4 ms·

It seems to me that the reason you spend time accruing trust credit is to maintain your likability among people when you're obligated to do things that are unli

by detry 11y ago

It seems to me that the reason you spend time accruing trust credit is to maintain your likability among people when you're obligated to do things that are unlikable. That's fine. But how much does that improve performance or enable progress? What is the optimal amount of likability for healthy workplace that performs well? Let's take military bootcamp as a counter-example. People form strong friendships in a high stress environment where they might actively dislike their superiors. Their skills, abilities and tasks progress in leaps and bounds. Obviously this doesn't directly apply to normal workplaces, but provides an example of a situation where disregard for likability doesn't result in a bad work environment. I believe the sense of belonging is a core human need, and people go to different lengths in making sure they have that. We all do at some level. What you do with "trust credit" probably makes your workplace a nicer environment, but I don't know how much it matters for performance.

XorNot 11y ago
Military bootcamp is a very specific experience that is not meant to represent the general life of being in the military, but is meant to prepare you for the differences. It is a very poor example for any functional workplace because it really isn't one, even for elsewhere in the military.
wpietri 11y ago
The military is a terrible example. It is literally illegal to leave. If you leave during war, they can execute you. Boot camps are meant to deeply change how humans behave so that they can survive war, a deeply traumatic experience that often results in lasting psychological damage. When people apply boot camp models in civilian contexts, abuse is widespread: https://www.google.com/search?q=boot+camp+abuse https://www.google.com/search?q=boot+camp+abuse > but I don't know how much it matters for performance. Sure, we can agree that you don't know. Maybe you should try it and find out. But I'm saying that in my experience it has mattered a great deal, and as recently as yesterday. You're saying that you want people to be different, to learn to take harsh criticism and subtract the harshness. I prefer to work with people as they are, which is as human beings who are sensitive to harshness, people who have a much easier time listening to people that they trust than people who are assholes to them. I'm not particularly good at it. I'm arrogant and self-centered enough that I'd rather just say what I want in a fashion that is convenient and emotionally satisfying to me. But if I am going to work with other people, I often have to choose between the thing that is easy for me and the thing that makes change easy for them. Even if I didn't want people to generally do well and be happy (which I do), I just won't get very far in having the real-world effects I want if other people are indifferent or hostile to me.

by detry 11y ago

XorNot 11y ago

Military bootcamp is a very specific experience that is not meant to represent the general life of being in the military, but is meant to prepare you for the differences. It is a very poor example for any functional workplace because it really isn't one, even for elsewhere in the military.

wpietri 11y ago

The military is a terrible example. It is literally illegal to leave. If you leave during war, they can execute you. Boot camps are meant to deeply change how humans behave so that they can survive war, a deeply traumatic experience that often results in lasting psychological damage. When people apply boot camp models in civilian contexts, abuse is widespread: https://www.google.com/search?q=boot+camp+abuse https://www.google.com/search?q=boot+camp+abuse > but I don't know how much it matters for performance. Sure, we can agree that you don't know. Maybe you should try it and find out. But I'm saying that in my experience it has mattered a great deal, and as recently as yesterday. You're saying that you want people to be different, to learn to take harsh criticism and subtract the harshness. I prefer to work with people as they are, which is as human beings who are sensitive to harshness, people who have a much easier time listening to people that they trust than people who are assholes to them. I'm not particularly good at it. I'm arrogant and self-centered enough that I'd rather just say what I want in a fashion that is convenient and emotionally satisfying to me. But if I am going to work with other people, I often have to choose between the thing that is easy for me and the thing that makes change easy for them. Even if I didn't want people to generally do well and be happy (which I do), I just won't get very far in having the real-world effects I want if other people are indifferent or hostile to me.