
Kindness is Underrated (2014) - hengputhireach
https://circleci.com/blog/kindness-is-underrated/
======
BenchRouter
People often conflate "kindness" with "kid gloves" (for lack of a better
term). Being kind doesn't have to mean giving "compliment sandwiches" all the
time, or avoiding direct feedback. In many contexts, being kind just means
being a professional.

See Allen's comment in the linked post, for example. It's direct ("I'm
confused"), but polite. It's asking a question of the submitter in a
respectful way that's likely to engender a productive conversation as opposed
to putting people on the defensive. Allen's leaving the possibility open that
his assumptions are wrong (and often our assumptions are).

It quite literally requires less effort - Allen didn't have to expend the
extra effort to type out "this is stupid".

I guess I don't see what's so difficult about that particular type of
kindness.

~~~
jasode
_> I guess I don't see what's so difficult about that particular type of
kindness._

It's not about "difficulty" ... as in one takes 5 calories to type out "that's
stupid" but the polite sentence takes the same effort or less.

It's about _effectiveness_ and possibly the false cause & effect we attach to
one style of communication vs another. E.g. Linux may be successful because
Linus is direct and blunt. (It keeps idiots wasting everyone's time away.) Or,
Linux is not reaching its full potential because Linus is crude. (It drives
talented contributors who are repulsed by crude language away.) _We don 't
know which scenario is superior because we can't replay history in 2 separate
universes._

To your particular example, I personally don't like the _" I'm confused by
this."_ That is what I call unnecessary "prelude". It's redundant prelude
because Allen's next paragraph clearly asks 2 questions so _of course he 's
confused_.

Also, Allen writes:

    
    
      "Can you take a step back and explain your goal here?"
    

Again, my personality doesn't require business language ceremony of _" can you
take a step back..."_

Allen can delete "I'm confused" and "take step back" and get directly to the
point:

    
    
      "Can you explain your goal here?"
    

However, I want to emphasize that even though I don't like ceremonial language
("polite" as some may call it), I accept that some people require prelude &
ceremony so I do write many of my emails similar to Allen's style.

~~~
JoshTriplett
"Can you take a step back and" isn't "ceremony", it's an intentional phrasing
to produce the desired effect and context change in the reader. It's very easy
to get caught up in the minutiae, and phrasing like "Can you take a step back"
is a request to switch to higher-level considerations. "Can you explain your
goal here?" could produce a result like "Well, I'm trying to do X so I can Y",
whereupon you then have to say "No, no, go up a level; why are you trying to
Y?". "Can you take a step back and explain your goal here?" encourages someone
to provide a considered response, and up-level their reasoning.

That holds especially true when your job is to provide that broader picture
for others, and the person you're talking to might not have your perspective.

Having had to give the equivalent of the "No, no, I meant" follow-up response
there more than once, I've learned to provide the additional signals to up-
level.

~~~
jasode
_> "Can you take a step back and" isn't "ceremony", it's an intentional
phrasing_

Then it depends on how we perceive word choices. To me, "take a step back" has
become so overused that it's a "dead metaphor".[1] It has become the
_opposite_ of "intentional phrasing" and its most common use is prelude and
lubrication.

I'm not saying you're wrong in interpreting "take a step back" more literally.
(Literal interpretation is the premise of what your comment dissecting it is
based on). Most of the time, you can ignore it based on the way most people
insert "take a step back" into their business-speak.

Also, I doubt that surveying 10 random business people what "take a step back"
means would result in 6+ out of 10 defining it as "higher-level concerns". It
seems like "take a step back" acts more like a discourse marker.[2]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_metaphor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_metaphor)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_marker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_marker)

~~~
JoshTriplett
That's entirely plausible, and it depends on the environment. My point wasn't
to focus on that particular phrase (the choice of which may vary by
environment), but to more generally suggest that phrases that might seem
semantically empty may in fact have a purpose beyond making something come
across as less blunt.

The higher-level point: you're trying to produce a certain reaction in the
reader/listener, and every word and phrase you use will contribute to that
reaction. Even if you don't care about how they feel for its own sake, there's
value in producing the reaction you want and avoiding the reaction you don't.

So, in my case, I've had direct experience with specific choices of phrasing
producing undesirable results (and in a way being insufficiently direct), so
I've adopted other phrasings that produce the results I do want. The specific
things that work for you may vary.

> Also, I doubt that surveying 10 random business people what "take a step
> back" means would result in 6+ out of 10 defining it as "higher-level
> concerns". It seems like "take a step back" acts more like a discourse
> marker.[2]

In the specific context of the whole phrase ("Can you take a step back and
explain your goal here?"), I'd consider it semantically meaningful. I wouldn't
be surprised if it gets used in semantically null ways, as well.

But even if it were simply a "discourse marker", that shouldn't be
automatically discounted and deleted either. To make an analogy to another
form of behavior: I've seen a _lot_ of hackers follow a certain
counterproductive chain of reasoning regarding fashion. "This makes no sense
and shouldn't be a thing that matters. I'm going to treat it as a thing that
doesn't matter." (It's a form of the is-ought fallacy.) As opposed to the
rather more effective reasoning: "This is a real social signal that turns out
to matter, even though I don't think it should. It costs me little to play the
game and obtain the results I want."

I'll freely admit to using empathy _both_ because I care about other people
_and_ because I've in practice found it incredibly effective.

~~~
thinkfurther
> But even if it were simply a "discourse marker"

What is a discourse marker? Not that I have a problem with the phrase "take a
step back", I agree it depends on the environment, the context, on the person
who is saying it, how they're saying it, and who they're saying it to. But if
and when it's just filler, what stops it from turning into "can you go right
ahead and take a step back and explain your ultimate goal target here?" If
it's a "real social signal" (as opposed to a mere social signal?), what does
it signal? Do I want to be signaling that?

~~~
frenchy
A discourse marker is a high-level language feature that helps form a coherent
(or maybe not-so-coherent) discourse. Things like "then", "so", "um", "...",
"Once upon a time" are kind of classic examples. The word "like" has raised
the ire of a lot of folk as it has gained a new function as a discourse
marker.

There's nothing inherently bad about discourse markers (or dead metaphors) for
that matter. They are quite critical to a great deal of communication. I think
what the parent was trying to suggest that this meant its use was somehow
implicitly deceptive or something, but I don't know why.

~~~
thinkfurther
Once upon a time is said _once_ , at the beginning of a story. Okay, so it
says "the following is a little or longer story". But what does e.g. "um"
several times per sentence say? "I should slow down but I don't wanna"? Even
there being nothing inherently bad about them, they're by the same token also
not inherently good, though I agree that the example in question is a bad one
for a bad one.

------
zeteo
> Bezos talks about a lesson imparted by his grandfather on one of the cross-
> country road trips they would take every summer: “Jeff, one day you’ll
> understand that it’s harder to be kind than clever.”

Sure, that's nice rhetoric. And yet the "kind" Bezos has presided over some of
the worst working conditions in the developed world [1] while the "blunt"
Torvalds has kept together the very scattered Linux team for decades without
controlling their income or work conditions. Apparently the more money you
have, the more you can get away with a "do as I say, not as I do" standard.

[1]
[http://www.salon.com/2014/02/23/worse_than_wal_mart_amazons_...](http://www.salon.com/2014/02/23/worse_than_wal_mart_amazons_sick_brutality_and_secret_history_of_ruthlessly_intimidating_workers/)

~~~
walterstucco
If you're poor they will tell you you're batshit crazy

If you're rich or their salary depend on you, you are eclectic

~~~
eivarv
I think you mean "eccentric".

~~~
walterstucco
Yeah, eccentric works best in english, I just translated "eclettico" from
Italian, that actually means eclectic, but it is used with a slightly
different meaning.

Thanks

------
jasode
_> , an atmosphere of blunt criticism hurts team cohesiveness and morale;
there’s time and energy lost to hurt feelings, to damage control, to trust
lost between team members - not to mention the fact that people are working in
a fundamentally less humane environment. It may seem faster and easier to be
direct, but as a strategy it’s penny wise and pound foolish._

This is one of those statements that I think we _want_ to be true but we have
_no evidence_ that it's true. Many contradictory examples exist in the real
world:

You can yell at your team and insult them and be successful. (Famous examples
are Steve Jobs and Bill Gates' _" that's the stupidest idea I've ever
heard!"_)

You can be soft-spoken and be successful. (Warren Buffet would be an example.
He doesn't yell at the people in his Omaha office or his presidents/CEOs at
Berkshire subsidiary companies.)

Likewise, you can be blunt & harsh and fail. You can also be diplomatic & nice
and fail.

Same in other endeavors. You can yell at the football team and win the Super
Bowl (Mike Ditka - Chicago Bears). Or, you can be soft-spoken and win the
championship (Tony Dungy - Indy Colts). Likewise, you can do either style and
still be the worst team in the league.

Doesn't seem to be much correlation either way.

My conclusion based on life experiences is that companies can have both the
blunt and the diplomatic approaches. The blunt communication works well in
upper management. (E.g. one VP tells another VP that "it's a stupid idea.")
Everybody is a Type A personality and has a thick skin. However, the reality
is that many employees (especially lower-level positions) feel demeaned by
direct language. (As the endless debates about Linus' style attests.)
Therefore, they require _indirect_ language and those VPs have to dynamically
adjust the communication to that personality.

Personally, I don't like the style of indirect communication the author uses
in examples of Daniel, David, and Allen but I fully understand it's necessary
in the real world for certain people.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> Personally, I don't like the style of indirect communication the author uses
> in examples to Daniel, David, and Allen but I fully understand it's
> necessary in the real world for certain people.

I don't actually think the first two quoted comments are the best examples,
precisely because they show a degree of indirectness. You can be direct,
clear, and professional while still having empathy for the person you're
speaking to.

I do have enough personal experience with people of both types to have a
strong impression that there's a correlation between empathy and success. By
"empathy" here, I'm talking about the ability to accurately model other people
and predict how they'll react to certain things. That doesn't automatically
imply kindness, it's just a common side effect (since with empathy, you'd be
_knowingly_ hurtful otherwise). If you can't model other people at all, you're
going to have a hard time in a people-oriented, communication-oriented role,
which includes almost any leadership role. You might succeed _in spite_ of
lacking that skill, but you won't succeed _because_ of it.

~~~
walterstucco
But you can't teach empathy.

The counter example is mobsters, they are highly successful, have built
empires that are competing against the major corporations but are not showing
any sign of empathy or mercy,l and I would say most of them cannot even be
considered humans.

And for sure they do not understand people, they force them to do what they
need them to do, as if they were tools.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> But you can't teach empathy.

I very strongly disagree. You can learn empathy, and teach it. There are whole
books about learning to model other people.

"How to win friends and influence people" is, in many ways, all about empathy,
for instance.

(Let me distinguish for a moment that there _are_ people out there who have
psychological conditions that make it incredibly hard for them to model other
people. I don't know how to address that, offhand.)

------
eksemplar
Being in middle management in a workplace of 7000 it often surprises me how
little time people in tech devote to diplomacy.

You can certainly get a point across by being direct, but to make a truly
lasting change you need to convince people it's a good idea. I've yet to see
this happen without kindness and diplomacy.

So while the IT security officer can certainly get a strict password policy
implemented, without also making sure people understand and agree that
security is a good idea the end result becomes a lot of written down passwords
hiding on postits under keyboards.

~~~
tomjen3
If a person in tech wanted to be more diplomatic, where would you suggest I
start learning about it? Books, websites, etc are very much welcome (I already
read how to win friends and influence people).

~~~
autarch
I liked Crucial Conversations ([https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-
Talking-Stakes-...](https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-
Stakes-Second/dp/1469266822)) a lot.

~~~
JoshTriplett
I did as well. I also like "Daring Greatly", and to a lesser extent
"Influencer".

I hadn't heard of "Radical Candor" before its mention elsewhere in this
thread, but a quick look at it turned up promising results, _especially_ the
fact that it distinguishes between empathy and directness, and discusses the
failure modes of having either without the other.

------
jdietrich
I wish that Bezos would be a bit kinder to his warehouse and delivery workers:

[http://www.salon.com/2014/02/23/worse_than_wal_mart_amazons_...](http://www.salon.com/2014/02/23/worse_than_wal_mart_amazons_sick_brutality_and_secret_history_of_ruthlessly_intimidating_workers/)

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/01/week-
amaz...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/01/week-amazon-
insider-feature-treatment-employees-work)

[http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/slave-
driver...](http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/slave-drivers--
amazon-delivery-10099221)

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/amazon-
minimu...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/amazon-minimum-wage-
delivery-drivers-illegal-hours-have-to-defecate-urinate-in-vans-a7411001.html)

------
scottLobster
Part of working effectively with a group is learning to take blunt non-
personal critcism in stride. In English 110 freshman year we were required to
get into groups and review each other's work (essays, papers, assignments for
class) for this very purpose. All of the criticism was blunt if non-personal
(you have a run-on sentence here, this is phrased weirdly, etc...), and it was
obviously the first time receiving such criticism for some of the students.
All of our writing improved as a result, though, and because it was non-
personal even the most insecure people in the class eventually adapted to it.

I'll submit that personal remarks like "only a fucking idiot would..." and
such are bad not because they hurt feelings but because they are worthless and
distracting. They make the conversation about a person instead of what people
are supposed to be talking about, if only for a fraction of a second, and can
disrupt conversation.

If someone is doing something that harms the objective, you tell them what
they're doing, why they need to stop and possibly how they can fix/improve
things going forward. That's effective blunt criticism, and there's no need
for personal insults anywhere in the chain.

~~~
anonyfox
Sounds somewhat like the default culture here in germany: direct and blunt.
Many foreigners are very uncomfortable with this attitude, but I think this is
not "cold" but highly efficient and benefits everyone everyday AFAIK.

~~~
k__
True. As a German this often leads me to distrust angelo-american people,
because I can't judge if they mean it or just don't want to hurt me.

------
marcoperaza
There is a big difference between being NICE and being GOOD.

To paraphrase Charles Murray: "nice" is a moment-to-moment tactic for avoiding
conflict, not a guiding principle for living your life. We should default to
being nice amicable people, but being good often requires otherwise.

Unfortunately, niceness has been raised to the highest virtue in recent years.
This is a mistake with civilizational consequences.

~~~
humanrebar
Exactly. It's good to discretely tell a friend about his body odor. But it's
certainly not nice.

~~~
TulliusCicero
What about telling another poster on the internet about their typo? (discreet,
not discrete)

~~~
mustaflex
I think it's funny, at least in this case :D.

------
matthewowen
I agree that kindness is important.

I don't think the examples given are examples of kindness.

Concretely, they're insufficiently direct.

If you think someone is doing something that isn't well thought out, and you
think you understand the problem well enough to say that they haven't thought
through it fully (which is a scenario that arises in workplaces), don't say
that you're "confused". It's a variant on false shock. Just say " I don't
think this change considers the following scenario:". You can soften that with
a disclaimer of "perhaps I'm missing something", but saying "I'm confused"
when you think the other person is consumed is mildly passive aggressive.

Likewise, if you think someone should do something, don't say "it'd be nice if
we could". Make the request directly. You can still add "let me know if
there's something I'm not considering that prevents that". It's frustrating
otherwise, because it is unclear what is a request or nice-tp-have and what is
an instruction that approval is contingent upon. In the long term, lacking
that clarity becomes annoying, especially for non-native speakers or people
from different cultures who expect different lvels of directness.

There is a position between aggressive "don't do that, it's stupid" and the
indirect formulations in this post, and that's where you should aim. Polite
and kind, but still clear and direct.

Honestly, if you just state the problems with the approach clearly and avoid
words like "stupid" or "dumb", you're 90% of the way there.

------
ivanbakel
In a similar vein, one of the articles that has more influenced my
interactions has been The Minimally-nice OSS Maintainer [0]. It doesn't
produce an instant slipstream where all your collaboration is suddenly super-
fluid, but niceness does help reduce those abrasive moments which, in my
experience, can slow a community down a lot more than working well speeds it
up. It goes hand-in-hand with good community curation - so long as you're
trimming out bad actors, you have to be able to acknowledge bad behaviour in
yourself.

0\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14051106](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14051106)
[https://brson.github.io/2017/04/05/minimally-nice-
maintainer](https://brson.github.io/2017/04/05/minimally-nice-maintainer)

------
agibsonccc
I struggle with this a _ton_. 1 thing I can't really get past with this, is:
People themselves often take "ideas" as "personal criticism" in practice.

As much as I like the ideas this post advocates, I feel like some of this is
on a case by case basis.

It should always be a goal to keep criticism professional, not personal.

One other thing that should be kept in mind here of is culture.

I live in japan where you really can't even say "no" let alone "wrong".
There's are extremes like: Linus and the other being many asian cultures.

Like any advice like this, try to look at the intent and the points that work
for your situation not "Silicon valley startup only".

------
qdev
The article ends by discussing trust, and perhaps that is more fundamentally
important than kindness -- kindness is one vehicle that allows trust to
evolve, but probably not the only one.

An environment of trust (and safety) allows open technical discussions and
lets you come to decisions in a way that helps everyone learn and evolve
without "losing face" and without breeding an undercurrent of anger and
resentment. Knowing that each person is willing to listen to the other
respectfully and that each person is prepared to say they are wrong, can
improve the discussion rather than making it more wishy-washy.

You need to have this if you're going to be working day after day, maybe for
years with the same people. Lose trust and the feeling that it is safe to make
potentially "stupid" statements, and people will just blindly follow the
loudest most belligerent person because it's not worth the emotional cost of
trying to engage in "debate".

So maybe "Trust is Underrated" would be a better title for the original
article.

------
EGreg
Experience has taught me there is a serious difference between being nice and
being kind.

Often, we are nice because we are afraid of hurting people's feelings. As a
result, though, we sometimes end up stringing people along and the ultimately
make them lose more time and energy than if we had breached their comfort zone
early, and communicated our expectations when they weren't yet super-invested.
And after all is said and done, if we string them along, they end up blaming
us more as well.

This was a hard life lesson to learn, but sometimes, to be kind, one must risk
not being nice.

My advice would be: before communicating a tough expectation, do your homework
(research how it's done) and be diplomatic. Different cultures have different
linguistic paradigms that help grease the wheels towards agreement. Use them.
And at the end, be firm but offer support for the transition. If they want it,
they will take it. In any case it's likely you will be respected and won't
burn bridges that way.

~~~
tonecluster
Important point here: kind and nice are not synonymous. It's easy to conflate
kindness with niceness, and the OP (from what I can infer) is advocating the
latter, not the former. Kind is not the same as nice.

There are several ways to do necessary, un-nice things in a very kind manner.
It is a skill, and for some people requires coaching on how to express
themselves professionally and kindly most of the time.

(Qualifying this, because there are occasions that warrant a good moderate
yell or two. E.g., the 3rd (rejected) and random PR submitted by a Jr.
developer that changes all of the spaces to tabs in the repository, or all of
the modules/functions to classes/methods.)

~~~
EGreg
By the way, a lot of the "yells" can be replaced by pre-commit hooks, auto-
configure scripts and other things putting pressure on the system instead of a
person.

~~~
tonecluster
I think you underestimate the industriousness of someone who _really_ intends
on committing tabs.

------
sillysaurus3
It takes a lot more work to get your point across while being kind. Sometimes
I'm not sure it's worth it. Especially when it seems like no manager qualifies
as "kind." So if you want to advance, what do you do?

It's still annoying that becoming a manager is correlated with advancement,
but that's life.

~~~
toomuchtodo
As someone who tried to be kind for years while trying to get my work done,
it's not. Would not recommend.

~~~
jasonkostempski
Kind doesn't mean let everyone walk all over you. It's possible to kindly tell
someone to fuck off. I've even seen people use those exact words and still
appear kind.

Edit: Mildly interesting. 50 minutes after this comment, I was searching for
how to calculate the intersection points of collinear line segments which
brought me to Stackoverflow [1]; where someone linked to this sketch [2] about
drawing red lines with green ink, all perpendicular; which then brought me to
this sketch [3] involving politely telling someone to fuck off.

[1] [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24511962/calculate-
inter...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24511962/calculate-intersection-
of-two-segments)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg)

[3]
[https://youtu.be/sxCWB47ZCLQ?t=1m53s](https://youtu.be/sxCWB47ZCLQ?t=1m53s)

I still don't know how to calculate the intersection points of collinear line
segments.

~~~
toomuchtodo
This was not possible in the environment I was operating in.

------
siliconc0w
I get it's possible to qualify statements, de-personalize, and obfuscate blame
but I'm not convinced this is the ideal environment. It's diplomatic, but it's
slower and less clear. It can work but I've also seen it fail where someone
takes a comment as a suggestion when it wasn't. It's basically 'level 0' or
the default mode of communication.

A good workplace culture is, essentially, leveling up from this. It's agreeing
while diplomatic language is more comfortable and it's how we might
communicate outside work, we're agreeing to suspend it to better achieve our
shared goals. If someone challenges your idea, you need dispassionately and
genuinely consider their objections and either defend your idea or acquiesce
to the better idea. Some people just can't do this. Ideas are personal things
and arguing about them feels uncomfortable and they don't like to feel
uncomfortable. And, maybe getting a little carried away, but I think there is
general societal issue where we think if you're uncomfortable something must
be wrong. Good decisions are born out of argument not trust. Saying "I'm
confused" or "Help me understand" when you already understand and just
disagree is level 0 language. It kinda works but it's slow and inefficient and
as engineers - this isn't good enough.

------
strictfp
I think Linus is extreme, but I can totally understand that he got fed up with
being nice and getting ignored. I don't agree with his conclusion that people
don't get him reprimanding them, though. I think they mostly get it, but think
they can get a way with ignoring him. And that is an attitude problem we have
in our industry. A lot of people seem to think that they are the shit and are
really bad listeners.

~~~
BeetleB
>but I can totally understand that he got fed up with being nice and getting
ignored.

Not sure why "being nice" and "getting ignored" seem like they need to be
paired. Linus failed at being nice and not being ignored. He wasn't ignored
because he was nice.

~~~
strictfp
Again, I think it's a culture thing. He gets little to no automatic respect
for being the maintainer. So either he has to engage in another endless
discussion on the merits of the subject matter, or he has to shut the
discussion down. He chooses the second option.

~~~
BeetleB
>So either he has to engage in another endless discussion on the merits of the
subject matter, or he has to shut the discussion down.

My question is now:

Why does it have to be an _endless_ discussion on the merits, vs shutting the
discussion down?

You can have a firm discussion on the merits without shutting it down.

------
jeffdavis
This article makes it sound like kindness is just expending extra time for the
same message, and it's magically "nice".

That explanation of kindness doesn't make sense. Some people try to be nice
and, by mistake, end up being rude. And business people make deals quickly all
of the time, using jargon and cutting out pleasantries while still being kind.

No, kindness is a skill of words and actions that must be developed over time.
It's about navigating complex ideas and decisions effectively.

For instance, "no" is generally rude, not because it's too short, but because
it doesn't provide good feedback on a complex idea. What is the proposer
trying to accomplish? What existing alternatives exist, or what others might
be explored?

If you don't have the time to give good reasons, then point them toward others
that you trust to give good advice. E.g: "This proposal is unacceptable.
Discuss with group XYZ and explore alternatives." Or even: "This proposal is
unacceptable -- the proposed use case is not important enough to justify what
you are trying to do."

------
depsypher
I think we do need to have empathy in our dealings with people online, and in
general it's in our own best interests to do so. Many open source projects'
lifeblood are their communities, and other things being equal, you'll get more
contributions if you're not a complete jerk.

The flip-side is that high quality maintainable code is the product of top-
notch commits, and rejecting commits is sometimes necessary to keep the
standard of quality high. A good maintainer shouldn't cave to pressure of
accepting a flawed commit just to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

This article in fact had what looks like a prime example of that. The comment
mentioning a PR might "break a limit" but "we'll cross that bridge when we get
to it" was touted as an example of how to give guidance. I'd argue that code
quality slipped right there as a direct result of social pressure to accept a
subpar commit.

It's not easy by any measure, but I think it pays to be not only clever and
kind, but also consistent and firm when it comes to reviewing people's work.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> This article in fact had what looks like a prime example of that. The
> comment mentioning a PR might "break a limit" but "we'll cross that bridge
> when we get to it" was touted as an example of how to give guidance. I'd
> argue that code quality slipped right there as a direct result of social
> pressure to accept a subpar commit.

In the absence of the broader context, I would tend to guess that that comment
was trying to avoid overengineering. We've certainly had more than enough
discussions on HN about "move fast and break things". This is the kind of
review comment that goes along with doing that _intentionally_ rather than
_accidentally_.

That technical decision might be right, or might be wrong, but either way it
can be presented with empathy; empathy doesn't need to change the _message_.
You can say "I think this might cause problem X, but that won't be an issue
for a while, so let's deal with it later", or you can say "I think this might
cause problem X, you need to fix that before this can go in", and either way
you can be professional and kind while getting your point across.

------
jancsika
Linus' story is that early on in the history of Linux he was not direct enough
in his criticism of a kernel dev's code to make it clear he wouldn't accept it
into the kernel. So the kernel dev kept working on the code in the hopes of it
being accepted, and then when Linus finally made it clear it wouldn't be
accepted the dev became-- according to reports Linus heard-- suicidal.

Consequently Linus says he decided to go in the direction of communicating in
the manner that he is now known for. (Which makes me wonder-- if he had a
personal encounter early on with his sarcasm causing the same bad outcome,
would he have decided as confidently to go in the other direction?)

Regardless, I think jaromil who maintains Devuan is a great counterexample.
He's quite nice and non-sarcastic, approachable to newcomers, and he seems to
be able to herd cats just as well.

~~~
sah2ed
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Linux is a much larger OSS project
than Devuan and has been running for much longer as well.

Better to let Devuan reach the scale of Linux before attempting to use Denis
“Jaromil” Roio niceness as a counterexample to Linus Torvalds.

Even nice people have breaking points. They are perfectly capable of snapping
back at you, if you push them hard enough.

------
amirouche
Previous conversation:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7733939](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7733939)

------
TheAceOfHearts
I disagree that these three things are the same: “that sucks!”, “you’re doing
it wrong!”, “only an idiot would…”. Sometimes you really are doing things
wrong, and I'd regard being told so as a kindness. The situation where I've
seen it most commonly is when someone is learning to speak a language. If you
don't correct them, they'll continue making mistakes. When someone corrects me
I give serious thought to what they're saying.

In my last job I had lots of hour-long arguments with coworkers on different
topics, many of which I ended up conceding the point. I'm incredibly
appreciative of them having taken the effort to help me understand the their
views, and convince me otherwise.

I think there's a lot of stigma on disagreeing with people. But I don't see
why that should be the case. If you have an argument with someone and you both
end up leaving with a better understanding of the problem, why is that a bad a
thing? I've had plenty of discussions where I fundamentally disagreed with
someone, only to go and later drink a few beers them. Just because you
disagree with someone doesn't mean you hate or dislike them, and there's no
reason to take it personally. It's fine for someone to hold different views
than you own.

An example of this are hate-speech laws, which I'm thankful that the US
doesn't have. Personally, I consider them horrible mistakes, but I respect
that others disagree. FWIW, the reason I disagree with hate-speech laws is
that I think you should be able to openly speak your mind on any topic,
because it means you can have a discussion and learn from it. If you can't
have an open discussion about some topic, you might never be presented with
the opportunity to rise above whatever might've lead you to some terrible
belief.

I've certainly said a lot of stupid things online, and every time I've been
called out on them I think I've grown and learned a bit. I have no doubt I'll
continue saying stupid stuff, because in many cases I won't know any better,
and I fully hope that others will call me out on it.

------
overgard
I think directness can be a form of kindness though. For an intelligent
professional, being treated with kid gloves and not receiving direct feedback
is often detrimental to everyone involved, and the resentment that can form
from leaving a situation lingering can be vastly more damaging than having an
argument might have been.

Also, while I've been critical of Linus' approach in the past, I think given
that his standards are well known and consistent it's probably not _that_
hurtful if he rips you to shreds over a patch because its well known that
thats just what hes like.

------
crispinb
We live in societies designed to systematically select for greed and dog-eat-
dog individualism, to which kindness is antithetical. Given this, for kindness
to survive beyond the private/family sphere requires heroism. Heroism is
lovely, but is by definition too much to expect on average. To promote greed
as the primary organising principle of mass societies was a reckless
experiment. It failed, to which our world's collapsing ecosystems are primary
witnesses.

------
ppod
I think that kindness is a gift just like cleverness. You can work to become
more educated, work to be more rational, more evidence-minded in your
judgements, but you will still be behind someone who works the same amount but
has a natural ability. The same is true of kindness. Of course, we should all
work to be kind, but it comes easier to some than to others. I know some
people who, in a very natural way, are pretty much incapable of being unkind.

~~~
eropple
I expect there are tendencies, but it is very important not to use those
tendencies as an excuse not to be kind. I've never met someone who couldn't be
kind, but I've met (and been) people who didn't want to.

------
bitL
How does author solve the problem of being kind, other people mistaking it for
weakness and taking advantage of it?

~~~
eropple
Not the author, but being kind doesn't mean that I let people walk over me.
You can always still say "no." It's how you say it that matters. I find it
easier--by being calm and reasonable and explaining why I'm saying no, I'm
more likely to succeed.

It's not easy, but it's powerful.

~~~
JoshTriplett
I've been in technical meetings with senior technical people who were the type
to attempt to ram a point through, and blast anyone they see as in the way. If
you're going to disagree with them, there are two approaches that can succeed.
One is to blast back with greater force, and win by force of personality.
(That doesn't leave much information for the bystanders, or the decision-
makers, to go on.) And the other is to be right, know you're right, lay out
the case and evidence, and generate a stark contrast between the loud yelling
person and the person with all the evidence on their side. And all of a sudden
the person who was previously accepted as the stereotypical "gruff guru"
starts to look a lot less reasonable.

It's _absolutely_ harder. But when you're successful with it, you also start
to disarm people like that, and get others to seek you out instead of them.

------
kevmo
Aggressive kindness has opened so many doors and smoothed so many paths for
me. It's painless and pays enormous dividends while making you feel great
about yourself.

I also get tons of free shit by just being nice to service workers.

------
unclebucknasty
The missing link and unspoken driver behind much meanness (in development and
otherwise) is contempt.

Contempt is one of the worst regards a person can hold for another--perhaps
even worse than hatred. It's a fundamental lack of respect for another's
worth, either within a domain or more generally.

One can muster the will to express kindness for someone they dislike. But, it
is virtually humanly impossible to be kind towards those one holds in
contempt.

------
maxxxxx
Kindness and sincerity have to go together. I see way too many people going
through rituals that are supposed to make them look kind but they are not
sincere.

------
makecheck
It can be very motivating to see someone get mad at you though. All at once,
lots of things become clear: (1) this is important to that person, (2) you
need to treat this seriously, and (3) this is really uncomfortable, it would
be good to avoid future discomforts (i.e. change behavior more permanently,
not just this one time).

Kindness actually triggers the _exact_ opposite of the 3 things above:
suddenly everything seems like no big deal and nothing ever changes. Just
great: now you’re setting yourself up for several _more_ unpleasant
interactions in the future, instead of just fixing something from the
beginning.

There are a lot of other considerations too...

For one, the person “yelling” is usually _not_ the only “unkind” person in the
interaction, even if that’s the most obvious one. It is unkind, for instance,
to be a lazy person who goes into situations utterly unprepared, showing no
respect; at that point, YOU aren’t being “nice” so why do you expect niceness
in return?

And sometimes niceness gets in the way of well-understood, efficient
processes. On a mailing list, say, you’re better off making a direct statement
that isn’t wrapped in two extra paragraphs of polite tone for everyone to read
through. And heck, when you’re _driving_ , you can create MAJOR traffic
problems by being “kind” instead of just following the rules (ironically
bubbling back and impacting 50 people for a mile because you wanted to be
“kind” to one person; just watch some videos).

------
Aron
Basically, most people walk around with inflamed highly sensitive status
buttons that get triggered by any indication of relative power balance out of
line with officially designated titles e.g. your interlocutor is pretentiously
using large words. Kindness is acting like everyone is equal maximally,
regardless of the truth of the matter.

------
rickpmg
I think opponents of being kind tend to think:

1- you can't be kind without appearing weak and

2- being blunt and being kind are two different things

------
hbarka
Can't this be simply distilled as being a gentleman/woman? There was that
generation.

~~~
35bge57dtjku
"I said good day, sir!"

------
throwme_1980
As a developer, kindness is EARNED, you want people to be kind to you despite
of who you are and your mediocre contribution to the code base , unnecessarily
refactoring code when you're meant to be working on an important feature ? No
sir, I don't think it'll be kindness you will get from or any business
manager.

If however you want well deserved respect and kindness, show that you excel at
your job, you are able to deliver for me in a timely fashion and exceeding
expectation. You can't handle being criticised ? You have no business being in
business, go open a charity bookshop. One has to understand, developers like
in any other creative industry can go off on a tangent by themselves if not
given direction explicitly, sometimes that means being very much assertive and
firm. If that is perceived as being unkind then tough luck.

~~~
throwme_1980
you have to look at it from a different perspective, a business exists to make
money, being terse, assertive and direct doesn't make one unkind. the drawn
out process of cajoling souls into doing something is the equivalent of
burning cash while trying to stuff it back into your purse.

being unkind is also relative, it doesn't necessarily equate to being a jerk
or going out of your way to upset someone, no, au contraire, some people
perceive unkindness because you dont go around the office shaking people's
hand every morning...

i will leave you with one last nugget of wisdom: Most software nowadays is a
non-mission critical where 2-3 average-joe-developer getting paid average
salaries will be more than adequate to finish the project. so no , i don't
need you to innovate, just need you to execute on a vision as it has been
outlined (by a well deserving A player), you do a good job, you become that A
player.

~~~
eropple
I don't "have" to look at it any way you tell me to and the inhumane way you
post makes it nearly a certainty that I won't. Have you considered the knock-
on effects, like this one, that being inhumane as you are being will cause?

I'll say it again for emphasis: the transactional, inhumane culture you are
advocating for _hurts people_ and you should stop pissing in our shared pool.

You are not your KPIs and neither are the people over whom you think you lord.

------
jacksnipe
[http://www.metastatic.org/text/This%20is%20Water.pdf](http://www.metastatic.org/text/This%20is%20Water.pdf)

------
loeg
(2014)

~~~
sctb
Thanks! Updated.

------
minademian
h/t to CircleCI for doing this kind of work in the tech industry.

------
kronos29296
I came here thinking here is another situation or anecdote and this time about
kindness and being screwed over because of it or something. Instead it is
about workplace professionalism being called kindness and a recruitment pitch
disguised as click bait. (Click baits are increasing in HN) my .02$

