
The Cult Of Positive Attitude and Always Saying Yes - tamersalama
http://meetingboy.com/post/49448674854/the-cult-of-positive-attitude-and-always-saying-yes
======
steven2012
You can't just say "No". You need to say "No, these are the reasons why, and
here are my solutions". It's too easy sitting back and pooh-poohing every
idea, and there are a lot of people that love doing that. Coming up with
solutions is the right way to approach it, because people really don't like
hearing "No".

That being said, I took this approach at one of my previous jobs, a fairly
well known enterprise software company in the Valley, and I got blackballed
for being too negative. We were working on a project and there was simply no
hope of it ever working. The technical lead on the project was over-arrogant
and under-talented, and essentially built a system that wouldn't scale. I
brought this up a bunch of times, and gave solutions on how to fix it, but
they were all rejected by the technical lead. I was told by my manager that I
was being too negative and was given a poor performance review, which really
rattled me, so I gave up the "good fight". 9 months later, the project was
canned because of scalability issues.

So this "Cult of Positive Attitude" really does exist, can be pervasive in a
company to the point of being toxic, and sometimes the best solution is to
just leave, which is what I ended up doing.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
> So this "Cult of Positive Attitude" really does exist, can be pervasive in a
> company to the point of being toxic, and sometimes the best solution is to
> just leave, which is what I ended up doing.

This. The solution to the Cult of Positive Attitude is not to lament
positivity, or long for the day when healthy cynicism is more highly valued.
It's to go somewhere where you have _legitimate_ reasons to believe that
things are better than they are worse.

Put simply: the problem isn't positive attitude. It's positive attitude that
is in direct conflict with reality.

~~~
HarryHirsch
> Put simply: the problem isn't positive attitude. It's positive attitude that
> is in direct conflict with reality.

I disagree that an attitude in conflict with reality is a problem, not for
those that have it. If you haven't seen it already you wouldn't believe just
how long a company or group within a company can muddle on without any grasp
on reality whatsoever. Of course you are better off leaving while the termite-
eaten building hasn't collapsed yet, but in this recession that is easier said
than done.

------
peterwwillis
_"I know that when people aren’t listened to, and aren’t respected, then they
will try to undermine you."_

He says after calling his co-workers idiots.

But really, his point of view is crystallized by the first sentence:

 _"Every lie and lame idea in the corporate world is now protected by an
airtight bubble of positive attitude and yes-men. And I’m sick of it."_

He's projecting his shitty job onto every corporation in the world. I haven't
ever worked with a culture of yes men or positive-attitude police, and I have
worked at several corporations, so (from my own limited experience) it seems
like he's just an angsty single-minded coward who for whatever reason likes
working with people he hates.

If you don't like the culture of your job, try to improve it. If it doesn't
improve, leave. But writing these emo screeds about "saying no" is retarded,
because anyone with a brain would agree that sometimes saying yes and
sometimes saying no is a good idea.

------
jtheory
Meh. Saying "yes" uncritically isn't helpful, but saying "no" (even to
imperfect ideas) often isn't wise either.

It's better to give a psychological "yes" even if the final answer should be
"no" to a particular implementation. So point out the things you like about an
idea before walking through the details (where problems may crop up).

Give others credit for good ideas (or sub-ideas, since of course you can often
salvage something good from a flawed suggestion), but disassociate problems
immediately from other people. ("I think we should go with _Jane's_ great idea
about X, with this tweak to address _my_ worry about scaling").

Feel free to discuss your own ideas that you jettison soon after -- this can
happen a lot if you talk through a problem while you're still thinking it over
-- and is a very healthy approach to model.

Stay open-minded about your own suggestions, and stay far away from a win/lose
mindset. Realistically, if my suggestion for a particular problem won't be
what the team chooses today, is there _actually_ going to be a poor result?

The main thing that works for me is to go meta sometimes... I will actually
say in a meeting "hang on; I want to be sure I'm not just hanging on to this
approach because I've thought it through more deeply."

None of this involves me ever saying "that's a bad idea" (unless it was
mine!), or even really "no" very often at all. More like "I like that, but I
worry about".

If someone tells you "you need to work on saying yes instead of no all the
time", they may just be telling you to improve your human skills a bit -- not
shutting you down at all.

------
DamagedProperty
Leadership vacuums create strong 'YES' and 'NO' types

I learned two decades ago about a concept called meta programs. Meta programs
are filters that people use to understand their environment. Two of these are
'moving toward' and 'moving away' meta programs.

People are typically drawn to one or the other. They either filter their
thoughts in moving toward or moving away first before considering the other. I
have found that having both of these types of people on a project a very
positive thing. You need people who can see the positive and you need people
who can identify the pitfalls.

The problems start when either of these people think their position is always
the correct position. The moving toward people want to take on the world and
the moving away people are yelling you why you can't do that. Nothing gets
done in these situation. And the reason why moving toward or moving away
people become so strong in their opinion is because there is a lack of
leadership.

You NEED to have that one person who can listen to both of these people,
respect their points of view and make tough choices.

------
zimpenfish
My approach (which generally isn't popular with anyone) is to start with "No"
and work towards a measured "Yes" after the gory details have been thrashed
out.

I've worked with too many nerdy-geeky-type people who love to demonstrate
their cleverness to the obviously inferior sales/marketrdroids by immediately
say "Yes, of COURSE we can, DUH" to whatever harebrained nonsense they've
thought up over their long lunch at the local stripper pub.

Then spending the next 6 months bitching endlessly about what a ridiculously
stupid and impossible project the sales/marketdroids have foisted upon them
and life is just NOT FAIR and I'M GOING TO MY ROOM.

Start with "No" - everyone will hate you but at least you'll get shit done.

------
freejack
I'm gonna call bullshit on this one.

The world isn't black and white and not all managers are assholes and
employees never divide neatly down "yes" and "no" lines and any manager worth
their salt knows this.

 _And_ the secret of success doesn't lie with saying "yes" or "no" or making
the team think a certain way, the secret of success lies with finding a way
_for the team_ to say yes to the right ideas and no to the wrong ones and kick
ass in the process.

If you work with or for people that think as half as shallow as the people
described in the OP, run - don't blog about it, run.

~~~
ghaspland
I agree. This an over-simplistic view of how companies function and, frankly,
a bit immature. I started my career as an engineer and I felt at times many of
the sentiments expressed in this post. However, since then I've launched my
own start up and had to take on the CEO role, which required me to do sales,
marketing and manage people. Having to shoulder those responsibilities has
really changed my perception. Everybody is under different pressures and until
you are in their shoes it is often hard to understand the decisions they're
making. We've since been acquired and I'm an employee again. As a result of
these experiences, I'm much more sympathetic to my bosses and people in non-
technical roles.

I'm reminded of why McArthur was removed from the command of the UN forces in
Korea. McArthur came out strongly against Truman in the press, because Truman
refused to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese, who at the time were not a
nuclear power but were successfully driving the UN forces out of the
peninsula. Truman was forced to sack McArthur. McArthur then went on a
national tour talking about how Truman was basically an idiot and losing the
war. McArthur suggested that if he was elected president he could bring the
war to a speedy conclusion. Truman started taking a real beating in the press
as a result. Then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs came out and publicly said
that while McArthur's strategy would drive the Chinese back, McArthur didn't
appreciate the wider political implications of his strategy. China, at the
time, was an ally of the Soviet Union. A strike against China could have
forced the Soviets into the war or at a minimum destabilized other areas of
the world, such as Eastern Europe. The Chairman's defense of Truman basically
shutdown McArthur's political aspirations.

I don't mean to imply that the McArthur case is what is going on here. It's
very possible that this person's managers are all just idiots. What I'm
suggesting is that he take a breath and try to better understand the pressures
and perspective of people he works with. I find that the majority of people I
work, even those I'm not impressed by, mean well and cursing them out isn't
moving the strategy, profits or even that particular conversation in a
positive direction. (That doesn't mean I haven't gotten mad and lost it. I
have. It's just those aren't my proudest moments.)

~~~
ImprovedSilence
I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. In the early days, I remember being
the "No" guy. I saw a million ways things were going to fall apart, but
management would just keep pressing forwards. And often times it did fall
apart, and sometimes it didn't. But then when you jump into the CEO
role/building your own company/being the management, you realize that the
world is very much not black and white, and sometimes you just have to push
forwards and MAKE it work. Or at least give it a go.

And one big thing you have to understand is that often, the idea the
management wants to create is abstracted out, and grows and changes as
business needs change, networks are made, and ideas flow. And sometimes thats
tough to put into concrete "requirements" for engineers to build. Give them
some slack, quit bitching, and just BUILD. You'd be amazed how far that can
get you. This is especially true for very large and very complicated systems
that are damn near impossible to get right.

------
ebbv
That same Seth Godin article was sent out on an internal mailing list when it
was posted and I had a similar reaction. Fortunately I felt comfortable
sending my (more professionally worded) response to the team and wasn't
punished for it.

But this has always been a problem that must be avoided. People get tired of
arguing and just want to push their ideas through. It's understandable but
it's a mistake.

------
tsunamifury
I'm a non-technical product manager and try to know what I don't know. When I
need to start a project I sit with the engineers and present the issue: The
goals, the plan, and a suggested general architecture along with a projected
timeline.

Then the engineers give their feedback, modify my initial estimates and
architecture and provide a plan of attack. I agree, then go back to the rest
of my job of managing design, development, marketing, and business issues --
not to mention sorting out HR and hiring.

I don't have time to shoulder-program or try to dictate the exact terms of how
something technical should be done. I try to trust my team to make the right
decisions, and if they don't, we fix them.

------
PaulHoule
At best, one can master positive and negative.

At worst, the tendency for people to reward people who tell them what they
like to hear is the fatal flaw that will make humans wind up like the
dinosaurs.

Look at how nothing gets done about global warming, or how CNBC never explains
exactly how HFTs make money (it's because they use undocumented order types,
not just because they're fast.)

For a long time I've suggested that we draft people for congress. If you
approach any "respectable" politician with an offer to be corrupt, at worst
they'll politely tell you they're not interested. Try that with ordinary
Americans from the left or right and perhaps 20% of them will get offended, go
the FBI or go to the media or give you a black eye or pull a gun.
"Respectable" people who go far learn to be tolerant of this kind of BS.

My ten year old has learned (from me and my mom) to be world class at arguing,
complaining and bargaining. From dealing with him, I've improved my
negotiating skills which means I get 5-10% better prices on many deals I make.

The thing is, he habitually finds something negative to say about any
situation, any product, any person. The main thing I've been working on is
making him conscious of it. When he's really insufferable I'll sometimes make
him say more bad things, as long as they original, until he burns out and
can't say any more. We both do the exercise of specifically thinking about
good things to say about people, companies, services, etc.

In a healthy marital relationship, people say good things much more often than
they say bad things. You should try to say seven good things for every bad
thing.

This can (and should) be applied to the workplace. It's a good habit to get
into to have frequent praise. It doesn't matter if you liked a subroutine
somebody wrote, feel that an ops guy was really on top of a situation, or if
you just like somebody's hat.

A major university once planned a Peoplesoft implementation, and the project
manager involved estimated that it would cost $100M to implement all five
modules.

They told him this was too much and he'd have to get it under $30M and they
pushed him out. They hired some young guy who said yes to anything. Years
later they spent $65M to deploy one module (in a barely satisfactory manner)
and stole huge amounts of time from other IT projects that wasn't properly
accounted for. Heads rolled.

The PM with integrity moved on to a more responsible position at a big school
on the west coast. The fact is that people who tell the truth in tough
situations are like gold and they're the people you can trust with the most
difficult situations.

------
applecustard
This happened to me. I got a job offer and left.

Every discussion he would bring up me being negative and it started to grind
on me even in my exit interview.

I was sick of having that badge and no one else saying the truth, I ended up
being quiet and the manager didn't like that either.

My new job is much better, I get the work done and everyone is happy. I'm
upfront with my views.

Even just mentioning an issue was negative, when I said we need to earmark it
and look at solving it.

------
b0rsuk
RSA Animate: Smile or Die <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo>

------
3minus1
I worked at a smallish company where the lead developer was always "no,no,no"
at every meeting. He didn't get fired. The management might have rolled their
eyes a lot, but they knew he had better knowledge than anyone and would listen
to him most of the time.

------
alanstorm
One of the most damaging things in cultures where agreement is more valued
than honesty is how it can sap the morale of your workers to the point where
they turn into exactly the uncooperative super-negative people you were trying
to avoid in the first place.

------
volandovengo
A lot of this difference of opinion comes from people with different
backgrounds looking at a problem.

Some people are visionaries and spend their days trying to connect the the
dots that other people haven't yet connected to push the boundaries. Steve
Jobs was like this.

Most developers are implementers. Since developers spend their days working
through the details of any particular spec, they think of the details much
more than the visionaries. Woz was like this.

Both types of people are crucial for any product to be a success and both
types can really help each other in crafting something up if they would both
listen to each other.

Unfortunately this rarely happens...

------
dctoedt
One of Tina Fey's rules of improv comedy [0] seems pertinent: Paraphrasing,
it's _don't say no, say "yes, and ...."_

[0] See _Bossypants_ , apparently excerpted at, e.g.,
[http://mycareertopia.com/tina-feys-rules-for-improv-and-
the-...](http://mycareertopia.com/tina-feys-rules-for-improv-and-the-
workplace/) \-- it's probably a copyright infringement (if memory serves, it
copies Fey's text pretty much wholesale), but it's one of many, and probably
the most readable of the bunch.

~~~
tptacek
I'm pretty sure that's the Golden Rule of all improv, not an invention of
Fey's. :)

------
praptak
Usually there is some leeway between being a yes man and being painted
negative. Sometimes it is not even about the message but how you deliver it.
Vitriolic criticism and a valuable suggestion of improvement may differ only
in wording.

In an ideal world it wouldn't matter but people do have egos and sometimes it
is worth to sweeten the message. Some people call it "soft skills", others
call it "spray painting the turd" and my advice to the latter is not to use
this wording during meetings :)

------
hawkharris
Companies don't always have the luxury of finding the perfect solution. In
many cases they have to run with the best plan that's available.

If you're the kind of person who frequently says "no" during meetings, you
need to also be the kind of person who proposes alternatives.

------
zoba
I think the author is on to something here, but, I have a couple of
suggestions which I think will make his viewpoint more accurate. I think
positivity is underrated by the HN community and so I could see why this post
would be well received here, however from my point of view, saying things like
"Fuck You and the Positive Attitude You Rode In On" is not constructive.

I don't see people's statements as opportunities to argue, as this quote
indicates the author does: "Grow Up and Learn To Argue Like An Adult". I see
them more like a construction. Someone presents their view point, and if its
not what I see as truth, its not my job to "argue" it, its now OUR job to
figure out truth. So the conversation should be a back and forth of
explanation until the truth is agreed upon. This does require both
participants to be willing to change their viewpoint, which I agree people
need to be better at.

In the case of the manager saying people need to have a more positive
attitude, my strategy there would be: be willing to entertain the idea and
then explore the idea together. As you explore the idea, genuinely bring up
concerns you see from your perspective, e.g. "Oh but that will be problematic
because we don't have enough time with projects X, Y, and Z going on. If you
did mandate this, moral will go down and at best your rating will go down, at
worst people may leave." Suddenly the manager is illuminated.

If the individual you're discovering truth with refuses to acknowledge your
viewpoint and either accept it or counteract it with knowledge of their own,
then you should be concerned about the long term implications of interacting
with such an individual. Specifically, people who have difficulty
incorporating new information into their model of the world often often lack
positive growth trajectory, and likely have problems dealing with change when
it inevitably arrives. I'd distance myself.

My advice to the author would be to do as I've done with this comment: look
for where the other person is coming from and realize that there are reasons
people say and do the things they say and do. Then, instead of attacking,
approach it as an opportunity for both of you to learn something new by
sharing your differing viewpoints and converging on the truth. I'm looking
forward to discovering the truth of how best to handle these situations based
on the experience provided in by those who may respond to my comment! :)

As an addendum: sometimes people are immovable from their position due to
things outside of their control, but we still must interact with them. The
receipt checker at Sam's Club will never be convinced enough of my opinion to
act in accordance with it, for example. In this case, we are not at issue with
the person, but with the rule. Therefore, I try to act as obliquely to the
rule as possible, and encourage others to do so as well so that it no longer
makes sense to pursue the rule (in the case of Sam's Club, this means I never
acknowledge the receipt checker and make them chase me down.)

~~~
mindcrime
_I see them more like a construction. Someone presents their view point, and
if its not what I see as truth, its not my job to "argue" it, its now OUR job
to figure out truth. So the conversation should be a back and forth of
explanation until the truth is agreed upon. This does require both
participants to be willing to change their viewpoint, which I agree people
need to be better at._

Very, very well said. I agree wholeheartedly. "Collaboration, not arguing" is
one way I'd phrase it.

I think that mindset is why I get frustrated with people on HN sometimes. If I
say something, I'm not necessarily interested in having a high-school debate-
club debate over it... I'm interested in finding a shared understanding of the
truth and finding the common ground. Not all "discussions" need to be treated
as "debates" damnit. :-)

 _My advice to the author would be to do as I've done with this comment: look
for where the other person is coming from and realize that there are reasons
people say and do the things they say and do. Then, instead of attacking,
approach it as an opportunity for both of you to learn something new by
sharing your differing viewpoints and converging on the truth. I'm looking
forward to discovering the truth of how best to handle these situations based
on the experience provided in by those who may respond to my comment!_

Absolutely. I could not agree more.

On a related note, there's an old saying I heard once, that goes something
like "Be kind, because _everyone_ is fighting their own battles also". Being
considerate and tolerant doesn't cost us anymore than being dick'ish and
argumentative, so why not do it?

------
sbilstein
Lean to far into the default "NO" territory and you risk limiting new and
innovative ideas. Best to keep an open mind, be analytical, and go with your
gut when then data doesn't have an answer.

------
danielrhodes
That post was a giant straw man.

Replace positive with constructive, and you get closer to what people who
preach this way of thinking are really getting at.

------
mknappen
North Korea, Potemkin villages

------
michaelochurch
I know a lot of people find OP to be one-sided, but I think it's accurate.

First, there's the engineer-manager impedance mismatch. We're told by
compilers to fix our work in very annoying ways. The machine has no fear of us
and _refuses_ to execute nonsensical instructions. (We generally prefer this
over blind compliance.) Managers are simply not used to negative feedback
because _they never get it_. People will lie to them rather than risk their
careers on delivery of bad news. We, on the other hand, think everyone should
be like a compiler and complain hastily when given bad instructions. And we
don't take it personally when that happens.

Second, what most of us fail to realize until too late is that work is about
social status for most people. It's not about getting the right answer or
maximizing profits or anything else. I _wish_ these assholes were greedy,
because greed can be positive-sum as opposed to their short-sighted zero-sum
social squabbling. It's about being the boss, and fending off the other guy.
That's what most people care about at work, at least in corporate jobs.

Most bad ideas fail in a way that can still have positive expectancy for the
originator's social status. That's why you see the bike-shedding. An idea has
to be _really, really bad_ to hurt the originator's social status before he
can get promoted away from the mess. So, when you challenge a bad idea, you're
actually stepping in the way of that person's career (or, at least, it's
perceived that way).

That's why I can't tolerate executives. I understand that there's a need for
management to a limited degree, but these entitled high priests who job is to
"have ideas" (who also have the power to fire people who push back against
awful ones) are a scourge. There should never be a culture where ideas are
unquestionable because of their originators. We _all_ have shitty ideas from
time to time, and it's only these narcissistic executives who aren't honest
about the fact.

~~~
johnobrien1010
>) Managers are simply not used to negative feedback because they never get
it. People will lie to them rather than risk their careers on delivery of bad
news.

This may be true for some managers, but I disagree that this is true generally
for managers. Most managers (product managers in particular) here negative
feedback all the time, from their bosses, their customers, marketing, sales,
and other internal stakeholders.

I think one confusion here is that engineers occasionally provide feedback
that a feature is a bad idea, even though they may not have the context to
evaluate the idea effectively. This is frustrating for a manager, but also
speaks the need for a manager to effectively convey that context. In fact,
most engineers when provided that context are easily persuaded.

It is only the ones who seem to reject every idea, even when given compelling
reasons why the ideas are good, that one begins to suspect may have an
attitude problem and not be providing legitimate feedback.

------
terribleZurg
Can't say no to that title. Must click.

