Carl Braun on communicating like a grown-up (2016)(fs.blog)
fs.blog
Carl Braun on communicating like a grown-up (2016)
https://fs.blog/carl-braun-communicating/
53 comments
Great comment! If only civilian jobs offered that level of trust to subordinates (so-called Individual Contributors). I've had a number of jobs where they supposedly hired me for my smarts, good judgment, resourcefulness and so on, and then proceeded to dictate to the pixel what my output must be. I had a manager specify the font and text size that engineering status reports (that were likely not even read) must be in. There is so much command-and-control in business that it's wild to learn that the military might be more flexible in some ways.
The US military makes this work by running everyone through standardized training and exercises. Few companies do that. Historically, IBM and the Bell System did. Not many others.
The military definitely standardizes the details. Anybody who's been in the military knows this. Here's the US Navy/USMC guide to formatting correspondence and memos.[1] They use Times New Roman. (Upgraded in 2018 from Courier New.)
Consistency in the details means that the failure modes are known. This is a big help when you have to bring everything you need.
[1] https://www.marines.mil/portals/1/Publications/SECNAV%20M%20...
The military definitely standardizes the details. Anybody who's been in the military knows this. Here's the US Navy/USMC guide to formatting correspondence and memos.[1] They use Times New Roman. (Upgraded in 2018 from Courier New.)
Consistency in the details means that the failure modes are known. This is a big help when you have to bring everything you need.
[1] https://www.marines.mil/portals/1/Publications/SECNAV%20M%20...
Railroads (in the 19th / early 20th centuries), AT&T, Du Pont, General Electric, and other large multi-division type corporations both created and inculcated standards of communication and information management, dating back to paper-based systems.
James Beniger and JoAnne Yates are amongst two scholars who've studied and written on this in detail. Beniger's book, The Control Revolution (1986) particularly.
James Beniger and JoAnne Yates are amongst two scholars who've studied and written on this in detail. Beniger's book, The Control Revolution (1986) particularly.
The key is to provide Autonomy initially within well defined bounds. As the person grows in his/her job, slowly the boundaries are made looser so that the person has a greater area to play in. This is an innate need in Humans i.e. nobody likes to feel "controlled".
Edward Deci's Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation is a great book on this.
Edward Deci's Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation is a great book on this.
I guess I've been lucky that this hasn't been my experience (will be 20 years working full time this June - yikes!)
I've had jobs where my mission parameters were outlined (we gotta achieve X by Y date) and I've had jobs that were vague opportunity areas (here's a team of X people, we think there's an opportunity in Y, see what you can do). The "worst" is I've had managers that asked me a ton of annoying questions to make sure I've done my due diligence, which in retrospect I appreciate.
So I guess that's to say, at least some "civilian jobs" offer that indeed so don't be discouraged - hopefully you will eventually be in one that gives you more latitude.
I've had jobs where my mission parameters were outlined (we gotta achieve X by Y date) and I've had jobs that were vague opportunity areas (here's a team of X people, we think there's an opportunity in Y, see what you can do). The "worst" is I've had managers that asked me a ton of annoying questions to make sure I've done my due diligence, which in retrospect I appreciate.
So I guess that's to say, at least some "civilian jobs" offer that indeed so don't be discouraged - hopefully you will eventually be in one that gives you more latitude.
In my 10 years, I have yet to find a team/company that operates this way :(
"The enemy gets a vote." is an amazingly succinct way of putting this.
Some of the emphasis on intent, to give freedom to subordinates to contradict the commander on tactics so long as the larger goal is attained, comes from the legendary Prussian general von Moltke [1]. His famous saying is that "No plan survives contact with the enemy".
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder
Typically every layer of command has a SMEAC that gets more specific as you go down, iirc
Assume good motives (often called assume good faith on HN) is an excellent standard to follow with one proviso: It can be taken too far.
If you don't know their motives, assume good motives or good faith. But if they explicitly tell you they have hostile motives or the preponderance of the evidence suggests such, continuing to assume good faith amounts to cutting your own throat.
If you don't know their motives, assume good motives or good faith. But if they explicitly tell you they have hostile motives or the preponderance of the evidence suggests such, continuing to assume good faith amounts to cutting your own throat.
You no longer need to make an assumption once there is proof otherwise.
Agreed. "Assume good faith" is a good rule in absence of other evidence.
But "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time" is also true.
But "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time" is also true.
Corollary: even with the proviso it can pay to "pretend assume good faith". Give them enough rope to hang themselves.
I think when you don't "pretend assume good faith", you end up making less convincing counter arguments, and communicate less well in general, plus many other negative things.
It's especially important when there are people reading or listening who don't recognize the bad faith.
> often called assume good faith on HN
It's a stock phrase, but it gained popularity online because of its use in Wikipedia. HN hadn't existed yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Assume_...
It's a stock phrase, but it gained popularity online because of its use in Wikipedia. HN hadn't existed yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Assume_...
I believe OP is pointing out that the culture on HN uses a different phrasing than the article, not that it originated here.
> But if they explicitly tell you they have hostile motives or the preponderance of the evidence suggests such,
... you don't have to assume, right? So I see no reason it is overly contradicting and would render that rule void.
Over here, to assume good faith is required by law to be the standard mode, you have to expect it otherwise society would crumble. IMHO you can't take and stress this far enough, and I can't imagine where it can be taken too far. But yes, please don't ignore your intellect.
... you don't have to assume, right? So I see no reason it is overly contradicting and would render that rule void.
Over here, to assume good faith is required by law to be the standard mode, you have to expect it otherwise society would crumble. IMHO you can't take and stress this far enough, and I can't imagine where it can be taken too far. But yes, please don't ignore your intellect.
Once the assumption of good faith is broken, the conversation is basically fucked anyway. May as well say goodbye (if you want to be helpful to subsequent passerby-by, leave a note about why you think the other person isn’t engaging in good faith, so subsequent passers-by don’t end up taking their arguments too seriously).
Even if they have good motives, it’s sometimes difficult. You cannot keep compensating for other people’s deficiencies. You are not Atlas to be able to bear the weight of the whole world.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Some people would like to see themselves as good people with good intentions but all too often their actions are actively counterproductive, a la The Shirky Principle that organizations tend to keep alive the problem they were created to address.
Some people just have broken mental models and then fail to update them when their efforts consistently prove "this does not actually work." We all make mistakes, but if you keep making the same mistake without any improvement, at some point others should stop making excuses for you.
Some people would like to see themselves as good people with good intentions but all too often their actions are actively counterproductive, a la The Shirky Principle that organizations tend to keep alive the problem they were created to address.
Some people just have broken mental models and then fail to update them when their efforts consistently prove "this does not actually work." We all make mistakes, but if you keep making the same mistake without any improvement, at some point others should stop making excuses for you.
Yes, intentions =/= faith, the article has that, too, even including ones' own ego:
Put Error to Work
> But let’s never, never, cover up error with the misguided thought that we must protect someone — either our brother, or our department, or our own pet ego. The recognition of error and its examination, if openly talked of, is a sure way to avoid its being repeated, either by the same man or by others. Everyone errs at one time or another. The Company pays for it. Okay. But the Company should not have to pay twice. Nor should other men be denied the benefit of warning-signs.
Put Error to Work
> But let’s never, never, cover up error with the misguided thought that we must protect someone — either our brother, or our department, or our own pet ego. The recognition of error and its examination, if openly talked of, is a sure way to avoid its being repeated, either by the same man or by others. Everyone errs at one time or another. The Company pays for it. Okay. But the Company should not have to pay twice. Nor should other men be denied the benefit of warning-signs.
In written communication CYA will usually trump "Assume good motives"
I take it as “your communication assumes good motives” which is not “you assume good motives”
I think most people have good motives based on their world view and this will work.
Assuming good motives can help you uncover them.
For example the “asshole” at work who seems to be blocking you - they might have good reasons you can explore.
Of course their are liars, scammers, psychopaths. If possible cut ties otherwise you have to consider dealing with them tactically.
None if this is easy though!
I think most people have good motives based on their world view and this will work.
Assuming good motives can help you uncover them.
For example the “asshole” at work who seems to be blocking you - they might have good reasons you can explore.
Of course their are liars, scammers, psychopaths. If possible cut ties otherwise you have to consider dealing with them tactically.
None if this is easy though!
Yeah I don’t agree you can make or should attempt to have a universal policy to follow in your interactions with others. The situation matters , the relationship to the person matters. Those two variables can branch off to policies. Interacting with any stranger in real life for example - What about the cost benefit analysis of these interactions. Benefit - in my entire life I can say I never received any longstanding benefit. Costs - throughout my life I have incurred an incredible amount of trouble and problems from interacting with strangers when I have not instigated the interaction. Therefore you should assume bad faith even danger and not interact going forward for all strangers that approach you.
“ If then we speak up for some better job that’s open, let’s not till our talk with such words as hoping, thanking, eagerly, favor. If we are really worthy of the job, the Company will benefit by giving it to us every bit as much as we will profit by getting it.”
Good advice for job applications. “I’m grateful for this opportunity” is common-place but so much less appealing than “I’m confident we’re going to get great results”.
Good advice for job applications. “I’m grateful for this opportunity” is common-place but so much less appealing than “I’m confident we’re going to get great results”.
Worth pointing out that >90% of the communication issues he describes are about managing your ego.
Oh HN is going to love this.
> A somewhat more subtle form of negation, is refinement of measurement. One man says that a tank weights ninety tons. And for that particular discussion, accuracy is of no consequence. Yet someone’s ego speaks up and says, Ninety-two tons. Maybe he’s right at that. But he’s wrong just the same. […] This is a favorite husband-and-wife game. Let’s be on guard against it.
> The worst trick our ego can play on us, is to demand that we know everything. Let’s discipline ourselves until it’s easy to say, I don’t know. And let’s keep out of discussions when they’re on subjects outside of our recognized sphere. Our lack of real knowledge and experience is bound to display itself, and bring resentment from those who are really qualified to speak. Let’s slap our ego down whenever it starts laying claim to knowledge that’s too various.
> If we want our opinions or beliefs to be accepted, the worst thing that we can do is to press too hard for them, or to make a personal issue of them. Better not crowd for acceptance, but rather invite it. Better tender our advice with a softening It seems to me. Or an It appears. Or a Perhaps. Or with some similar concession to the ideas of our listener. True, there are times when we must speak as authorities in no uncertain terms. Even then, reasonable humility is seldom amiss.
> With our eye on our brother’s ego, we’ll see that concession is the very cornerstone of good human relations. We cannot reach human agreements without mutual concession. The self-respect that every man feels impelled to maintain, demands that he appear at least partly right. Therefore, let’s not ever try to prove anyone wholly wrong. Let’s find something herein we can feel that he’s right. Then let’s say so. We simply must not build up our own ego at any unnecessary expense of our brother’s ego. Let’s keep an eye on concession.
> A somewhat more subtle form of negation, is refinement of measurement. One man says that a tank weights ninety tons. And for that particular discussion, accuracy is of no consequence. Yet someone’s ego speaks up and says, Ninety-two tons. Maybe he’s right at that. But he’s wrong just the same. […] This is a favorite husband-and-wife game. Let’s be on guard against it.
> The worst trick our ego can play on us, is to demand that we know everything. Let’s discipline ourselves until it’s easy to say, I don’t know. And let’s keep out of discussions when they’re on subjects outside of our recognized sphere. Our lack of real knowledge and experience is bound to display itself, and bring resentment from those who are really qualified to speak. Let’s slap our ego down whenever it starts laying claim to knowledge that’s too various.
> If we want our opinions or beliefs to be accepted, the worst thing that we can do is to press too hard for them, or to make a personal issue of them. Better not crowd for acceptance, but rather invite it. Better tender our advice with a softening It seems to me. Or an It appears. Or a Perhaps. Or with some similar concession to the ideas of our listener. True, there are times when we must speak as authorities in no uncertain terms. Even then, reasonable humility is seldom amiss.
> With our eye on our brother’s ego, we’ll see that concession is the very cornerstone of good human relations. We cannot reach human agreements without mutual concession. The self-respect that every man feels impelled to maintain, demands that he appear at least partly right. Therefore, let’s not ever try to prove anyone wholly wrong. Let’s find something herein we can feel that he’s right. Then let’s say so. We simply must not build up our own ego at any unnecessary expense of our brother’s ego. Let’s keep an eye on concession.
This also resonated strongly with me. It's sometimes very hard, but often the best solution is to bite your tongue and shut up.
When others do not do it and "overshout" in meetings, I often cringe. So I am trying to be extremely conscious of when that person is me.
When others do not do it and "overshout" in meetings, I often cringe. So I am trying to be extremely conscious of when that person is me.
[deleted]
> The worst trick our ego can play on us, is to demand that we know everything. Let’s discipline ourselves until it’s easy to say, I don’t know. And let’s keep out of discussions when they’re on subjects outside of our recognized sphere. Our lack of real knowledge and experience is bound to display itself, and bring resentment from those who are really qualified to speak. Let’s slap our ego down whenever it starts laying claim to knowledge that’s too various.
Growing up, all my self worth was tied to knowing everything. Several years ago I decided to work on that by publicly admitting to not knowing something every day for a month.
It turned out to be one of the best personal growth exercises I've done and led to a lot of professional success. It's actually quite emotionally freeing.
It also turns out that many of the people whose feathers get ruffled if they think their spot in the intellectual pecking order is being threatened will bend over backwards to help you if approached as a mentor. They don't think you're an idiot for asking, they generally love helping (assuming you are actually competent and not asking about basic shit every day).
Growing up, all my self worth was tied to knowing everything. Several years ago I decided to work on that by publicly admitting to not knowing something every day for a month.
It turned out to be one of the best personal growth exercises I've done and led to a lot of professional success. It's actually quite emotionally freeing.
It also turns out that many of the people whose feathers get ruffled if they think their spot in the intellectual pecking order is being threatened will bend over backwards to help you if approached as a mentor. They don't think you're an idiot for asking, they generally love helping (assuming you are actually competent and not asking about basic shit every day).
This is huge. I often mentor mid-career folks by saying "you got here by being the guy/gal who knows the answers. From here on out, you can only grow by figuring out how to succeed when you don't know."
The following is the opening quote from Ray Dalio's book and it's what sold me on working for him:
“Before I begin telling you what I think, I want to establish that I’m a “dumb shit” who doesn’t know much relative to what I need to know. Whatever success I’ve had in life has had more to do with my knowing how to deal with my not knowing than anything I know.”
The following is the opening quote from Ray Dalio's book and it's what sold me on working for him:
“Before I begin telling you what I think, I want to establish that I’m a “dumb shit” who doesn’t know much relative to what I need to know. Whatever success I’ve had in life has had more to do with my knowing how to deal with my not knowing than anything I know.”
Thank you for this inspiration!
Talking about our limitations is extremely important. Ignoring them can lead to very bad outcomes.
I think we should do this more.
Talking about our limitations is extremely important. Ignoring them can lead to very bad outcomes.
I think we should do this more.
I would like the work environment to be like that.
But honestly I think all those things are just one half of the story. He favours a quieter approach, which I could image lead to being overseen.
But honestly I think all those things are just one half of the story. He favours a quieter approach, which I could image lead to being overseen.
They are rules for a more civilized age. I'm sure they weren't allowed to play music on the radio or be interrupted by a phone while working, either (phones did not exist, I know). The managers probably didn't doomscroll on their phones. You couldn't backstab someone in secret. Everyone knew who the other guys in the office talked to. You had jobs that, if you stayed long enough, paid you a pension. You left your family alone, trusted the neighbourhood much more and it's likely many of your colleagues lived near you. Your corporation probably had to deliver results, couldn't bs its way out.
With a new axis for communication (phones with constant internet access) all these rules have been discarded forever.
With a new axis for communication (phones with constant internet access) all these rules have been discarded forever.
I think you're looking through rose tinted glasses about the backstabbing and knowing who people talked to stuff. I suspect office politics in a form somewhat similar to today have existed since offices were invented.
This seems good.
I do have the sense that group decisionmaking worked better before the advents of public relations and social media, among other things.
Curious - why do you say that / what do you mean?
We sense a bit of negativity that spills from the later on to the former, so to apply the rule for today, removing the later from the equation may give you better results in decision making.
Anyone have a lead on a digital version of "Presentation For Engineers And Industrialists"? I haven't had any luck so far.
Libgen
It's surprising that the Libgen book has "Digitized by Google". I wonder how users got it. Can Google Books be scraped in some way?
It must have been on Archive.org at some point.
Or https://www.hathitrust.org/digital_library though it usually has limited access, which is unfortunate… One free method of access is a Library of Congress reader card, fyi.
It is the same, indeed. Thanks!
Does anyone know where one can find a collection of his books online? These rare books are always hard to find.
The blog links to one: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1258137666/ref=as_li_qf_sp...
Thank you. Just what I was looking for.
[deleted]
The military requires that orders show "commander's intent". This matters when circumstances change and some subordinate has to adapt the plan. "The enemy gets a vote." Officers and noncoms are then expected to change plans to achieve the commander's intent by other means. It's not about blind obedience.
USMC doctrine:
Mission tactics are just as the name implies: the tactic of assigning a subordinate mission without specifying how the mission must be accomplished. We leave the manner of accomplishing the mission to the subordinate, thereby allowing him the freedom and establishing the duty to take whatever steps he deems necessary based on the situation.
The senior prescribes the method of execution only to the degree that is essential for coordination. It is this freedom for initiative that permits the high tempo of operations that we desire. Uninhibited by restrictions from above, the subordinate can adapt his actions to the changing situation. He informs his commander what he has done, but he does not wait for permission.
It is obvious that we cannot allow decentralized initiative with- out some means of providing unity, or focus, to the various efforts. To do so would be to dissipate our strength. We seek unity, not through imposed control, but through harmonious initiative and lateral coordination.
We achieve this harmonious initiative in large part through the use of the commander’s intent. There are two parts to a mission: the task to be accomplished and the reason, or intent. The task describes the action to be taken while the intent describes the desired result of the action. Of the two, the intent is predominant. While a situation may change, making the task obsolete, the intent is more permanent and continues to guide our actions. Under- standing our commander’s intent allows us to exercise initiative in harmony with the commander’s desires.[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_paragraph_order
[2] https://theusmarines.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/FMFM_1-1.pd...