

Kindness is Underrated - venantius
http://blog.circleci.com/kindness-is-underrated/

======
overgard
People always paint this on a "deceptive & kind" vs "honest & mean" axis, but
I don't think those attributes have to be tied together. You can be direct
without losing kindness. Saying "I don't think this is the right approach,
don't go down this path anymore" is direct, but it's not mean. Not to sound
like a fanboy, but since most people here are familiar with his writings, I
think PG's essays are a good example of this. He'll say direct things that
probably piss some people off, but it doesn't ever seem to come from anger.

Saying "are you fucking insane? Only an idiot would come up with this", like
Linus would, is also direct.. but, not particularly necessary in my opinion.

------
wadetandy
A separate but related issue I've sometimes run into in team interactions like
those described (particularly in github issue discussions and other
asynchronous text communications) is people mistaking kindness or inquiry for
passive aggressive demands or mandate.

Something like "is there a reason you chose to do it that way instead of this
other way that we have done things in the past?" might be interpreted as "This
is wrong. Why didn't you do it the way I did it the last time I did something
similar to this!? Please throw out what you've done and re-implement it my
way."

This might have something to do with the assumption that the OP mentions: that
everyone is aggressive and blunt by default, and this is just a passive
aggressive form of the same. If this wasn't the norm, perhaps this subtlety
wouldn't go unnoticed.

------
jmzbond
All I can think about while reading this is that it's so ironic that Bezos was
making this speech, given the press on some of its abhorrent working
conditions. [1][2]

[1] About working in warehouses. Stories persist from 2012 to just last year
and Bezos was always around. Paints a picture of draconian working
environments meant to save every last penny for the end customer.

[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-
mcclelland-f...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-
free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor?page=1)

[http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/jean-baptiste-malet-amazon-
wa...](http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/jean-baptiste-malet-amazon-warehouse)

[http://gizmodo.com/5982811/life-in-an-amazon-warehouse-
fear-...](http://gizmodo.com/5982811/life-in-an-amazon-warehouse-fear-and-
efficiency-at-35-orders-per-second)

[2] Can't find link, but just last week on HN there was something about
working at Amazon corporate. Here is another link. Same sense of austereness
and frugality (albeit of course perks shouldn't be expected), but there are
also fundamental aspects of employees just not having a voice that really goes
against choosing kindness in my mind.

[http://www.minyanville.com/sectors/technology/articles/AMZN-...](http://www.minyanville.com/sectors/technology/articles/AMZN-
AAPL-WMT-GOOG-MSFT-Amazon/10/10/2013/id/52177)

~~~
pjwal
It's difficult to give any credence to those obvious agenda bent articles rife
with unsubstantiated claims.

The first author makes a stink of the fact (and mentions no less than three
times) that one is fired if they are late the first week no matter the
circumstance. Oh, the travesty. But then she even details the performance
point system they use in which one is marked down 1.5 points for not SHOWING
UP to work. And it requires 6 to fire you. You can actually just not show up 3
days to work and not get fired. Incredible. I mean really, she paraphrases a
conversation she just happen to have with a woman in her late 50s about the
tragedy of having to be at work at 5am the first day.

The second author's statements are full of innuendos such as "if someone talks
during work hours, the rest are expected to shun them." No claim that this is
written policy of course of which he could not back up. No, the only
explanation being, "it's a subtle thing because they ask you to "report
possible anomalies to your superiors."

The horrors of capitalism. Guess what? Working at a warehouse sucks, but after
fully reading both the above articles it actually doesn't seem as bad as I
thought.

------
carsongross
One of the core problems I struggle with in human relations is, effectively,
the prisoners dilemma of kindness: we are all better off if we are kind to one
another. However, a "better" (and I recognize that is a fraught word) state,
for me, would be you being kind to me, but me not being kind to you,
especially when the stakes are high.

This leads to a situation where the sociopaths thrive by convincing the
clueless that "we all must be kind" while, themselves, adopting Machiavellian
ruthlessness, including publicly shaming the people who point out their
hypocrisy: "How can you be against kindness! Shun the outsider!"

My working theory is that in small enough groups where, and this is key, the
groups are largely self-autonomous/autarchic, the game can remain stable in
the "all kind" state. From personal experience, I have seen that simply having
small groups, but arranged in a power hierarchy, allows the sociopathic
element to win the game by appeals to the remote, functionally indifferent
master.

Can a company (or, indeed, a country) be organized this way? Can it prevent
the Gervais Principle ([http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-
principle-o...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-
the-office-according-to-the-office/)) from winning out?

Dunno. Gonna try to find out.

------
pjwal
Great company culture post. This is very much something I have long struggled
with. I find the challenges of the fast growing company environment analogous
to the communication struggles people experience online. People just don't
have time to build relationships with everyone and form that trust.

I had a recent situation in which we were in a focus group and I followed the
CEOs explanation of our plans for a particular feature with, "To clarify, we
are going to be..." Little did I know the words "to clarify" irked and upset
him as he felt undermined. I should have used the words, "To build on Jerry's
point..." Needless to say, in several meetings after that he displayed
aggression toward me, which then upset me and it was weeks before we sat down
and cleared the air.

There is much subtlety in communication and interpretation that it can be
maddening. One simple word or phrase can trigger extended bouts of
unpleasantness and inefficiency. I do believe there is responsibility on both
sides: In this world of ever quickening communication, one should choose their
words carefully and one should not be so sensitive and take things too
personally. It's my personal opinion that we have too much of a problem with
the latter than the former, but then again, I'm usually the one on the other
side of that situation.

------
rokob
You can attack an idea without attacking a person. As long as people realize
they are distinct from the code they write, you can be direct and brutal about
code, without devolving into ad hominem. The problem is fostering a culture
where people don't feel as if they are socially defined solely by the code
they write.

------
frank_horrigan
Humility is often quite difficult to maintain when you're working with
something as esoteric as code. It just feels _good_ to know that you
understand something complex. And, often with negative results, it's easy to
get a rich warm feeling of pride when you see someone else make a mistake that
you'd have avoided because of your deeper understanding of a system or
language.

And let's face it, we all like to get together and laugh heartily at bad code.
It can be pretty fun.

That's why I'm consistently impressed by engineers who provide feedback free
of pride. I've been lucky enough to learn from people like this and even
luckier to work for them.

------
sergiosgc
Tl;dr: On the Internet, if you are subtle (and kind) with your criticism,
people don't listen. The dominant style is then to be harsh and aggressive. At
Circle CI we hear subtlety, so there's no need to be rude. Being nice is
better than rude.

OK. To each his own. Use the style of the community you're in. The fact is
that I don't take technical criticism as personal, so I really don't mind
getting called out on my faults directly. It's like peeling off a band aid.
Better do it fast and painfully than slow and painfully.

~~~
pbiggar
The problem is when one applies that to other people, it doesn't work. They
don't enjoy getting treated like that, get chased off and don't come back.

------
badman_ting
Not for nothing but it's easier to be kind to your coworkers when they're not
fucking up their work. Or even worse, yours. Of course in those times you have
bigger problems than kindness. Or perhaps better put, empathy and kindness
have many dimensions. Having a smile on your face while you make a mess for
your coworker isn't actually kind.

~~~
pbiggar
Another thing to consider is the best way to help your coworkers not fuck up.
Is being a dick and calling them an idiot going to help more than empathically
working with them to fix the problems? If it were me, I'd be looking for the
door rather than working with someone who yells at me.

