As someone else just pointed out, this can be highly subjective.

An audio clip of Stephen Wolfram was recently posted on HN, in which he was dealing with a couple of team members on their API documentation.

Some described it as "toxic bullying", but even more said "That is incredibly tame and I take no issue with it". I fell into the latter.

Some people are a whole lot more fragile than others.

Yeah, that Wolfram clip sounds like an exasperated boss dealing with some people who aren't 100% aware of his expectations.

Wolfram doesn't at any point (at least while recording) make it about the team members themselves, just the work they've done.

I've had a bunch of conversations like these with a boss of some kind, so I know how awkward and unpleasant it is, but it's also an opportunity to learn a bunch of stuff.

> Some people are a whole lot more fragile than others.

A slightly more charitable way to phrase this might be “Some people prefer to be treated as professionals, with dignity and respect.”

I think what the poster above you was trying to get across is, part of a leaders role is to distinguish what works best for their different team members. While some people may enjoy being treated less than respectful, others may not.

> A slightly more charitable way to phrase this might be “Some people prefer to be treated as professionals, with dignity and respect.”

You've just proved my point - what I might consider "handling a fragile ego with kid-gloves", you would consider to be "handling professionally with dignity and respect". It's all very subjective.

I think we would agree that a company's leaders need to be consistent and clear where they think the line is, and keep an eye on performance levels to determine if they've made a mistake.

I'm curious - mind linking to the audio clip? I'd like to see what argument I gravitate towards.

link to the comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19221549

the clip of Steven Wolfram: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGjvFyRk_4I&feature=youtu.be...

Here are my scribbled notes while listening to this just now

* wolfram sounds reasonable - a bit of a disconnect (lack of structure/procedure) between boss & employees. * Lack of high-level process. (for documenting) * Employees should have done the docs as part of the deliverable - and may have needed more support/training/guidance, and not have realised the extent this was required - maybe a managerial failure? * Docs were a mess - should ... lack of workflow to produce the docs - managerial failure? * Employees seem a bit clueless. * doing docs at all - fucking genius idea! and they have a docs team.

By 'managerial failure' I mean wolfram's.

So, assuming this review was typical, not a carefully chosen one designed to give a good impression, then given the bosses I've had to work for I'd say anyone who thinks that was 'bullying' needs some serious fucking life experience. I would be really grateful to have someone who didn't explode into anger, patronise, shout, ask for far too much (mucho free overtime Edit: entirely unpaid), disregard advice based on my 20 years experience in DBs because boss read a book and misunderstood it, expected (gasp!) actual documentation to be part of the deliverable...

Fuck, I'm seriously angry that anyone could consider this unreasonable. He was anything but. How could anyone think that?

disclaimer, I've no link to wolfram or any of his products or companies or affiliates. I'd be extremely happy to work for him after this. (further disclaimer, I'm not the easiest/brightest person to work with so I don't mind getting yelled at when I deserve it, but very often I don't)

A lot of people commenting about this are talking about sensitive people. Although I would never admit to this publicly I am a sensitive person. Getting chewed out in an aggressive tone, getting yelled at, or chewed out for extended periods of time can significantly impact my productivity in spite of my efforts to toughen up. In the workplace I would be that guy after 24:00 who is still diligently accepting feedback but who you can detect the stress levels of due to the length of the feedback and Wolfram's increasing irritation.

Holy shit though people calling the above video bullying have no idea. There's no hint of sadism. There's no hint of using aggression as a persuasive tool. No hint of coercion. He's just irritated and there are visible signs of restraint and attempts to mediate this irritation.

> Although I would never admit to this publicly I am a sensitive person

you say it as if it's a weakness but why? Rhetorical question, but a valid one.

> Getting chewed out in an aggressive tone, getting yelled at, or chewed out for extended periods of time can significantly impact my productivity

Mine too! That stuff can cut deeply; don't imagine it washes off me just because I can usually handle it. I've been left literally shaking after someone's had a go at me, and it has added to my long-term mental health problems. It affects my work very negatively - it deteriorates. I remember wanting to punch myself in the face on the train on the way home I was so upset, less than a year ago. It should not happen.

> in spite of my efforts to toughen up

I really do not know if that's something a person can do to themselves. Or should? I don't mind if I fuck up and get it in the neck but if I get it in the neck cos someone's rowed with their BF last night then I shouldn't have to deal with it at all. But that's life I suppose.

There is such a thing as oversensitivity. Something that makes me persue the mildest workplaces working mostly with a small familiar team. If I get tougher I get more oppertunities. So I work to get tougher so I can get what I want.

> if a worker perceives it as bullying, it probably is

I think it's actually dangerous to automatically judge yourself based on how individual people perceive you without further discussion or investigation.

If your peer group or your friends or people you respect enough that they can tell you the truth are fairly consistent in their analysis of the situation, then yes, listen.

If an individual thinks you're bullying them, it's certainly appropriate to inquire and empathize and agree with them if you choose.

But to default to the assumption that someone else's judgement of you is correct is a quick way to lose touch with your own beliefs.

> Bottom line: if you’re being described as an abusive boss, you’re bad at your job.

There is such a thing as highly over-sensitive people. There are people who suffer from things like high paranoia, and their paranoia will often be directed at any authority figures in their life. I think you should have left things at "probably".

And there are abusive people who skirt by in their organizations by saying that their victims are just too sensitive.

This is likely true, but it does not negate the notion that some people are very sensitive.

For example, you've ever played on a competitive sports team, or were in the military, you may be desensitized to some things that some may consider aggressive.

Cultural issues are important as well: some cultures argue, others do not. Some cultures vocalize objections, some do not. Some are direct, some indirect.

Germans and Dutch are really direct - their candor may be perceived as harsh by some. That said, they're also very emotionally calm.

I grew up 1/2 Irish/Scottish in a big family, my god man did we argue (and still do). But it's just arguing, it doesn't mean much. I'd call it 'emotive verbalization' and there's no name calling or anything.

Often someone can be loud and direct, and it seems terse, but if you actually listen, they might not be condescending, name calling or anything. It just feels that way.

Some people are also simply not used to actually being held accountable. A boss who suddenly draws some hard lines ... this may make some feel uncomfortable.

Some people confuse negative articulation of work as an insult i.e. "this is sht" might be interpreted as "you are sht" when it's not.

None of this remotely excuses actual bullying - I'm just saying there's a lot of grey and context.

So if someone is constantly threatening, name calling, publicly admonishing, being unfair, demeaning, inconsistent, derogatory, digging into personal issues - this is bullying.

But being demanding, loud, assertive, and sometimes being angry (so long as it's not directed at anyone) - this may or may not be bullying.

More poignantly - the article does woefully lack information about specific kinds of bullying behaviour, that's in fact the very first thing on my mind as I read it. This is really subjective stuff, it needs to be spelled out.

Bullying isn't that difficult. It has a definition. It's not momentary anger or a general outburst or even a persistent bad temper. Bullying is a persistent pattern of behavior directed at a specific person for the purpose of intimidation or coercion or establishing power over the person.

A supervisor can be generally unpleasant, impatient, lacking empathy, and demanding and not be a bully.

I agree (great definition BTW) but in my experience, in the real world, I suggest the term gets broadly and crudely applied.

A good boss would realize this and tailor their communication style appropriately.

I think the word "bullying" is too amorphous to be useful. It would be more helpful to break down specific behaviors that describe the interactions between bosses and employees using those words. Accessible? Transparent? Consistent? Those a just a few that spring to mind.

I had a colleague who managed to get insulted every time I said something about him.

Then in one meeting I decided to play safe and said nothing. He complained to the big boss about being disrespectfully ignored.

Good days were these!

If you are being literal when you say "a worker" then that is an outrageous claim. Workers aren't magically better than managers at managing relationships, they misread situations as well.

If you mean "[the workforce as a whole] perceives bullying" then yeah, probably. If two+ people quit citing "bullying" then there is possibly a problem. Three+ and it is likely.