don't say anything, the default assumption is you don't know anything This is an US-ism. In northern Europe it is often the opposite: constant talking heads are regarded as empty and being concise is a valued skill. We're just nice to the talking heads and let them fill the air with words, but we don't regard them as better than the quiet ones. I've often experienced that the longer the quiet persons don't say…

constant talking heads are regarded as empty

This is a northern Europe-ism.

Re: Give it five minutes

#68

Post by youlost_thegame »

r00fus wrote: post #61
einhverfr wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's another tactic too... one I use frequently for better or worse. So I see someone who says something I don't entirely agree with but I want to see where they are coming from. I start arguing with them, asking the harder questions, pointing out things I see as problems, not to push back or prove that I am right, but to prove the merit of their ideas. Sometimes I will say something to indicate why I am doing it,…

So this is the "trial-by-fire" approach. I inadvertently use it a lot as well. I'm trying to soften the approach however. However, you can also wrap that in a friendly approach as youlost_thegame mentions - simply acknowledge the potential of the idea first (ie, positive energy) then go in with the tough questions. I find even with friends and close colleagues, if I stick to the "nice first, then difficult questions…

Yes, and there's one more thing. Instead of making the other person responsible for your lack of understanding, which we all have done at some point, it's better to let them know that you don't understand their approach and let them explain better. Actually about half of the times their idea might be good, but they don't know how to explain it or maybe you can't grasp the whole thing because of a lack of context.

You know, explaining an idea to somebody, from scratch, it's the better way to develop it. If it's stupid they will realize. If it's good they'll get enthusiastic.

In a previous comment I mentioned that this is the tactic that my manager uses, and it works wonderfully: let people talk from the beginning and ask questions later.

Of course, if you end up disagreeing, even though if their idea is good, they'll like that you let them explain and took time to consider

Re: Give it five minutes

#69

Post by robinjfisher »

It’s great advice. When somebody is talking, people are very rarely listening. They’re waiting to speak or preparing their next argument. By doing that, you don’t hear what the other person is saying and more often than not misinterpret what they are saying.

It’s a skill I’m still learning and it’s a combination of patience, humility (I’m not always right) and a desire to learn (other people will know more and have better ideas than me).

Re: Give it five minutes

#70

Post by einhverfr »

youlost_thegame wrote: post #68
r00fus wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is the "trial-by-fire" approach. I inadvertently use it a lot as well. I'm trying to soften the approach however. However, you can also wrap that in a friendly approach as youlost_thegame mentions - simply acknowledge the potential of the idea first (ie, positive energy) then go in with the tough questions. I find even with friends and close colleagues, if I stick to the "nice first, then difficult questions…

Yes, and there's one more thing. Instead of making the other person responsible for your lack of understanding, which we all have done at some point, it's better to let them know that you don't understand their approach and let them explain better. Actually about half of the times their idea might be good, but they don't know how to explain it or maybe you can't grasp the whole thing because of a lack of context. You…

It's not that I disagree with you in all contexts. In many cases, the explain-from-scratch is a great way to learn something new, or at least get a foothold for further discussions. However I see it as not very useful where I prefer the trial-by-fire approach, namely in decision making in deliberative environments.

Part of the use case of a "trial by fire" approach is that the idea is to come up with a better approach than any one of us could ideally. One isn't interested in trying to use their idea as-is, nor in simply disregarding it, but in probing, understanding, and adapting it to the case at hand.

That means arguing about it in detail. Explaining from scratch may be a necessary prelude but it doesn't help really with the final deliberative process. The key is to ensure that everyone knows that these are good-natured and that most people will shape the outcome even if their ideas are not adopted wholesale.

The goal is to have an argument where everyone collectively wins, and where each reasonable participant (meaning, most of the time, every individual participant) individually wins as well, in the sense of having their concerns incorporated into the final view.

Post reply on HN