[HN Gopher] Effective teams don't keep secrets ___________________________________________________________________ Effective teams don't keep secrets Author : adrianhoward Score : 104 points Date : 2022-02-25 08:58 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.theadamthomas.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.theadamthomas.com) | sandGorgon wrote: | This is basically psychological safety, worded in a different way | - https://hbr.org/2017/08/high-performing-teams-need-psycholog... | | The best write up on psychological safety is from Google Rework - | https://rework.withgoogle.com/guides/understanding-team-effe... | davesque wrote: | I remember working at an organization that essentially made the | results of performance reviews open across the team. The rational | was that it would help people make sense out of salary figures | (which were also open). It did not improve team function and led | to a lot of paranoia, fear, and resentment. | | People keep secrets on some level because they need privacy. If a | person is struggling, they often react by withdrawing and don't | always appreciate their struggles being brought to attention. | Especially when their livelihood is on the line. Everyone's | different, but increased openness is not always going to help. | Everyone should have the right to privacy in both personal and | professional settings. | | _Update:_ Actually, I think the author of the article must | understand all of this because they do call out privacy as | necessary and try to distinguish it from what they 're calling | secrecy. And secrecy seems to basically mean willingly | withholding information necessary to properly complete a job. | They say this could happen if teams have an antagonistic working | relationship. I think it's a useful distinction as I've also seen | this happen at a company, more recently than the previous counter | example that I gave. | jka wrote: | I hear what you say, but I'd like to add that as an employee, | I'd like the _option_ to make my performance data, salary, etc | public -- even if it that is not the organization-wide default. | | The reactions that people have to their own data being public | are partly a result of the current hidden-by-default model. | | I'm not a great developer: I'm experienced, but I make the same | mistakes that any junior would. I'd prefer to share the kind of | feedback that I receive and how those discussions proceed, so | that juniors can look ahead, learn, and avoid repeating the | same mistakes (hopefully leading to a much more advanced cohort | of future developers). | jrapdx3 wrote: | > "...if teams have an antagonistic working relationship" | | Yes of course a set of people constitute a _team_ if and only | if it meets the requirement for _teamwork_. That is, cooperate | via info sharing, work load distribution and other support to | get jobs done. Obviously merely assigning random workers to | contiguous cubicles in no way constructs a team. That remains | true even if a manager is loudly chanting holy corporate verse | while pronouncing teamhood upon the hapless crew. | | This is as it's always been, teamwork is essential for the | survival of modern humans. Companies that foster teams, and | teamwork among teams, are the ones likely to succeed in the | marketplace. | bob1029 wrote: | Sometimes letting someone know about a piece of information too | early can cause problems. | | I have some very anxious team members who will get on edge when | the development team starts to use key words like "refactor" and | "iterate". Our organization has a historical track record of | certain technical efforts being a complete dumpster fire and the | PTSD of that has stuck around with many of us. | | In order to make everyone's lives easier, I will sometimes work | in secret on prototypes of more "controversial" ideas to bring | before the team. I find starting the conversation with "Here's a | new thing you can actually see and play with" eliminates 99% of | the annoying bullshit you get out of non-technical folks. | | It takes some discipline to do this correctly (i.e. don't ferret | away on a secret prototype for more than ~1 week). That said, I | can't imagine how you would scale an organization if everyone had | to know everything always. | | Also, none of this stuff is actually secret. It's more of a need- | to-know basis. If someone explicitly asked me about one of these | efforts, I would tell them everything they wanted to know and | then some. | hughrr wrote: | Completely agree with this. On numerous occasions I let an idea | out while it wasn't developed enough to go in the right | direction on its own. It turned into a shit show. | | Many many ideas I write down and develop. Many I throw away. | But I learned never to throw information on the table without | analysing the consequences of doing so. | | This applies to teams as well. | crispyambulance wrote: | What you're talking about is sometimes referred to as | "exercising covert agency" and IMHO it's absolutely essential | for the well-being of creative folks in heavily project-managed | corporate workplaces. | | "Not keeping secrets" effectively ends up meaning that you need | "permission" or at least consent for everything you work on. | Depending on how tight things are this can be a recipe for | misery because it's common in managerial ranks for people to be | change-averse to the point of absurdity. | darkerside wrote: | Google turns up nothing on that concept, but I agree that it | is essential. You need a strong leader who can sense when | stakeholders don't want to put up with that shit and when | it's OK, and counterbalance that with how much of a dumpster | fire the codebase is becoming. | beckingz wrote: | This. Sometimes holding information until things are ready is | the kindest thing to do for anxious people. | rubyn00bie wrote: | > Our organization has a historical track record of certain | technical efforts being a complete dumpster fire [...] | | I think your urge to hide things until ready is clearly a | symptom of other (root) problems within the organization. I | have never seen what you describe in a healthy organization, | and many seemingly "healthy" places are not. It sounds like the | organization fears failure and refuses to learn from mistakes | or believes it's impossible. This is a cultural issue that | needs to be fixed by senior leadership but, if I had to guess, | is probably caused by senior leadership being unwilling to | trust. | | I'd encourage you to look to solving roots and not symptoms or | go somewhere else where you're allowed to. Good luck. | bob1029 wrote: | > I have never seen what you describe in a healthy | organization, and many seemingly "healthy" places are not. | | You've never screwed something up and had to try it a | different way? | rubyn00bie wrote: | I honestly do not know how that was your take away from | what I wrote. Can you please elaborate on how what you | quoted at all implies: | | 1.) I've never screwed up. | | 2.) (and never) Had to do something different. | | I'm saying the lack of transparency you've been forced into | to accomplish things is the result of people who are | incapable accepting mistakes or doing things differently. | You must work in secret because people don't believe the | technical team can or will learn from their mistakes. In a | healthy organization you would not have this burden. | travisjungroth wrote: | "Sometimes I work on things for up to a week before showing | people unless asked." | | "Your company isn't healthy. Either get senior leadership to | change or leave." | | Internet advice is weird. | darkerside wrote: | It's easy to not have seen things in healthy workplaces if | you don't have a lot of experience. This is why we have | implicit bias against folks who look really young, fair or | not. | throwawaysleep wrote: | > If I don't believe that other members of my culture have my | best interests at heart, I may decide to keep as many secrets as | possible to prevent information from being leveraged against me. | | The biggest challenge for me here is that I don't believe a team | or company can have my best interest at heart, as they often | conflict with the best interests of the company. | drewcoo wrote: | Is your main goal in life not to maximize stockholder profits? | How strange! | shoo wrote: | In practice, the company is not an entity able to set | objectives or make decisions, decisions are made and | influenced by individuals, and often the incentives of | individuals are _not_ aligned with maximising stockholder | profits. In many cases companies do things that do not | maximize stockholder profits. There are blatant examples of | this where a company CEO or company president is able to | plunder assets from the company for their own personal | enrichment (e.g. through self-dealing where the company buys | or sells assets to another entity controlled by the CEO). | There are also many cases where a project pursued by the | company may have zero or negative benefit to the firm and to | its shareholders, but provide many benefits to the employees | leading or participating in the project. | | William J. Bernstein's article Of Earnings, Dividends, and | Agency [1] offers an educational and entertaining perspective | on this: > in a taxless world a company's | dividend policy should matter not at all to the shareholder. | Inside academia, this is known as the "Modigliani-Miller | theorem." In the taxable world, of course, shareholders | prefer capital gains to dividends. So why do companies pay | them? > Because, to put it bluntly, corporate | officers are often scoundrels and theives. They lie. They | cheat. They steal. They invest in projects more on the basis | of turf, prestige, and politics than cash flow. They run | around in Learjets and eat fois gras on your nickel. | Shareholders intuitively know this and insist on spiriting | their cash away from these bad actors as fast as they can. | .... > "failure to disgorge cash leads to its | diversion or waste, which is detrimental to outside | shareholders' interest." .... > But what | is most remarkable about [the paper by La Porter, Lopez-de- | Silanes, Shleifer, Vishny][2] is its tone, which is almost | Menckenesque in its description of modern corporate ethics. | They describe a Hobbesian world in the kind of plain English | rarely seen in academic finance; "Firms appear to pay out | cash to investors because the opportunity to steal or | misinvest it are in part limited by law, and because minority | shareholders have enough power to extract it." | | If Bernstein were to update his 2000 article for 2022, he | might need to briefly discuss share buybacks as an | increasingly popular tax efficient alternative to dividends. | Share buybacks, like dividends, allow cash to be extracted | from company coffers and captured as gains for shareholders. | | [1] http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/700/agency.htm | | [2] the link given to the La Porter, Lopez-de-Silanes, | Shleifer, Vishny paper from Bernstein's article is dead. | There's a copy of the working paper at https://www.nber.org/s | ystem/files/working_papers/w6594/w6594... | TheDesolate0 wrote: | trynewideas wrote: | Reminded of a discussion where I had to call out that the company | culture of "transparency" was really only openness - everyone was | willing to offer valuable help and information, but nobody was | willing to publish it, even internally. During a rash of clumsily | handled (and opaque) M&As that were making people feel redundant | and competing for roles they already held, it became useful to | act oppositionally against co-workers, especially new ones being | hired in the middle of this infighting. The lack of deeply rooted | internal transparency made this possible. | | Everyone trusted each other _individually_ and could easily ask | questions that they knew to ask, when they already knew who to | ask. But to understand the shape of the company, or even who the | internal stakeholders were in projects, or access to basics like | repositories and documents, people faced a lack of trust coming | from the organization itself. | hitekker wrote: | Privacy over secrecy is an alright goal, but the rest of it | sounds like consultant double-talk. | | In theory, "eliminating secrets" means the manager listening to | the report's reservations and addressing them effectively. In | practice, it means rooting out dissent and silencing opposition. | The manager has created an environment where their reports don't | feel safe talking to them. Instead of asking hard questions like | "how the hell did I, the manager, screw up so badly", the article | suggests easy answers like Project Retros or 1:1s. | | The article is further undermined by author's inexperience in | product management. Brand building as an "expert" with only a few | years in industry is a red flag. | dasil003 wrote: | This part I felt was especially specious: | | > _Both backchanneling and micromanaging are easy to identify. | When there are different answers to the same question, that's | the result of backchanneling. When you see clones instead of | people, it's a sign of micromanagement. The good news is that | once you see these trends emerging in your team, there are some | concrete steps you can take to roll them back._ | | First of all, there are plenty reasons to have a private | conversation, and backchanneling is not a priori a bad thing. | And the part about micromanagement leading to people "being | clones" is gobbledygook--what does that even mean? And then the | suggestion that those things are magically fixed just by the | most basic entry level management practice of 1:1s and retros. | | Frankly, it feels as though the author has tried to generalize | some personal experience and completely lost the script. In | reality, management is very hard and very contextual. For any | given action there is a time and a place. Specifics matter. | boh wrote: | Unfortunately the effectiveness of a team doesn't necessarily | support the individuals within it. If a worker feels expendable, | which they typically are, they may keep "secrets" regarding the | functioning of certain aspects of a process or maintain the | exclusivity of some relevant relationship to make the team more | dependent on them. A team needs to support the necessary | incentives for the members of that team to feel the team's | success translates to their own personal success. | taeric wrote: | The opposite of secrecy is not transparency, but safely trusting. | | That is, some things are hidden, but not actively so. I don't | need to know how hard my peers are working. Or what they are | thinking. Or if they think the project will succeed. Or when they | work, for that matter. | | I trust that if they need or want help, they can ask. I also | trust that if I offer help, it is in good faith and it can be | turned down. I could be wrong that they need or want any help. | | Not all interactions have to be interventions. | | This is not that some things don't belong at work. It all depends | on the trust in the group. I agree that more trust is generally | better. But sometimes that is fostered by not forcing a spot | light on everyone. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | _> Although many factors contribute to a secrecy culture, they | all boil down to a lack of trust._ | | In my experience, there are two reasons for internal secrecy: | | 1) Security. There are things that only certain people need to | know. | | It may be trade secrets, or security. In any case, these can make | life difficult, but are important and valid secrets. | | 2) Gatekeepers | | These are individuals or organizations that are hoarding | influence and information; trying to leverage it for their own | gain. | | In my opinion, #2 is much more common than #1, but they will | often say that they are following the diktats of #1. | darkerside wrote: | Third reason is that since information is distracting. Say | there is a 30% chance of layoffs in the next quarter. Should | this be communicated down the chain when it's not actionable | and will do nothing but probably effectuate itself? | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | I'd say that's a #1 thing. | | Secrecy is an important part of running any organization. | | I worked for a company that was _seriously_ tinfoil. I | thought, over the top, but they had certain policies, and I | abided by them; whether or not I agreed with them. | gedy wrote: | While I agree in principle, the main issue I've seen many times | is this usually rolls down to apply to engineering only. "Oh you | devs can't fix that bug or refactor that without talking to 'the | team'". "Why is that architect suggesting and interfering with | 'the team'"? etc, but then UX and product have their own | planning, initiatives, roadmaps, etc that are totally off the | books and never discussed by this so called team. | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | We had a public channel for our team and invited people to join | it to watch our work. And then we got a private channel as | well... and all our work and conversations moved to the private | channel. Now the public channel is crickets and the other teams | don't know what we're doing. I can actually feel a sort of | tension now, like the outside teams don't feel as connected to | us. They don't have the opportunity to ask questions about what | we're working on, see what our other tasks are, or start | discussions on related subjects. It sucks. I don't want privacy | or secrecy, I want us to all feel we can talk about anything | together. | Silhouette wrote: | This kind of totally open, real-time flow of information is great | until it's not. It can easily turn into an unstructured free-for- | all on whichever channel everyone is on as a substitute for more | effective communication, decision-making and documentation. It | can also easily become a vehicle for one or more lurking manager | types who simply have to know everything all the time, whether or | not that brings any actual benefit to the team. Both of these | scenarios tend to be toxic to productivity and eventually team | morale. Unfortunately with the recent emphasis on remote working | that a lot of organisations weren't used to and everyone adopting | Teams/Slack/whatever both of these scenarios also seem to happen | quite often. | jka wrote: | > It can also easily become a vehicle for one or more lurking | manager types who simply have to know everything all the time, | whether or not that brings any actual benefit to the team. | | Given that type of character within the working environment, | I'd personally prefer that their communications were largely | on-display to all the teams around them. | | Them knowing everything that is going on doesn't necessarily | seem a problem in itself, but if they're using that to cause | disruption or selectively push different parts of the | organization in different directions, then -- unless there is | some broader plan that they could share -- it seems like the | teams could more easily encourage the person onto a healthier | path by having visibility into those patterns. | Silhouette wrote: | _Given that type of character within the working environment, | I 'd personally prefer that their communications were largely | on-display to all the teams around them._ | | But _their_ communications are often the last things to be | shared, except when they are insisting that _everyone else_ | share everything. IME this is a bad idea for much the same | reasons you don 't want managers in code reviews. You don't | promote honest feedback and constructive criticism when those | giving and receiving the comments feel like management are | snooping on everything all the time. | | _Them knowing everything that is going on doesn 't | necessarily seem a problem in itself, but if they're using | that to cause disruption_ | | Bingo. It's the disruption that causes the problem. But both | micromanagement and chilling effects can be extremely | disruptive. | jka wrote: | > But both micromanagement and chilling effects can be | extremely disruptive. | | Completely agree. | | > You don't promote honest feedback and constructive | criticism when those giving and receiving the comments feel | like management are snooping on everything all the time. | | Also true. | | But management couldn't do much to coerce people -- | including plausibly-deniably intimidating, harassing and | spooking staff -- even if they're watching everything they | do -- without themselves entering into some risk. | | Add to that the fact that any kind of sophisticated | employee-trolling would require co-ordination and research, | and transparency becomes more and more attractive, as long | as it's applied in both directions. | | (I'll add that part of the working theory here is that | rank-and-file staff (non-management) are on equal footing; | not always necessarily true, perhaps, but should be on | aggregate for large enough populations) | dasil003 wrote: | This is a simplistic take. Of course trust is a pre-requisite to | a healthy team, and people should feel comfortable speaking out, | there's no debate about that. However, transparency is not a | silver bullet. I've seen plenty of teams that trust each other | but don't get very much done. And if what you are doing is large | and involves more than a two-pizza team or challenging tradeoffs | then effective communication becomes much harder. If everyone | just speaks their unfiltered thoughts without thinking about how | those words will be perceived there is a high likelihood of | confusion and churn. There is also the matter of expertise, and | the fact that many important truths may not be grokked by all | stakeholders, so just blurting them out may lead to furrowed | brows and unproductive lines of questioning--or worse--a bad | decision fueled by misunderstanding. | jka wrote: | This makes sense, and it helps a lot when conversation is | focused and concise (while also allowing for a small amount of | redundancy: people may acknowledge and display their receipt of | previous messages by repeating them in their own words). | | When you mentioned communication becoming harder: were you | referring to audio/video discussions (in-person or otherwise) | and/or also text-based messaging? | lowwave wrote: | > Of course trust is a pre-requisite to a healthy team it is | hard to rust someone on the team with technical tasks when that | person is not technically capable for a developer. | Supermancho wrote: | > However, transparency is not a silver bullet | | That isn't a claim. The claim is that a team with full | transparency is more effective (in terms of work done) than one | with a limited transparency. | | What's interesting is there's talk about one-on-ones like they | are an acknowledged best practice, but nothing about | established payscales (or open salaries). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-26 23:00 UTC)