Re:Ask HN: Do you assume good will at work?
by derbOac on Monday July 11, 2022 @06:09PM
(#32062673)
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.