Get best of the week

Is this not constructive, or are you serving the petition to the king?

“This is not constructive,” they say. All of them. Subordinates, parallel, superior. I am so used to this phrase that I stopped noticing it.

More precisely, I stopped responding to it. And if it’s completely true, I react negatively to it. Because the meaning, the purpose of constructive communication has long been emasculated.

The goal, as I remember it, roughly corresponds to the definition from the Wiktionary: constructive - creating the basis for further work.

But in reality what?

But in reality, the requirement for constructiveness has long turned into an excuse for anything.

Programmers


Wrote a man govnokod. I understand that saying “your code is shit” is not constructive. Yes, such a verdict does not create the basis for further work. Although ... Yes, perhaps - it does not. It’s more like trolling - it immediately begs the question “what’s wrong?”.

And if I say: you wrote a function that is already there, almost one to one, use it better. What do I hear in response? This is not constructive. What is not constructive? Well, I could have said it before. So I said. Even when he gave you the task, he said - look over there, I'm sure 90 percent sure that there is a suitable function. What is again not constructive? Now the tone is inappropriate.

Ideological


Or the other person is rushing about with his ideas. Yes, it will be right - "worn". As with a written bag. Runs up and tells - in, look, what a cool idea! Well, I look - in silence, of course. Yes, the idea is not bad. Rather, it’s not an idea, but a hypothesis that, when implementing this idea, will be tested. And the implementation costs are small - about 15 minutes, probably. And you don’t need money at all.

So I say - the idea sounds great, it would be necessary to verify it. What do I hear in response? This is not constructive. What, I apologize, I said unconstructive? What idea needs to be implemented and verified? Bzhzhzhzhzh ... I don’t understand something in this world ... If the idea is not implemented and tested in practice, why is it needed? What, again unconstructively?

And so many times. I was already embarrassed. Only with such "ideological" do you start talking about the implementation of their ideas - immediately the accusation of unconstructiveness, almost tears in your eyes. Wait a minute, I’ll do everything myself, just don’t cry. I am realizing your idea! If it takes off, you will tell everyone that you did it all! And he again - unconstructively, to tears and to run.

Then he learned that the "ideological" are afraid of the realization of their ideas, like fire. Their bread is unverifiable ideas. To be admired, as the paintings of great artists. And the most filthy person who can meet on their way is the one who is going to realize their ideas. Although, there is a magic pill - "it is not constructive."

Call mom


And at general meetings in the presence of the leadership “this is not constructive” is the best way to “call mom”. Any claim can be rejected in the presence of a boss who drowns for constructiveness. Especially if the opponent’s unconstructiveness is wrapped in the famous expression “criticizing - offer.”

Here at the meeting, the manufacturer says that the suppliers are working poorly - they don’t bring the cheap parts on time, because of which the assembly rises with a stake. What do they hear in response? Not constructively. Nefig criticize, it is necessary to offer. What can the manufacturer offer? Work, damn it, fine! What will he hear in response? Well, you know for yourself.

Do you want from the manufacturer efficient proposals for organizing the work of suppliers? Easy. Just remember then to reassign the purchase to production.

The situation is similar with managers, especially those that are controlled by programmers. Programmers themselves will write a script, replacing these managers.

Incompetent


People who are incompetent in some area, but who are involved in something in this area, are especially guilty of constructive requirements. For example, almost everyone who breaks into development without being a developer — managers, customers, bosses, analysts, testers, etc.

By themselves, they are great guys, but when they start to express their ideas and suggestions, or even criticize, and receive a legitimate response from the developer ("your place is near ... your workplace, darling"), the first thing they start to yell is constructiveness. Tell them the same thing, but constructively.

At the same time, it is practically impossible to guess what they mean by “constructively”. Any answer can be driven under the criteria of non-constructiveness, if desired. The classic situation is “prove that you are not a camel” - sit and think how to wrap up your phrase so that it is recognized as constructive.

And most importantly, do not ask the question why you should do this. Because it has to be constructive. Because you are a camel.

Strangers at a cocktail party


There is such a wonderful book - “Rework. Business without prejudice, ”and it has a wonderful chapter on this topic. She is so beautiful that I will quote her.

“At cocktail parties where guests do not know each other, conversations are usually empty and cause awkwardness. We are talking about weather, sports, television shows, etc. You bypass conversations on serious topics and refrain from discussing contentious issues.

Quite another matter is small soulful parties at which old friends gather. This is where the really interesting conversations and heated debate are! At the end of such an evening, you realize that you were actually able to discover something new.

With the quick hiring of many people, it will all end with just the problem of “strangers at a cocktail party”. New faces constantly flash around, so everyone is inevitably polite to each other and trying to avoid any conflict or drama. No one says: "This idea sucks." Everyone indulges each other, not challenging.

This indulgence ultimately leads the company to difficulties. When people behave dishonestly, you must have the courage to tell them about it. In an atmosphere where no one offends anyone, there is neither enthusiasm, nor love for a common cause.

You need to create an environment in which everyone feels comfortable enough to honestly talk about difficult things. You need to understand how long you can “kick” someone. You should know what is really meant when a person pronounces certain phrases.

So hire with caution. This is the only way not to end up at a strangers cocktail party. ” [1].

Bureaucracy


The requirement for constructiveness, in fact, has long turned into a bureaucracy. Well i.e. most people are quite adequate, they do not need to be reminded of the constructiveness of communication, they do this by default.

And even they themselves sometimes require constructiveness from inadequate or toxic characters - this is an element of education. But there are a number of guys who, with the help of the requirement for constructiveness, block the path of everything that they don't like.

Their ideas cannot be criticized, because criticism is not constructive. You can not criticize their work, because it is not constructive. They cannot be criticized themselves (not as a person, but as workers).

The requirement for constructiveness turns into an obstacle, like a list of documents for subsidies. Your opinion will not be heard, understood, or accepted until you design it properly - constructively. You cannot refuse a task, propose your solution, make it your own way until you collect a pack of pieces of paper to satisfy the requirements of constructiveness.

Snowball


Oral and written communication in the spirit of constructivism quickly turns into a self-generated stream of meaningless trash. Because of this, I almost stopped responding to letters.

Some dude writes an idea, proposal or task for evaluation. God forbid to answer constructively - with implementation options, a positive attitude and praise. In response, “ok, we’ll do”, no, the joyful lucky person will write another kiloton of rubbish on the topics “but I still have an idea,” “I have been proposing for a long time” or “in fact, everything is more complicated there”. And the more constructive you answer him, the more you get pseudo-constructive nonsense.

In spoken language it’s generally horrible. A thought cannot be expressed in a nutshell. Well i.e. You can try something, but constructive apologists will immediately notice that words are not enough. Where is the preamble? Where is the pitch? Soft entry to the topic? Positive attitude? Retelling the background? Suggestions? Findings? After all, it should be constructive.

As a result, it is easier for such guys to just say nothing, and ignore their questions and suggestions, otherwise you will be drawn into the endless chewing of sugar snot, which you yourself hang up, because it should be constructive.

Highlight Ticket


There are a lot of people in the world who know how to play this game - to turn their thoughts into constructive form. Well, there is still a large crowd of guys, especially in technical specialties who do not know how to do this. They do not own the same notorious soft skills.

The problem is that in real work, the representatives of these two camps mix and are forced to work together. And the "winner" is the one who is tighter, i.e. knows how to not only form an idea, but also to pretend that it is constructive.

“Win” - in the sense of occupying higher positions, receiving (sometimes) more money, becoming “opinion leaders”, etc., continue the list of “prizes” and “important achievements” yourself.

It seems, and figs with them, let them have fun, but there is a danger - not to hear the opinion of normal people. Yes, I’m not drowning now for techies - there are plenty of normal people in other specialties, including managers, doctors, teachers and cleaners. They just do not know how to shape their thoughts constructively.

Roughly speaking, they don’t know the “constructive language”. Although, in fact, they know, just the rules of this language in a particular organization are written by those who are hooked on the topic of constructiveness, and can twist the requirements, as you like. With one simple goal - that everything was in their own way.

Therefore, only the requirements of those who managed to pass the requirements of constructiveness fall into the product. Therefore, a bunch of govnokod lives inside the software, because a cool developer making a review code does not know how to make comments constructively. Therefore, the office is painted pink because no one but the designer was able to wrap the phrase “Pink? Have you fucked up? ”

Bibliographic list


1. Rework: a business without prejudice / Jason Fraid, David Heinemeyer Hensson; trans. from English Ivan Serumkin. - 10th ed. - M .: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber, 2016, p. 147-148.

PS Get fucked up! Bibliographic list!

More articles:


All Articles