In order to become a successful CEO (or team lead or spouse...), you do need to be able to muster the emotional backbone to have tough conversations with people. One thing that can hold you back from this is the internal worry about being an asshole. Unless you are able to say to yourself, "I hear a voice on my shoulder telling me I'm a terrible person. But this topic needs to be discussed and I need to do advocacy here. This is uncomfortable and I don't like it but I'm going to do it anyway", you will under-communicate and issue won't get resolved.
However:
1) It is possible to err. That difficult conversation? Might in fact just be you being an asshole. We are not lucky enough to live in a world with a 100% surefire way to avoid this. So, good communication involves being willing to risk some probability of being an asshole.
2) People without that "maybe you're being an asshole" voice are not going to have this problem.
In my experience, most people will accept feedback if you do it in a respectful manner.
You can tell someone they are underperforming without insulting them. Respect your employees.
Even when you tell people to read the manual, you can do so in a way that doesn’t feel insulting. There’s a world of a difference between “RTFM!” and “I believe the documentation addresses this problem on page X.”
Bingo. God I wish more software developers realized this. Being open with criticism is important. But for most people who are not a very certain type of programmer, we don't want to hear the criticism given with words like:
"What were you thinking? Are you stupid? Of course you don't do x."
and
"I've found through experience that it's important to do X, because if you don't, then Y happens."
The fact that I run into so many people on software developer teams that communicate in the former manner has led me to leave traditional software development in favor of data analysis where I don't have to work on a team of 5-6 people, of whom 2-3 are complete assholes.
Plus, if you want to know why there are so few women in programming, this alone is a huge factor. Yes, there are a very few women who can give and take criticism in the abrasive fashion I outlined above, but most women prefer to give and take criticism in the polite, productive manner of my second example. Once again, the criticism is the same in both examples, all that's different is the tone.
Too many people in the software development industry have taken Linus Torvald's communication style as something to emulate.
It's the people who are either oblivious to the need to carefully communicate who are the difficult ones, along with those who intentionally ignore societal norms in an effort to prove their "alpha" status.
I think I've finally realized how to articulate what my frustration with statements of the form "If you're worried about X, you're fine" is. The person presenting the worry has a prior of [I am worried about this]. They then go seeking a solution that will let them alleviate the worry by taking concrete steps to address it. When they run into the advice "If you're worried, you're fine", they have two problems:
1) If being worried is the only reason why they are at least acceptable, then to continue to be acceptable, they need to continue to be worried.
2) They haven't actually gotten a concrete action to take or thought exercise to go through. That means if the commenter is wrong and they actually do have a habit to work on, the only thing they might be doing differently is telling their intuition (system 1 for the Khanemann fans) "Hey, you know that alarm? turn it off." Their intuition probably doesn't listen very well and probably keeps them worried, but it is also no longer acting as a useful signal whatsoever of the problem.
----
The approach I would take is to come up with a list of actually-answerable questions to ask myself, to have faith in my intuitions on those questions unless I get concrete evidence that they are wrong, and then to work to make peace with the remaining discomfort. For example, when driving a car:
- Buy a wide-angle rear-view mirror so you have better spatial awareness.
- When opening any car door from the insite, habitually practice doing the Dutch reach.
- When you are aware of a cyclist, know the reference points on the car that you should keep them at so you are a safe passing distance.
- Don't do anything else besides perhaps converse with another human in the car while I'm driving.
- Practice scanning my environment while driving and other generally-safe driving habits.
- Having practiced your duty of care -- Accept the reality that at some point I might end up crushing another person's ribcage and snuffing out the life of someone's father/brother/aunt/teacher -- a fellow human.
Try re-reading a peer performance review you've written after the fact. It can be eye-opening.
You can replay an event in a supportive feedback group instead of in your head.
(I've never been to a Toastmasters' meeting, but have heard their sales pitch.)
What _does_ a typical surgeon look like, then? I didn't know they had a look.
That's why vague claims (like in the google debacle) that women are biologically less suited to coding than men might not be relevant to your organisation even if we were to believe it true in general.
A similar effect may explain some of this: https://hbr.org/2017/09/the-comprehensive-case-for-investing...
Would be a fun topic for research!
The golfing ones are a bit more extroverted and charismatic than the non-golfers; they "look like CEOs". They are more likely than the non-golfing ones to have attended a top-tier MBA program. Their average height is significantly greater than the non-golfers. And so on; you see where I'm going.
Certainly there are plenty of introverted, socially challenged golfers out there. But within any population whether CEOs or lawyers or cops or musicians or whatever else, the subset of people who golf is going to be, on average, more extroverted than the subset of people who don't.
I think this somewhat ties in to Taleb's argument that you should trust surgeons who don't look like surgeons, since their achievement of professional success despite their tendency to create a negative first impression is a robust heuristic of professional competence[0].
The population of non-golfers, averaged out as a population, were held to subtly higher standards that required better performance out of them. This means that non-golfers, as a population, tend to be more challenged at work over the course of their careers, and that it was less likely that individuals could "fail up" -- the Peter Principle extends further for extroverts.
Anyway that's my theory.
0: https://medium.com/incerto/surgeons-should-notlook-like-surg...