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

A new study of rudeness in the workplace

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: A new study of rudeness in the workplace

#71

Post by gingabriska »

mharroun wrote: post #2

How do you define being rude? From what I read and experienced in my career the real reason "rude" people get away with what they are doing is simple. They tend to be top or above average performers who don't like when co-workers who are sub par are treated and rewarded as their equals. I have met many sub-par workers who love to throw around the word "toxic" to define and attack such people. I have seen such "rude"…

Think about a dynamic where one person in team is hyper obsessed with work and refining his work.

While there are other members in team who have different hobbies or even have a family.

Natrually, the one who spends more time refining the work is often rewarded assuming the members of the team were equally qualified and probably fall within same IQ range.

Now, is it not natural for their supervisor to expect from other team members?

Team members will recognize who is pushing the bar up and will be bitter towards them because now I've to make extra effort.

Re: A new study of rudeness in the workplace

#72

Post by usefulcat »

mharroun wrote: post #17
usefulcat wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I will note that although I have never met an asshole who was a top performer, I have met many who were convinced that they were. Definitely this. I find that insecurity also correlates strongly with the above description.

So what do you label someone who does most of the work while other contribute little to nothing? How to they profess that and not be labeled an asshole?

The comment I referred to was very clearly talking about the case of people who are not actually top performers, but who think (wrongly) that they are. That does not sound like the situation you're describing, so I'm having difficulty understanding the relevance of your comment, either to my comment or the one I replied to.

Re: A new study of rudeness in the workplace

#73

Post by trabant00 »

dang wrote: post #52
mharroun wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got down voted by the hamster wheel engineers here. The reality is there is two types of engineers: - those how give zero shit about there company or product and use their currtent job as a platform the jump the their next job with zero care given about how it trufly effects the person paying them. (aka we NEED kubrentes, SPA, mircoservices, ect). - and engineers who care about being REAL engineers... and providi…

This comment breaks the site guidelines. Would you mind reviewing them and using HN as intended? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Really curious what exactly in his comment is not according to the guidelines.

Re: A new study of rudeness in the workplace

#74

Post by chachachoney »

trabant00 wrote: post #73
dang wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment breaks the site guidelines. Would you mind reviewing them and using HN as intended? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Really curious what exactly in his comment is not according to the guidelines.

"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

It's hard not to break that rule when one sees something posted on topic and in good faith turning gray.

Re: A new study of rudeness in the workplace

#75

Post by cbanek »

rfrey wrote: post #13

In 25 years of working in the software industry, I have never witnessed somebody's assholity defended by their performance. I have also never encountered... NEVER encountered... an asshole who was also a top performer. In contrast, the top 7 performers I can think of off the top of my head were to a person kind, generous with their knowledge, patient with those less talented, and generally Good People, both to work w…

> I will note that although I have never met an asshole who was a top performer, I have met many who were convinced that they were.

Totally agree, although the trickiest times in my career haven't been when some IC is convinced they are a top performer and everyone should follow them, but when that person's manager also thinks the same. When it's both, it's almost untenable, as going to that person's manager makes some think you're a complainer going that high up the management chain.

Re: A new study of rudeness in the workplace

#76

Post by dotnetdemon »

bradleyjg wrote: post #36
mharroun wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what do you label someone who does most of the work while other contribute little to nothing? How to they profess that and not be labeled an asshole?

> So what do you label someone who does most of the work while other contribute little to nothing? Most of the time: the guy that’s going to leave an overly clever undocumented, unmaintable mess. Bonus points if it’s in a language that none of the rest of the company uses. Contemporary development is a team sport.

My former boss summed up to a T.

Re: A new study of rudeness in the workplace

#77

Post by _8j50 »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #68
_8j50 wrote: post #49

Question: I may not verbally greet people I don't directly work with or interact with. Is that considered rude? I am just not a good small talker,but I am not sure if my intention with small things like this will be misunderstood.

I'll answer your question, it's not rude. But developing communication between yourself and people outside your immediate work is helpful in getting a bigger picture about what's going on in your workplace. Having a bigger picture can make you more effective and useful.

Thanks much for the advise.

Re: A new study of rudeness in the workplace

#78

Post by factotvm »

mharroun wrote: post #19
factotvm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Slightly above average with a complex... I don't think this person would get fired anywhere I've worked. It's difficult and expensive to fire someone. You open yourself up to possible legal action even if you put them on a performance improvement plan. The best is to try and manage them out, but if the work you need to get done outstrips the people able to do it, you'll keep that above average person who thinks mor…

You case dose not match the parents claim, but i get that your situation seems tricky. I will also say this sounds like a management failure if 1 person is so critical they can get away with being disruptive to others. The leader of that person should focus on getting anyone else up to speed and co-ownership of the knowledge that makes the disruptive person so valuable.

You’re missing the point. I directly quoted the original response because you misread it and said subpar. The person in question is not subpar. The person is also not so valuable that others need to emulate them as you just put forth. The person is simply above average but thinks they’re amazing and acts accordingly.

Re: A new study of rudeness in the workplace

#79

Post by stallmanite »

_8j50 wrote: post #53
stallmanite wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stack Overflow has a “workplace” topic that is great for this kind of question.

I don't really use SO but thanks. I thought it was on topic for the post,my apologies.

I didn't mean to imply that you were off-topic, I've just found lots of useful answers to this type of question on SO.

I never post on SO myself due to the really wacked out incentive structure over there leading to excessive lawyering and nitpicking. The stuff that manages to not get closed for bs reasons is really high quality though so I just treat it as a read only resource.

Re: A new study of rudeness in the workplace

#80

Post by dang »

trabant00 wrote: post #73
dang wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment breaks the site guidelines. Would you mind reviewing them and using HN as intended? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Really curious what exactly in his comment is not according to the guidelines.

The one about name-calling and the one about commenting on downvotes, for starters.
Post reply on HN