Meetings are just a cult gathering. Generally, only the cult leaders are naturals in group settings. Everyone else just copies and tries to fit in (lurkers and contributors). The cult leaders will always be the same people, it's an archetype. The meeting goes as comfortably as the cult leaders allow (not necessarily through allowance, but through tone and expectations).
The more you examine what a cult your company and industry is, the more you realize you have to be vigilant about human nature (in yourself and others).
"leadership.garden"
They give themselves away.
"Picture this: You’re in a high-stakes product roadmap meeting. The room is a pressure cooker of competing priorities and barely concealed tension."
These people are in fantasy world. NONE OF YOU have worked on anything high stakes, tech has always been non critical (mostly). But this how they think, and the take away they provide is how to be manipulative (like I said, they are naturals). That's the problem with the cult.
> These people are in fantasy world. NONE OF YOU have worked on anything high stakes, tech has always been non critical (mostly)
While tech is my current career, it's not my first. 18 years as a (UK) Civil Servant has given me a a different perspective on meeting dynamics which still proves useful in my current work.
One useful learning for me was around good meeting preparation - especially for critical meetings which carry a good chance of people agreeing to important (to me) decisions. I like to work out what I want to get out of the meeting, and what other people want (including: no agreement), risks around my desired outcome, impacts on the work (and feelings!) of others, things I can do before the meeting to help people get in the right frame of mind to make the decision I want, etc. If I can get people to sign off and move on to their next meeting within 15mins of the meeting starting - that's the ideal outcome.
High-stakes is relative. While I am fairly certain that no one here was ever deliberating on launching a military invasion, debating an investment that may make or break a company you co-founded is certainly personally high-stakes. And there is a lot of founders here on HN.
It honestly sounds like chatgpt-flavored 'excitement'/hyperbole. I don't know if that's because chatgpt learned it's language from posts like this, or because it's a coincidence, or because chatgpt or similar was used to edit the post.
You seem surprised at the notion of workers wanting maximum pay, perks and autonomy in exchange for minimum discomfort. How is it any different in any other occupation?
Nobody in any other occupation expects not to be managed or measured, not to need to meet with their coworkers to discuss their work, not to need to evaluate prospective hires, or not to be expected to to give estimates, timeframes and deadlines for their work.
Programmers commonly express all of those and more on this website and it isn't considered unusual or even particularly demanding. It is treated as a truism that you can't possibly expect a programmer to tell you how long a project will take, for example.
This has nothing to do with people wanting "minimum discomfort". It is about crazy and obviously unrealistic expectations of work structure, where people are never expected to ever do anything, being promoted as some kind of baseline work environment.
There will never be a serious business that does those things. It is impossible to run a business if you pay staff but:
- cannot evaluate their quality before hiring them
- cannot measure their work
- cannot get an estimate out of them
- cannot set them deadlines
- cannot talk to them
- cannot get them into the office
- cannot talk to them in groups
- cannot evaluate them over time
- cannot lay then off
etc.
It is different from other occupations because nobody outside the HN/reddit bubble thinks any of this let alone all of it.
can you please listen to yourself? this is babys first day managing software dev level observation. "there will never be a serious business that does those things" ok, i guess well ignore the entire industry then
But the industry DOES all of those things. That is what people are stupidly complaining about. People aren't complaining about meetings or job interviews or being expected to turn up at the office because of the theoretical possibility they will happen but because they do actually happen.
this is a perfect comment. you basically have a correct read, and express it pretty succinctly. except, you think by saying it directly, youve exposed it as ridiculous. whats ridiculous about it? just think of software like a trade, how do all tradespeople feel about those things?
Are you kidding about tradesmen? Tradesmen do all of these things without much complaint.
If you worked as a plumber and expected never to have to turn up on site, never to attend a site meeting, never to have to give an estimate of time or cost, never to have your work measured and evaluated, never to have to justify yourself in a performance evaluation, etc. you would be laughed out of the room.
A better comparison is probably professional services jobs: mostly done in offices with computers by university-educated people these days, like programming. I can't say I have met any that think they shouldn't have to give estimates or have meetings.
yeah, you dont go to alot of meetings, nor are your estimates and timeframes very exact. also, all the stuff that you mockingly said is bad is bad. you say a better comparison for a programming job is a programming job? hmm ok
Out of curiosity, what is your role? Programmer, manager, or owner? If the first, you should consider where your allegiances lie and why you’re so frustrated by those who advocate for your working conditions.
This piece reminded me of a few things I think about a bit too much:
- I imagine there would be almost zero storytelling (as we know it) if people where better at communicating like this (as most plots would just seem weird).
- something about this made me think about bullying and how we haven't managed to "solve" that problem (for kids or adults)
- there are a few corporate-speak words in the text that makes me question myself if I've failed to realise that this is a sarcastic piece, but I'm 95% sure it's an honest text with clear intentions.
- I'm probably misremembering a lot, but I quite like how this expands a tiny bit on Non-Violent Communication to include the "we" that is so important in groups.
[Edit] added the word "much" in the first paragraph.
I'd argue that we go about bullying the wrong way. I think it's one of those parts of human behaviour that has been shamed away but also our dark side should be embraced. It should be brought on the forefront in our youth as it is ruling our lives as adults.
I would like to argue that we go about education and the educational institutions the wrong way, but I really can't, I have no backing except my own experiences.
What I think/feel/sense/intuit is that kindergarten, preschool and the first years of school should focus entirely on how to interact with other people one-on-one and in groups with respect for everyone including yourself.
I suspect there is a lot to learn from from what we are trying to develop around sexual consent wrt setting and enforcing boundaries.
With more recent societal understanding around mental health, generational trauma, neurodivergence I think it would be possible to achieve quite big changes around this topic.
- A is not willing to intervene for any amount of reasons (non-exhaustive list: thinks it's an X-said-Y-said situation, doesn't want to, does not see behavior of X as out of place, likes X, doesn't like Y, is also bullied by X, etc.), gives useless advice that X and Y should settle matters between themselves
- Y lashes out
- both are punished (occasionally just Y)
- Y is physically removed from the situation (quits, goes to a different school)
Which part can be improved from the point of Y to get a more favorable outcome?
The idea that there is an authority that will save you might create bad habits. In adult world there is no such authority and bullies run the world. Either you garnish support from the bystanders, or you bully back, I don't know the correct implementation either. Maybe bullies deserve the world and shouldn't be treated so negatively in our narratives.
Also you're completely missing the bystanders B in your analysis. Without them there is no bullying. Then it just becomes robbery or molestation.
Maybe we need more bullies, not less, to make our system more resilience against them.
> Also you're completely missing the bystanders B in your analysis. Without them there is no bullying. Then it just becomes robbery or molestation.
Agreed, Bs are the key here, and it connects neatly to another concept that I believe is misunderstood: the fight, flight, freeze and fawn response (from psychology)
While lions sure are dangerous that problem was solved by evolution by becoming social group creatures so the big danger is being left out of the group. That's where the imminent/perceived danger is: being alone puts us at risk.
I think both of you are building up the notion that we are built for bullying, which I say is true. We are social and emotional creatures first and rational creatures second. The solution requires people standing up and being firm but respectful and self-critical. If that use of power is considered bullying, so be it, but I'm not sure that terminology is useful. We need to appeal to rational use of force, which is more of an ideal than anything else. It is in our failings to acknowledge or commit to that ideal that we continue to allow bullying.
I'm with you on the first half, but I don't understand the language you use from "We need to..." onwards, which gets to the practical application of what we should do.
We should be rational creatures first. That isn't really achievable, and I resent that, but I think it's still a goal worth having. And of course one needs power in some form or another, whether that's the capacity for physical violence, social persuasion, funding, etc.. For someone to both be powerful and rational, they would be a force for good. Encourage cultivating both qualities in balance, particularly with "the masses" leveraging social forces instead of being bystanders or accomplices. We shouldn't tolerate, let alone celebrate, anti-intellectualism and force used for self-interest, which is to say, bullying. We need to formulate a different culture that encourages critical thinking, honesty, benevolence, and power.
As someone who can be a bit blind for social cues etc, care to elaborate a bit on "storytelling as we know it"? I have a hunch on what you mean but I'm uncertain
Most stories are built with a heavy reliance on using peoples fundamental unwillingness to communicate with other people in mind to manufacture conflict and therefore narrative progress.
A majority of films and book plots, were they taken and rewritten by a person who rejects the idea that it's acceptable to expect others to read one's mind, would end partway into the story.
Aka “the idiot plot” - where the entire issue at hand could be solved if any single main character stops acting like an idiot for 5 minutes and just says to the other character(s) what’s actually going on
I used to be the person who would always tell it as it is - it doesn't work in general, because often times people don't want to hear it. They treat it as a grievous bodily harm and they lash out in defence.
small talk and euphemisms evolved for a good reason - you need to be able to judge what's going on in the other person's head before you risk exposing yourself to their wrath.
There are different ways to say the same thing and using language like in the linked article often allows people to listen better and not get defensive.
I find that using "softer" language, since it requires more work, also often sharpens my message to really say what I think is important.
A bit like a rubber duck[0] for my inner script writer.
as an autist, I used to consider that as manipulation and therefore unethical. thankfully I got that virtue beaten out of me by life and now I go for pragmatism.
I have some issues with the sentiments in this thread, which seems to be saying that stories are good in real life discourse too. To some extent I agree, but I think it is overexaggerated.
TL;DR: This is all well and good in current society, but I feel that says a lot about the flaws of current society.
"Reality is stranger than fiction because fiction needs to make sense, but reality doesn't". Stories are written for a purpose, whether that's to entertain, to instruct, etc.. That's why it makes sense to have plot twists and unrealistic tension. Stories are meant to be contrived to some degree; that's what makes them valuable. But I think real life should have a plot that isn't like a tidy, comfortable story. If there is to be a plot, it should be complex and strange.
> I used to be the person who would always tell it as it is - it doesn't work in general, because often times people don't want to hear it.
Indeed, but I'm not sure then that couching your language towards them is better. It won't ease most people into your narrative. It will just allow them to sink further into a narrative. I think moderation is generally correct, but moderation that isn't the golden mean can also be quite harmful. (See "Letter from Birmingham Jail" for MLK Jr.'s thoughts on white moderates during the Civil Rights movement.)
> small talk and euphemisms evolved for a good reason
Evolution by natural selection does not work like this. "I observe feature A" does not remotely mean "feature A is beneficial". It just means "feature A is not a dealbreaker". We as humans have certainly evolved for gossiping and storytelling, and it is often beneficial to appease the group, but attributing a bigger moral reason on that line is doubtful. It is not necessarily good that we engage in so much "small talk and euphemisms" (I would even say it's quite bad), it's just that we've made it comfortable to live like that.
> I find that using "softer" language, since it requires more work, also often sharpens my message to really say what I think is important.
I disagree on both points. "Softer language" is easier to grasp for since we are accustomed to it, and even for the speaker it may be a hassle to distinguish using it carelessly versus deliberately. Since it works as a shield and intentionally employs ambiguity, I doubt it communicates the actual message well.
I am myself a big fan of stories, and I do see value in using them in real life to enhance communication. But I think this requires a lot more care and scrutiny than we normally use. Our whole culture around communication is flawed.
I meant what @kusokurae wrote in another answer to your comment, although I would not have been able to express it as clearly.
Something about that comment also set off a line of thinking around the origins of our western storytelling paradigms and how not-in-person communication relied on someone else moving between two places to deliver a message (either spoken or written) rather than instantly being able to communicate with anyone through wires as we have been able to for quite some time now.
Much of this is a symptom of Corpo Talk. Corpo Talk avoids offending anyone, but may lead to the elephant in the room only getting discussed over beers later (WFH equivalent: 1:1 Zoom calls).
Corpo Talk colors people after a while. Even some of this author's suggestions are beating around the bush. They advocate "naming what's happening" and then just as quickly walk that back to "Ask, Don’t Tell" and the perennially Corpo "we."
Alternate title: "Folks, I've noticed we are calling out room dynamics? Do we think that's an art?"
- To me it feels less like calling out the room dynamics, more like calling for a timeout or hitting the reset button
- Just like hitting the reset button it's intentionally disruptive to do this, so don't abuse your meeting-halting privileges or people will start to ignore you
- I'm pretty sure this is a part of normal human behaviour when de-escalating, and neither being in a meeting nor naming the dynamic is required to do it
This kind of intervention can be useful in the right groups but (as with NVC) also provides great cloaking for natural manipulators. For example saying "there is a lot of raised emotion in the room" after an individual has blown their top is a very pointed and passive aggressive thing to do. They will feel even more targeted by the faux neutrality
If I found myself in a meeting where people were using phrases like "I’m sensing..." then I would probably find some different people to work with. A meeting is not a therapy session. Most of these meeting pathologies are due to a lack of competent leadership.
> Over time, you’ll develop an almost sixth sense for when an intervention is needed. You’ll become that person who can deftly guide conversations back on track when they’re derailing.
> Overuse: If you’re constantly meta-commenting on the conversation, it can become distracting and annoying. Use this technique judiciously.
Good point, glad it has the caution in there, or you'll quickly become that one person everyone knows read "that one HN post" and keeps doing that "one trick" every meeting.
You see this with new leaders often, they read some book or the "top 10 leadership power poses and gestures" blog and start doing them. Except, it doesn't look natural and just seems cringy. They think it's a cool trick to mesmerize their audience, while everyone else is rolling their eyes literally or figuratively.
true; the focus really should be on sincerely caring about getting the group back on track. Needless to say (because the article already did) this is also something you need to practice to get good at, so there's a balance to strike
The more you examine what a cult your company and industry is, the more you realize you have to be vigilant about human nature (in yourself and others).
"leadership.garden"
They give themselves away.
"Picture this: You’re in a high-stakes product roadmap meeting. The room is a pressure cooker of competing priorities and barely concealed tension."
These people are in fantasy world. NONE OF YOU have worked on anything high stakes, tech has always been non critical (mostly). But this how they think, and the take away they provide is how to be manipulative (like I said, they are naturals). That's the problem with the cult.