Ask HN: Do you assume good will at work?
27 comments
I've been told by people I trust, that I consider wise, that you should always assume the best. Maybe they had a bad day, maybe they are smarter than you and its you that can't understand, maybe they are trying but their own life is at a low point. I've been told that believing in the best of people will bring grace into your life.
I don't know if that is true.
What I do know is that every single time - every time - I assume bad intentions, it sours me, makes me less than I could be, and nothing good comes from it.
Assume the best. We are all still people and still trying.
I don't know if that is true.
What I do know is that every single time - every time - I assume bad intentions, it sours me, makes me less than I could be, and nothing good comes from it.
Assume the best. We are all still people and still trying.
I'd categorize it to roughly 4 types:
1. People you trust with your life. They'll risk a bullet for you, possibly jump on the grenade.
2. People you trust with your wife. Deep personal trust, like telling them that you're gay (or homophobic) or letting your kids stay with them.
3. You trust them because it's in their best interest. They won't screw you because it screws them.
4. Competence. They trust themselves.
1 and 2 usually don't overlap with 3. They're not necessarily different levels. You can trust someone with your life, but they may be incompetent and think your trust is misplaced.
We have great hiring, so all full time colleagues are at category 1 but rarely 2. Contractors are usually at category 3. Some contractors are good bros but you
My most costly mistakes was neglecting category 4. Competence isn't a boolean; it's levels. Someone highly competent in a past task can be incompetent for a different task, esp. Peter Principle.
I used to freelance. The majority partner would lose say $50k and I'd lose $10k on a failed deal. The deal was easy - it was signed, practically done, just not paid. And too often they failed to get payment. They pulled through category 3, sometimes 1, but not 4.
There's the saying of "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence". But very often competence is the more serious breach of trust. You can trust a crook with the right incentives, and in very big organizations, most of them will be crooks.
1. People you trust with your life. They'll risk a bullet for you, possibly jump on the grenade.
2. People you trust with your wife. Deep personal trust, like telling them that you're gay (or homophobic) or letting your kids stay with them.
3. You trust them because it's in their best interest. They won't screw you because it screws them.
4. Competence. They trust themselves.
1 and 2 usually don't overlap with 3. They're not necessarily different levels. You can trust someone with your life, but they may be incompetent and think your trust is misplaced.
We have great hiring, so all full time colleagues are at category 1 but rarely 2. Contractors are usually at category 3. Some contractors are good bros but you
My most costly mistakes was neglecting category 4. Competence isn't a boolean; it's levels. Someone highly competent in a past task can be incompetent for a different task, esp. Peter Principle.
I used to freelance. The majority partner would lose say $50k and I'd lose $10k on a failed deal. The deal was easy - it was signed, practically done, just not paid. And too often they failed to get payment. They pulled through category 3, sometimes 1, but not 4.
There's the saying of "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence". But very often competence is the more serious breach of trust. You can trust a crook with the right incentives, and in very big organizations, most of them will be crooks.
> We have great hiring, so all full time colleagues are at category 1 but rarely 2. Contractors are usually at category 3. Some contractors are good bros but you
I'm confused. Are you saying most of your colleagues are people you would trust with your life, who would jump on a grenade for you? Can that really be true? Is it a family business of some sort?
I'm confused. Are you saying most of your colleagues are people you would trust with your life, who would jump on a grenade for you? Can that really be true? Is it a family business of some sort?
> 2. People you trust with your wife. Deep personal trust, like telling them that you're gay (or homophobic) or letting your kids stay with them.
While this may have been true a few decades ago, most modern workplaces don't require their employees to live in the closet.
While this may have been true a few decades ago, most modern workplaces don't require their employees to live in the closet.
> We have great hiring, so all full time colleagues are at category 1 but rarely 2.
Seems really unlikely, or you are super small company/team, or that you just don't know them that well
Seems really unlikely, or you are super small company/team, or that you just don't know them that well
Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
This is a bit on the harsh side in our field, nobody knows everything, and the knowledge available in a team is unevenly distributed, so, be kind and remember that while they might not know what you know.. You probably also don't know what they know..
For a new hire, however, they might be green, or have a different perspective that may need adjustment. They may have come from some consulting gig where they were taught to "just hack it, and fast!" rather than making quality software for the future, if so.. Don't be mean to them, but make sure to point out everything possible in their review so they have a chance to see the standards to which they must rise.
When I'm faced with a review where I feel like everything is wrong, I will still comment on everything, but I will not be angry or agressive, but simply state what needs chage and why. This takes a long time, but I will log that time on their ticket.
This is a bit on the harsh side in our field, nobody knows everything, and the knowledge available in a team is unevenly distributed, so, be kind and remember that while they might not know what you know.. You probably also don't know what they know..
For a new hire, however, they might be green, or have a different perspective that may need adjustment. They may have come from some consulting gig where they were taught to "just hack it, and fast!" rather than making quality software for the future, if so.. Don't be mean to them, but make sure to point out everything possible in their review so they have a chance to see the standards to which they must rise.
When I'm faced with a review where I feel like everything is wrong, I will still comment on everything, but I will not be angry or agressive, but simply state what needs chage and why. This takes a long time, but I will log that time on their ticket.
I've tried both approaches, and now I always assume good will. I think Hanlon's razor can also be helpful here, but gets at a different problem entirely, and one should be careful about going too far with their conclusions about incompetence or stupidity.
Assuming the opposite is like a poison. And it's a poison that spreads to those around you. It spreads to your communications, and starts to manifest as a defensive communication style, which in turn starts to change how other people see you. It raises questions in other people's heads that wouldn't have been there otherwise, and the poison spreads.
It starts to change how you think. You start spending time and mental energy thinking about things that have no reason to be true. You start to base foundational arguments and ideas on this distorted version of reality.
To make this very practical, imagine a scenario which could be interpreted in two ways:
1. The other person has malicious intent
2. The other person has just as much going on in their life as you do, and doesn't always show up as the perfect version of themselves
If you go about life assuming #1, and if everyone around you goes about life assuming #1, the only place this can lead is distrust, conflict, unwarranted conclusions, and a generally combative or at the very least, defensive mode of interaction.
And it's because the same things you see in others are things that can show up in you or I. And chances are, you've done things that made someone else ask themselves the same question: "are they operating on good faith?". Of course, only you know the truthful answer, but I find it helpful to think about how someone else's default mode might change their perception of me.
This isn't to say you should be naive about people who are not good actors. But assuming the best won't hide those bad actors.
You don't have to look for the bad to find it. But if all you look for is bad, that's all you will find.
Assuming the opposite is like a poison. And it's a poison that spreads to those around you. It spreads to your communications, and starts to manifest as a defensive communication style, which in turn starts to change how other people see you. It raises questions in other people's heads that wouldn't have been there otherwise, and the poison spreads.
It starts to change how you think. You start spending time and mental energy thinking about things that have no reason to be true. You start to base foundational arguments and ideas on this distorted version of reality.
To make this very practical, imagine a scenario which could be interpreted in two ways:
1. The other person has malicious intent
2. The other person has just as much going on in their life as you do, and doesn't always show up as the perfect version of themselves
If you go about life assuming #1, and if everyone around you goes about life assuming #1, the only place this can lead is distrust, conflict, unwarranted conclusions, and a generally combative or at the very least, defensive mode of interaction.
And it's because the same things you see in others are things that can show up in you or I. And chances are, you've done things that made someone else ask themselves the same question: "are they operating on good faith?". Of course, only you know the truthful answer, but I find it helpful to think about how someone else's default mode might change their perception of me.
This isn't to say you should be naive about people who are not good actors. But assuming the best won't hide those bad actors.
You don't have to look for the bad to find it. But if all you look for is bad, that's all you will find.
Having good emotional intelligence is one necessary tool. Being able to identify emotions, understand them, frame them logically. Down-regulating your own negative emotions is a big part of working with a team, as well as de-escalation, especially if the work may be wrapped up in ego (as I personally think software development is).
Another aspect is understanding the reasons for choices. Sometimes we're just ignorant of a better way, and we need to be gently led toward that way. Sometimes we're aware of a better way, but we choose a "less-good way" for good reasons. Without understanding the reasons, we're liable to react from a position of ignorance, even though we may feel like it comes from a position of superiority/authority. No matter the reason, patience is the most constructive virtue here.
Then there's the psychological flaws some of us have, like perfectionism, anger, impatience. Sometimes we need help to overcome these persistent conditions; mentoring is helpful, but so is counseling. I have spoken frankly (but with respect) with colleagues in the past who had some persistent issues, and they did take the feedback and improve themselves. Won't always happen, but many people do want to be better.
When someone is reacting poorly, if we understand that there is a reason they are reacting poorly (whether it be psychological, intellectual, social, or just having a bad day), we can react to it dispassionately and rationally, and help them calm down and work through the problem. And by "them", I also mean ourselves. :)
Another aspect is understanding the reasons for choices. Sometimes we're just ignorant of a better way, and we need to be gently led toward that way. Sometimes we're aware of a better way, but we choose a "less-good way" for good reasons. Without understanding the reasons, we're liable to react from a position of ignorance, even though we may feel like it comes from a position of superiority/authority. No matter the reason, patience is the most constructive virtue here.
Then there's the psychological flaws some of us have, like perfectionism, anger, impatience. Sometimes we need help to overcome these persistent conditions; mentoring is helpful, but so is counseling. I have spoken frankly (but with respect) with colleagues in the past who had some persistent issues, and they did take the feedback and improve themselves. Won't always happen, but many people do want to be better.
When someone is reacting poorly, if we understand that there is a reason they are reacting poorly (whether it be psychological, intellectual, social, or just having a bad day), we can react to it dispassionately and rationally, and help them calm down and work through the problem. And by "them", I also mean ourselves. :)
It depends on the person. However, I always assume the best by default and in like 99% of scenarios people consistently operate in good faith.
I’ve worked with real assholes though (to the point I can’t believe they weren’t fired). These have been blatant though like literally yelling at people in the office in addition to being intransigent. In those cases I recommend quitting if your financial/life security allows it.
I’ve worked with real assholes though (to the point I can’t believe they weren’t fired). These have been blatant though like literally yelling at people in the office in addition to being intransigent. In those cases I recommend quitting if your financial/life security allows it.
Most people are headless chickens trying to code, but it’s not acceptable to tell them!! I usually assume people’s issues are not intentional and treat them as oversights unless it becomes too frequent. People appreciate it and work better when you treat them like they are equals even if there not (purely with respect to skill and not any other characteristics obviously)
People can have good intentions and be completely awful, so absolutely!
I can't handle the mental burden of constant negative criticism. If I truly believed everyone was out to ruin it, I'd quit. Eventually I'd live in the forest
At most I'll scoff about the thing and try to help. It's more self preservation than anything - choosing their ignorance over malice
I can't handle the mental burden of constant negative criticism. If I truly believed everyone was out to ruin it, I'd quit. Eventually I'd live in the forest
At most I'll scoff about the thing and try to help. It's more self preservation than anything - choosing their ignorance over malice
Whether you assume good or bad intent, your observable reaction and conduct should be the same - minimizing emotion and drama.
After long experience, I always assume bad intent. I'm rarely disappointed, when, in the due course of time, that turns out to be the case. In the few cases where that turns out to not be the case, it is a pleasant surprise.
After long experience, I always assume bad intent. I'm rarely disappointed, when, in the due course of time, that turns out to be the case. In the few cases where that turns out to not be the case, it is a pleasant surprise.
I try to think about it in pragmatic terms.
Assuming bad intent is often unproductive and hinders getting work done. 95 percent of the time there was no ill intent and just a mistake, misunderstanding, or misread tone. If you assume poor intent and let it change how you act it ends up causing the person to react in a (more) negative way.
Assuming bad intent is often unproductive and hinders getting work done. 95 percent of the time there was no ill intent and just a mistake, misunderstanding, or misread tone. If you assume poor intent and let it change how you act it ends up causing the person to react in a (more) negative way.
I find the best way to build trust is to start by trusting people. That can be burned over time but it’s been a pretty good policy in my 15+ years of professional work.
Life is too short, for me, to assume people are out to get me. If I figure out they are, I’m generally deft enough to get them out of my way or get out of their way.
Life is too short, for me, to assume people are out to get me. If I figure out they are, I’m generally deft enough to get them out of my way or get out of their way.
I think I've grown more cynical as I've gotten older. I think I still assume competence and good intention usually, although not universally. However, I no longer assume good intention eventually prevails, or that the good intention isn't perverted by other motivations or problems. Even when you have a set of people individually following what seems like good intentions, sometimes collectively what they're doing leads to problems, and people can lack insight into the second-order effects of what they're doing.
I've just been hurt too badly by being naive, and seen the rampant destruction that problematic behavior has caused. All it takes is one or two people in the right (or wrong) places to cause an avalanche of problems. Often, in fact, assuming nothing wrong makes it worse ("why would A be misrepresenting things?")
My experience with problems, whether it be malicious or unintentional, is that the worst problems aren't with what they're doing at work, in the sense of the work tasks. It's in communicating with others, with managing, with fixing problems, mediating between individuals who disagree, effecting organizational change, and so forth. So for example, the coding is fine — there might be something I disagree with, or something dated, or something imperfect — but most of the time it's not a problem. Where the problem comes in is in discussing project goals, reconciling differences of opinion, how to inspire someone, how to address morale problems, water cooler manipulation, and so forth. That's where I get cynical or skeptical now. I still think most people are fine most of the time, but that remainder of people-time causes a world of problems.
On the flip side of it I think people who are really good at management can address these issues and keep things in check, move people in a different direction that's more constructive. Everyone has down phases in their life, organizations have obstacles, and the right person or persons can really lead to good change. It's sometimes that person who takes an opportunity to do really simple things that could improve morale, mediate conflicts, and so forth, and does the opposite, that's the most disturbing to me.
As for me, having said all that, I think I've only grown convinced the best thing is to be pretty open-minded and to try to consider all options. Sometimes I've thought people were being unfriendly or thought poorly of me, and if I had just reached out a bit, we would have both been happier. I guess that works both ways: I've tended to assume less in general, positive and negative, about coworkers.
I've just been hurt too badly by being naive, and seen the rampant destruction that problematic behavior has caused. All it takes is one or two people in the right (or wrong) places to cause an avalanche of problems. Often, in fact, assuming nothing wrong makes it worse ("why would A be misrepresenting things?")
My experience with problems, whether it be malicious or unintentional, is that the worst problems aren't with what they're doing at work, in the sense of the work tasks. It's in communicating with others, with managing, with fixing problems, mediating between individuals who disagree, effecting organizational change, and so forth. So for example, the coding is fine — there might be something I disagree with, or something dated, or something imperfect — but most of the time it's not a problem. Where the problem comes in is in discussing project goals, reconciling differences of opinion, how to inspire someone, how to address morale problems, water cooler manipulation, and so forth. That's where I get cynical or skeptical now. I still think most people are fine most of the time, but that remainder of people-time causes a world of problems.
On the flip side of it I think people who are really good at management can address these issues and keep things in check, move people in a different direction that's more constructive. Everyone has down phases in their life, organizations have obstacles, and the right person or persons can really lead to good change. It's sometimes that person who takes an opportunity to do really simple things that could improve morale, mediate conflicts, and so forth, and does the opposite, that's the most disturbing to me.
As for me, having said all that, I think I've only grown convinced the best thing is to be pretty open-minded and to try to consider all options. Sometimes I've thought people were being unfriendly or thought poorly of me, and if I had just reached out a bit, we would have both been happier. I guess that works both ways: I've tended to assume less in general, positive and negative, about coworkers.
When I review code I prefer to do it blind, not knowing who the author is.
This keeps me honest, and allows me to keep standards high without the author thinking I'm giving them an unfair hard time.
This keeps me honest, and allows me to keep standards high without the author thinking I'm giving them an unfair hard time.
That's an interesting approach and I think it makes sense. Do you use any special tool for that?
I'm not aware of any public tooling, but I see Google has a version discussed in https://research.google/pubs/pub50130/ .
The opposite of good will is bad will, not stupid.
I always assume lack of will.
My rule of thumb is to assume the best in regards to tech, and be skeptical in regards to politics. That includes your manager and your CEO.
You should be advancing your manager’s career. If you’re not, you’re at risk. So assuming good will in that situation is a recipe for nothing good.
You should be advancing your manager’s career. If you’re not, you’re at risk. So assuming good will in that situation is a recipe for nothing good.
>You should be advancing your manager’s career
I thought feudalism was a thing of the past
I thought feudalism was a thing of the past
Let's put it this way. If you're not advancing your manager's career, you'll be let go.
I do it from time to time but a recent hire was pretty angry at everything and seemed to think people were a bunch of headless chickens trying to code. I was surprised but also recognized I do that sometimes and I was wondering if people had ideas for being more mindful and avoid falling for this at work.