
Why I'm Glad I Got Fired - acconrad
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/03/why_im_glad_i_got_fired.html
======
jordanb
One thing I learned some years ago is to always avoid being the agent for
someone else's humiliation. Even if that person is blatantly wrong, all you'll
do by calling them on it is create an enemy.

One trick I've used many times to correct someone without embarrassing them is
to couch my own feedback in conditionals, something like "You've been studying
this a lot more than I and I'm sure you're probably right but I seem to recall
reading a bit ago that an md5 sum isn't a sufficient way to hash a password,
you need to do more processing."

That then gives them an out "yeah I looked into that and I'm pretty sure this
is best practice but I'll check again" or somesuch. Probably 80 percent of the
time, when I frame it like that, I'll see a followup saying that they've gone
back and discovered the right way and will be doing it that way.

The really nice thing is that people are appreciative when you treat them that
way, and far from creating a new enemy you'll have earned respect and trust
from that person.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
Yes! Helping people save face is more useful than jockeying for nerd
dominance. Other approaches to do what you suggest:

"I think I read an article that compared a few different password hashing
strategies, I'm interested in your thoughts..." (and then follow up with a
good comparison that makes the point)

"Have you compared X, Y and Z?" Tone is important with this one, but it can be
the most straightforward.

"At the last place I worked, the paranoid guy insisted that we do X because he
thought it was better -- it was just as easy to implement, is that something
you'd be open to?"

When all else fails, you can follow up in private!

I think the key in any of these exchanges is to offer new information in a way
that doesn't question the judgement of the other individual. Basically, assume
that everyone is rational and differences in judgement are due to differences
in information/experience. Then, when someone makes a judgement different from
yours, you are merely giving them the information that lead to your decision
-- but leaving them to make up their own mind. Most people are more ego-
identified with their judgement than with the information they have.

~~~
joshkaufman
_"Helping people save face is more useful than jockeying for nerd dominance."_

Welcome to my quotes file.

------
illumin8
This is a really great article. Her experience mirrors mine in a lot of ways -
not that I've ever been an executive of anything, just that I've had the
experience of winning a battle at work, but winning in a way that alienated my
team. A lot of technical people are like that - we know we are right, and we
probably are, but when you shove the raw data and facts down your team's
throat in the wrong way, people will resent you for it.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are idiots, but you can't just call them that.
This is something I'm struggling with, and I wonder if anyone has pointers for
me. Not that I call people an idiot, but just that, if I know my facts are
correct, and I disagree with them, it's basically the same thing - you're
saying "I'm right and you're wrong," which might be true. How do you get
someone to agree with you without making them feel like an idiot? Please, tell
me, I'm dying to know...

~~~
aaronblohowiak
When you say that "people are idiots", it seems to assume that there is a
thing called "intelligence." Well, there is no "g", or general intelligence
that anyone can pin down.

Let's take the simple view and say that people's actions and judgements are a
product of the information they have gathered, the habits they have, their
ability to analyze and combine that information, their ability to optimize
within constraints and their ability to recognize and evaluate constraints.

If someone is clearly wrong, then they have some bad information or bad
reasoning. Learning their bad conclusion, many people then go on and do a
"well, i'm right and if they heard my reasoning then of course they would
agree with me!" That can work within relationships that have a high degree of
trust and rapport (not most relationships.) Outside of those relationships, it
is too self-centered.

Changing someone's mind is like fixing a bug in a foreign code base. You don't
just look at the erroneous output in order to debug, you also look at the
source and the input. Similarly, to effectively communicate with someone who
disagrees with you, you should seek to understand the information and
reasoning that lead them in a different path.

Understanding where they went wrong (in addition to their erroneous
conclusion) gives you a great level of preparedness. When you know where they
went wrong, you can usually get _them_ to change their own mind by asking them
to teach you about how their model of the world is consistent even though you
have seemingly contradictory information.

For instance: "oh, how is delivery guaranteed if there isn't a confirmation
echo?"

Basically, you take the stance of being wrong, and "use" them to teach you
about where you are wrong. If their answer seems to ignore information you
have, you can ask "How does this relate to the stats they released last week?"

This "please teach me" questioning approach doesn't undermine their judgement
or threaten their ego while giving you control of their thought process (or at
least more insight into it, which translates to having more control
ultimately.)

This takes a long time, but when you start learning to model other people's
reasoning ( a skill unto itself) you will get better at asking the right
question that guides them to the right conclusion without telling them what
the right conclusion is.

~~~
kanak
One of my favorite videos on youtube is the one where Neil deGrasse Tyson
expresses disagreement at Richard Dawkin's methods [1].

He says: "... persuasion isn't 'here are the facts and you're either an idiot
or you're not.' It's 'here are the facts and here's a sensitivity to your
state of mind.' And it's the facts and the sensitivity that when convolved
together, creates impact. I worry that your methods and how articulately
barbed you can be, simply being ineffective..."

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik>

------
paylesworth
For some reason, I kept thinking of how this headline would read if it was an
Onion article.

"Soulless executive loses job, discovers she's a human being."

------
synnik
I have always supported a philosophy of patience when it comes to being right.
When entering a new organization, make your case(s) known, but don't push
them. If you are proven to be often correct, over time people will see the
pattern, and you will earn respect. Even more so if you don't say "I told you
so." On the flip side, if you are pushy and turn out to be wrong, you just
shot yourself.

~~~
danilocampos
Eh, I dunno how much my experience confirms this. I worked for a pretty
spastic, rudderless company for awhile. I'd make my case for the right
direction. I'd be shouted down.

Months later, exactly what I described would be pitched as a new direction, as
though it was someone else's idea (and it definitely _was_ their idea, for all
practical purposes – I wasn't listened to, so they got there independently).
This repeated itself a few times.

Now I work somewhere else and it's much better. I'm still not a dick. But
maybe the lesson is that if you're continually in disagreement and no one is
listening, you're in the wrong place.

~~~
artmageddon
_Now I work somewhere else and it's much better. I'm still not a dick. But
maybe the lesson is that if you're continually in disagreement and no one is
listening, you're in the wrong place._

It's good that you're sticking by your principles. These sorts of matters are
a two-way street after all-if the other side isn't willing to work as hard as
you in seeing eye to eye, then it's time to leave as you did. The trouble I
always have is deciding when enough is enough.

------
mfringel
"You got it done, but they'll never work with you again." is only about a
half-notch up from "You didn't get it done."

There will always be a next time, and people never go away.

------
F_J_H
Reminds me of a Stephen Covey quote that goes something like:

"In any situation you can either be right or you can be kind. It is better to
be kind."

~~~
SapphireSun
It depends.... critical decisions you need to be right for. 99% of decisions,
it's probably better to listen to that advice.

------
j_baker
Dear HBR:

If you're going to place a pop-over ad for the iPad HBR app, please make sure
that said ad doesn't annoy the hell out of iPad users by taking too long to
load and being impossible to load.

------
blazer
Yesterday, I fired one of my PHP developer. It is his 13th month. His team
leader reported me that "He got average skills". Shame on me., Because, I
hired him. After 13th month we fired him. Problem is really the hiring people
(HR, CEO or anyone else). Now., I am preparing interview questions with twists
& logic implementations.

~~~
artmageddon
_Average skills_? There was an article recently - I think by Joel on Software
- that _everyone_ thinks they're hiring in the top 1%. I have to admit I'm
kind of curious as to what you were looking for in your team when you hired
the guy, I can't tell unless you elaborate more. In addition, I agree with
danilocampos: the problem might be in your hiring process. I'm not sure that
throwing out puzzles or whatever will help you reduce your number of false
positives.

~~~
biotech
The article you are referring to was recently posted on HN, but published in
2005: <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/01/27.html>

