Hacker News Reader

Comment by opportune | Hacker News Reader

Constructive feedback and most other negative feedback is really aspirational at the company level. It sounds good for HR to try to say it’s a company “value” and to encode it in reviews. In reality it’s never ever worth it to give constructive feedback to peers or upward (downward is OK). It’s bad for social dynamics, cohesion, and morale, especially when it’s formalized as part of some review process. It’s essentially a trap - the only way to win is to not participate or to give very mild feedback.

View on HN

Is there a company that consists of people that actually are willing and interested in getting "constructive feedback"? Basically I think that it would mean that the people are so intereted in the quality of the work they are doing that anything that might make their work better is interesting even if it turns out they have done something "wrong" earlier.

If there is , I might considering applying at some point. I assume that if there are, the companies must be relatively small, or in case of larger companies this might happen in selected departments like Skunk Works.

It would just be so refreshing to be able to hear and say the occasional "Hey, you know, actually there is a much better/nicer/less stupid/more efficient way to do what you are doing" without needing to waste time to think how to say that.

I’m now a manager at my company and engineers often ask directly for constructive feedback. Either from me (I’m a former tech lead from the same team) or they’ll ask who can help them learn about specific topics. Feedback on the form you wrote would generally be well received by folks on my team (with the exception of “less stupid”). Either in person or on a code review.

I’m at Yelp, so we’re considered a large tech company, but far smaller than FAANG. Also, this is how it is on my team. The culture can vary a bit team by team however most teams share similar cultures. If folks reading this are at Yelp and their team isn’t like this and considering leaving because of it, you should look into a transfer.

The company I work at has this culture. Feedback is valued greatly, not just at review time, but regularly. I've had people who report to me tell me that they think I was wrong or that they would like me to do things differently, and vice versa. The trick is to build trust and understand that when something's negative, it's from a place of care, not malice. We all want each other to grow, to get better and to keep being great in areas that don't need any work. It sounds cheesy, but it's true.

Hands down the best company I've worked for and I hope that other companies can do the same. It is indeed refreshing to be able to hear/say "Hey, you know, actually there is a much better/nicer/less stupid/more efficient way to do what you are doing" and be sure that it's not going to be taken badly.

I am the OP and the way this normally works is that we would speak out if someone did something in the wrong way, for example a step in a process was forgotten. It’s better to step in (ha) and help out and make the suggestion of how to fix it.

But to write out constructive feedback which goes against your colleagues record, so that they have to show how they received this feedback and the steps they did to remedy it, seems a bit much.

For example, how do I know that a certain piece of feedback might be really difficult/impossible for you to fix and then you lose out on a %age salary increase or promotion because of it?

I can’t write ‘mr x could really work on coming to work earlier’, as that’s not my job. What if I write ‘mr x. would have been better to use x pattern in his development because ...’, as that would mean I have oversight of how they are doing their work and I haven’t spoken up in time. Which seems crazy.

If you are doing something wrong or something that can be improved, I would prefer to tell you point in time, and when the context is right.

To leave ‘constructive feedback’ against your personal record removes a lot of context, and has the potential to damage your career and our relationship.

I don’t like it!

Lawyers deliberately inculcate this culture unless they suck. We are by design a very low PDI culture because if we fuck up bad enough someone goes to jail that shouldn't, or someone dies that shouldn't, or someone loses millions of dollars that shouldn't, etc.

Privileging my own ego over the quality of my client's defense would be unethical, in my opinion.

Look at how Ray Dalio runs Bridewater

Reply on news.ycombinator.com