Hacker News Reader

Comment by HWR_14 | Hacker News Reader

Whether someone's feelings are hurt should be a primary concern. That doesn't mean you cannot correct people making errors, you definitely should. But if you're hurting people's feelings regularly you are bad at providing feedback. I notice the only "softening" of the message you suggest is to allow pushback if you happen to be wrong. It seems you are more likely to cause persistent fixes by treating people as people and correcting them in a way that doesn't hurt their feelings.

I guess what I'm saying is that "hurt feelings" is most often a result of how feedback is provided, not what feedback or even how much feedback.

View on HN

> Whether someone's feelings are hurt should be a primary concern

No.

Whether shit gets done is the primary concern, when the primary reason we get together, is to get shit done.

As long as that's a two street and you can take it as well as you dish it out.

But often it's not. Often the people who like dishing it out are the most easily affronted if you tell them they are in the wrong.

Don't get me wrong: I actually agree with you. It's just an unfortunate reality that working with people means dealing with people and feelings are a part of that.

It's hard to establish mutually respectful relationships where both parties are equally able to be straight shooters and actually get things done. When it happens, it's wonderful.

But in most workplaces, that's just not reality. So it's very often the case that taking the time to try to not hurt feelings in the first place is more efficient than dealing with the damn idiotic fallout.

One of the early disappointments I had with software engineering was that I thought that I would be mostly working to formulate elegant solutions and implement them.

Didn't expect software development to need so much people management.

I said a primary concern and I stand by it. Yelling or being unpleasant in the name of getting people to agree with you is counterproductive to getting stuff done. People, at least competent people, don't have to put up with your ego and can go do just as interesting things with people who are more pleasant to be around than you. I mean, unless you are Elon Musk or Steve Jobs reincarnated.

Who said anything about yelling...

Fair enough. I think I may have misread the tone of the post I'm responding to because it happened to sound similar to a line I had just heard in some media - which was used by the character to justify yelling at people.

In that case, it's one of those weird brain associations that pops up.

I stand by the rest, that being unpleasant or hard to work with will make it harder to do cool things. Unless you are literally Elon Musk, Steve Jobs or maybe a few others.

> I stand by the rest, that being unpleasant or hard to work with will make it harder to do cool things. Unless you are literally Elon Musk, Steve Jobs or maybe a few others.

What makes you think it wouldn't [be | have been] easier for them too, if they'd [learn | have learned] to be less of an arsehole?

I wanna argue that not hurting people's feelings is better for getting shit done. Because you cannot do things on your own.

But I disagree with you more fundamentally. Getting shit done together is a way to enjoy spending time, but in the end, the enjoyment is more important than the result. A job where you are successful but miserable is not worth it. So a job where you are successful by making others miserable isn't either, unless you are somehow special.

That doesn't mean bend backwards trying to avoid any hurt feelings. It does mean putting in some effort to not be hurtful when avoidable.

If you start hurting your peers' feelings often enough you'll find out your ability to get shit done gets severely hampered.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com