The key, I find, is to be extremely direct and brutal in one on ones. Don't hold back, but be very supportive and positive when more than two people present. I try to explain this to be people I work with, but I don't think everyone appreciates it.
Horrible people, in my opinion, are those that do the opposite.
I am much more comfortable with people being publicly blunt. At least there is no gaslighting involved where the victim wonders if they imagined it because everyone keeps telling them "he would never do that" or whatever.
If you are on excellent terms with someone and they trust you, etc, it can work to be more blunt in private. But most people doing that are just hiding their own bad behavior and that's it. Which makes it a form of corruption.
I think it needs to be acknowledged that many people don't get subtle feedback. If you give me subtle feedback, either positive or negative, chances are I will miss it all together. I need feedback that is clear and obvious, what others could categorises as being blunt or abusive otherwise I will walk away scratching my head wondering if I've done well or otherwise.
Reminds me of advise that was given to my Wife by a friend when I got married.
Subtle hints don't work,
Hints don't work,
if you have something you don't like that he is doing, make sure you are bloody obvious when you talk to him about it.
See, this is the piece that makes me assess this as an abusive thing to do:
The key, I find, is to be extremely direct and brutal in one on ones.
I have two special needs sons. I'm a former military wife. I tend to err on the side of being super, duper blunt and, no, my kids don't get "hints." But that doesn't mean I have to be ugly about it most of the time either.
Real life example:
When they were little, I would say "The trash is overflowing and needs to go out." My oldest would look over his shoulder, see that this statement was factually true, acknowledge the veracity of it and continue playing his video game. The fact that my statement was intended to get him to take the trash out did not quite click.
There is nothing whatsoever abusive about changing that statement to "Son, you need to stop what you are doing right now and take the trash out." That's just clear communication.
I am well aware that some people think saying something like that is somehow emotionally abusive or some nonsense. I have spent plenty of time on parenting lists where people were horrified that I would tell my sons something directly instead of dropping hints or some nonsense.
I'm quite fond of the movie quote "I'm too truthful to be good." I'm also very fond of a rubric I learned long ago that "Those who believe in telling the brutal truth value brutality more than truth."
I can be very, very, very blunt. I try to always be kind, to the best of my ability. I see no contradiction between the two.
Learning to tailor your communication style to the needs of individuals on your team is just good management and doesn't require any meanness whatsoever. In fact, it's a kindness.
I'm aware there are people who feel that way. I think the difference is that, where applicable, I will also deal with the emotional piece and make sure they understand I mean X, but not Y in cases where bluntly stating X is typically presumed to also mean Y where X is something factual and Y is something ugly and judgemental.
My oldest son wasn't planned. I spent a lot of time thinking on how to talk to him about that and realized that most people equate unplanned with unwanted. So I figured out how to make it clear that he was unplanned while making it equally clear he was absolutely wanted and loved. It's never been an issue.
Perhaps you might prefer open debate or critique, but I think most people would prefer that negative speech not occur in public. I think even politely negotiated debates can end up looking embarrassing if other people who are watching can form a justifiably negative narrative.
When people are having a discussion in a visible business setting, to some degree, the precise words being spoken by either party become less relevant than the kinds of narratives people can form about either of you. It becomes a negotiation of PR rather than a discussion of ideas.
It is, it's just a different phrasing. I think you're reading more into "brutal" than blazespin intended. You might be more correct in your interpretation, but I'm pretty sure they just meant "blunt", not "vicious".
1 : a corrupt practice or custom — the buying of votes and other election abuses
2 : improper or excessive use or treatment : misuse — drug abuse
3 : language that condemns or vilifies usually unjustly, intemperately, and angrily — verbal abuse a term of abuse
4 : physical maltreatment —child abuse sexual abuse
5 obsolete : a deceitful act : deception
They explicitly said they were upfront with their peers about how criticism is delivered. Whether that is true is beyond the scope of discussion; what has been said is nowhere near gaslighting or other forms of abuse. I don’t understand what has happened as of late, but the western world has taken a very strange turn in redefining terms to make the smallest of infraction or abrasiveness a great harm. Criticism does not need to be laced with praise to be useful, and justified critique does not equal abuse. That’s complete nonsense. Delivering it in private rather than publicly, if anything, seems more in consideration of the recipient’s feelings anyway.
With respect to the topic of this discussion, I will refrain from passing a judgment on Torvalds’ change of heart until we see quantitative data on how this has impacted the kernel.
Any variant that invites perspective sharing rather than brutality works fine to accomplish almost any direct feedback.
(IE brutality usually does not admit the possibility others may have a different perspective. You are going to get a lot farther in changing/helping people if you listen to their perspective instead of just yours)
So, being nicer when someone else is watching and could corroborate, while being brutal to people when it's your word against theirs?
I wonder why people don't appreciate that advice.
"Direct" does not need to go hand-in-hand with "brutal". Don't change your behavior based on who's watching; people deserve to be treated well regardless.
EDIT: For clarity, I'm not necessarily suggesting this is the intention, but rather, that this would be the net effect, and a problem with that approach.
I mean, you did just spin it into its worst interpretation. I read the grandparent post as meaning, "Be brutal when the least ego / public stature is at risk, but never cut people down in front of their peers."
I make no such assumption, and I'm not a fan of brutality. I'm not endorsing his position, I'm just rephrasing it as what I believe he meant to say.
I'm also not a fan of intentionally putting the worst possible spin on someone's words. Reading charitably is pretty much always a net positive for any thread.
arkades is right, and there's a site guideline that specifically addresses this: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. It's easily plausible that one of blazespin's concerns is not to humiliate people in front of their peers.
This is a problem with this sort of discussion generally: a lot of the people arguing for others not to treat each other badly, treat others very badly indeed whilst arguing it.
Well, you avoid anyone losing face, which is important. Being brutal, however, is not a good advice in any situation except a rap battle. Direct != Brutal.
If you continue to post uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments to HN, we're going to have to ban you. We've already asked you several times not to do that. Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix it going forward?
Horrible people, in my opinion, are those that do the opposite.