Comment by tyre | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tyre | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is great feedback: constructive and substantive.

I like your idea framing the quotes as an alternate telling. They were listed first out of habit (ex-philosophy major), but you're right that this is primarily our story to tell.

Empathy

The difference between front-stabbing and giving good feedback is one of maturity. If you've had many conversations with young kids, they are incredible at giving blunt feedback, but it's only funny because they are tiny humans. Some of what they say would be unconstructive coming from an adult.

Front-stabbing, to me, is someone trying to justify being an asshole. Your comment is a great example of the difference, of being honest and direct but mature. The opposite of the kumbaya culture isn't telling someone they suck, even if you do it because you want them to be better.

Don't always be right

This is my fault, I mixed too many concepts. This value is about not getting complacent with success or being afraid of failure. I don't want us to get it right every time, because experimentation (where the magic happens) involves making mistakes. As you point out, that failure isn't the same as taking the right risks. This value is counteracting our need to be perfect, about pushing back if we seem to always be getting what we expected.

Happy to dive deeper if I didn't answer your questions. Thank you for the thoughtful consideration!

Thank you in return for thinking through my suggestion :-)

Everything you said sounds fine, with the exception of what makes front-stabbing, front-stabbing.

I agree that maturity is important for giving constructive feedback; just as important, in my opinion, is closeness. That closeness is certainly achievable in a small startup, but the company scales, I have strong doubts that it will match the level of honesty Empathy, the company value, demands.

More to the point: when unleashed in a social context where all parties aren't friends, I believe that "true" honesty (concerning a person's work) will inevitably transform into front-stabbing (attacking a person via their work) .

If someone who I was not close with was uncomfortably honest to me in the middle of a meeting, in front of many other people, I would probably ask myself "Is this person saying this because I'm actually doing something wrong? Or is he just trying to make me look bad?"[1]

When many ears are listening and many eyes are watching, I know I would feel less inclined to reflect on her or his words, and more inclined to worry about my loss of face. Especially if this person has made a habit out of being vocally honest with others. In my opinion, maturity isn't 1:1 with morality; a person can act like an adult and also be ruthlessly ambitious enough to take advantage of and hurt others.

The deep, deep end of being uncomfortably honest among others in a workplace is a struggle session, where one person is in the middle of the room being berated by everyone else. No one wants to let it go that far, at least not initially, but I certainly believe the basic social lubricant of politeness must be valued, and applied in most contexts[2]

Privacy, maturity and closeness are the makings of a real heart to heart, where both sides can learn from each other. Missing one, or having any in deficiency and, as the company scales, the risk of front-stabbing grows exponential[3]. Said another way by a Wall Street Journal commenter: "You better not front-stab your boss."

[1] There was an article recently that surmised that all public apologies are purely P.R; any demonstration of heartfelt guilt is quickly exploited as an act of weakness, so the apologizer is as tightlipped as she or he can be. Can't seem to find it...

[2] Of course, the other deep, deep end is a Japanese firm where the knives are under the table instead of on the plates!

[3] It's 1:40a.m. in NYC so I hope I'm coming across as explaining my perspective instead of as some kind of internet troll.

I understand more where you're coming from and I absolutely agree. Part of it is my vocabulary, specifically co-opting the word feedback.

In public situations, like giving a presentation or a meeting with multiple parties, a huge part of empathy is understanding people's sensitivity to being ganged up on or feeling embarrassed in front of other. Politeness, specifically around being less brutally honest in group settings, is meant to deter this.

Feedback, to me, is a 1-on-1 activity. Much closer to a heart-to-heart, which requires both the confidence to stand by your values and the vulnerability to be open to change.

Ah; I now understand your position better, and see that it is not too different from my own. I feel like what you wrote here would work perfectly as another paragraph in the Empathy section.

I'll be keeping tabs on Seneca Systems regardless; best of luck to you, Mr Founder!

I love this conversation, and I'd like to give my feedback. First, no, you are coming across as a person who thought deeply about this concepts.

I like the idea of closeness but, as you noted, it is not always possible. I think that empathy is the right word, but should be better characterized. Empathy is trying to establish a connection, is to bring the two people close when giving the honest feedback so that it is perceived correctly. How to do it, that's another story.

One technique that I found very powerful is called feedforward. The idea is, instead of saying what someone has done wrong, suggest a way he could make it right the next time. Example, you sent an email without the attachment. I could tell you: "you should be more careful!" or I could give you a constructive idea, maybe creating a connection: "I understand that sometimes it happens to forget an attachment. I developed the habit of putting the attachments in the email before writing it, so I don't forget them". It is not a perfect example. But even if we aren't close, it gives you a sense of closeness, a feeling that I understand you, and I care about you.

The problem with this approach is that the receiving party should be receptive. I used this method and I received answers like "But I believe I was right because...". And this is the end. You could ignore the answer, knowing that your feedback was useless, or you could try to explain, but you have lost. Nevertheless, if the feedforward is ingrained in the company culture, it is something known and actively practiced (that means the example starts from the CEO), it helps to create a positive environment.

I'm not sure if that's what he means by empathy, or maybe his company uses a different technique. You are right: closeness, privacy, and maturity are essential for a positive culture were front-stabbing (or worse, backstabbing) is impossible. And empathy is the ability to bring someone close, especially when it is relevant to provide important feedbacks.

Excellent response, thank you for your thoughts.

I like the idea of empathy being a bridge between two sides-- closeness helps in building that bridge. If the sides are way too distant, the bridge will inevitably collapse into the abyss. But if the bridge itself is made of strong stuff, constructed in good faith, then absolute closeness isn't so big deal. So long as trade of ideas can safely go back and forth across that bridge, in equal measure. I might be stretching a metaphor a bit there.

Feedforward is indeed quite powerful between two receptive parties; the last time I got a peer review the person I was doing with did it to me, which made me all the respectful of him.

"empathy is the ability to bring someone close" indeed!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com