I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me
11 points by lr0
11 points by lr0
I really dislike articles like this. They feel like (to me) that they are framing the choice between two extremes of "bluntness/directness all the time in every interaction" versus the most extreme obsequious and deferential behaviour possible. In reality, interactions with other humans exist on a spectrum, and occur repeatedly over a long period of time. If I am leaving a minor comment on a PR, I do not need to bury the comment in dozens of pleases and thank yous, and if I am working with someone who does do that, I would probably pull them aside to let them know how their behaviour is probably not accomplishing what they want.
On the other hand, if a coworker that I interact with regularly never asks "how are you?" or never says "please" or "thank you", or uses any of the other "politeness words" or otherwise signals that they in some way care about me as a human being instead of just a resource to produce code, I would probably also pull that person aside to tell them how their interactions are being perceived.
It is, I believe, possible to be professional AND polite AND occasionally start a slack message with "how's it going" before diving into a technical topic, while also not burying every interaction in noise.
My last point is that politeness and rudeness are interpreted vastly differently across cultures and nationalities, and I find that Crocker's Rules take an extremely white, male, anglo-saxon perspective on what it means to exist in a community (yes, a workplace is a community) with others.
I agree with you. For Crocker's rules to work (that is, to constantly be on the blunt receiving end of all communication:) requires that the receiver of the direct language is also unreasonably open, humble, patient, kind, and approachable. Often to an extent that would be strange to expect from a the type of direct individual that would appreciate Crocker's rules.
If someone arrogant says they play by Crocker's rules, this could be interpreted as a challenge. Even if they are satiated by their peers' are superficial directness, this false sense of security might well leave deeper issues unaddressed. Crocker's rules can create something of a defensive mental stance, too: after all, "if it really were a problem, they would have brought it up, because I told them I follow Crocker's rules". Just because someone says they won't be affected by very blunt communication doesn't mean that their attitudes towards the deliverers of that blunt information won't subconsciously change.
Abrasive interactions tend to wear people down, and while I love being direct, a high-bandwidth communication channel requires more maintenance beyond mere usage. (It's almost like people invest a lot of effort into relationships to keep high-bandwidth information channels open!)
Edit: My comment above, phrased for those who follow Crocker's rules:
Directness is not the same as abrasiveness, and conflating the two does clear communication a disservice. I also dislike the original article for this reason.
For example, I found the text in your edited section far easier to understand. Due to the lack of labels like "arrogant" for potential readers, I would also describe it as less abrasive.
Finally; of course keeping direct communication requires social maintenance: it's an act of trust. I'm not aware of anyone arguing that quality communication is less work.
On the last point, I really like the culture map by Erin Meyer. It can really help understand how to navigate interactions in international teams, and precisely why something like Crocker's rule is not really going to work in those settings.
the most extreme obsequious and deferential behaviour possible
I'm understanding your phrasing here to indicate you think the post's examples are strawmen and/or overly exaggerated beyond reality, but if anything they understate the level of non-meaningful message content that is expected/demanded in some environments.
It's common to receive Slack messages that are full of "sorry to bother you, have you had a chance to look at ..." or "hope everything's going well, looking forward to next week's sync meeting, by the way when reviewing the spec I happened to notice that ...". Emails are somehow even worse, multiple paragraphs might go by before the actual topic comes up.
And you have to be careful not only of the person you're communicating with, but bystanders! People at some companies will get legitimately angry if they think you're being "disrespectful" by speaking directly and plainly.
In one memorable incident I was discussing a somewhat contentious design concept with another engineer while our managers were in the room. After the meeting, the other engineer's manager emailed me to apologize for how rudely the other engineer was speaking to me. Except I hadn't noticed at all, I thought it was just a good discussion that was rapidly establishing shared facts and points of disagreement to research later, so I was utterly confused at the email. It was the lack of padding and polite nonsense that the manager had keyed on as being rude.
I find that Crocker's Rules take an extremely white, male, anglo-saxon perspective on what it means to exist in a community
I think I have the opposite view, based on the experience that the further away (culturally) a person was born from England or New England the more amenable they are to just directly saying whatever it is they want to say.
In particular people from eastern European (e.g. Poland, Ukraine, Croatia) and eastern Asian (China, Korea) cultural backgrounds can be extremely direct once you convince them you won't report them to HR for it. It's wonderful.
Brett from San Francisco will write three sentences of apologia and well-wishing for every sentence of content (and might get seriously angry if you don't do the same!), but Andrzej or Yuyong will just get to the point.
Maybe edit out "anglo-saxon" then. If Janet from North Carolina isn't polite, she's gonna get denied a promotion because she's aggressive and mean. If a Black person from the south isn't literally the most professional and polite person on planet earth, they will get reported to HR and/or fired. This is for the exact same behaviour that Andrzej exhibits.
I also find your examples of Asian cultures to be curious: I don't know much about Chinese culture, but I'm moderately well-versed in Korean culture and what they consider to be "normal" levels of politeness are off the charts deferential in western culture.
Edit to add: I also find that Brett from San Francisco is a strawman. I've worked in tech for a long time. I've never met a Brett. I've met a lot of incredibly toxic people who claim "I'm just being direct" when you confront them.
Maybe edit out "anglo-saxon" then. If Janet from North Carolina isn't polite, she's gonna get denied a promotion because she's aggressive and mean. If a Black person from the south isn't literally the most professional and polite person on planet earth, they will get reported to HR and/or fired.
My general advice to people who find themselves in that position is to find a better job.
I know that's not always possible to do immediately, but if someone works in the tech industry and they're still expected to act like a deferential butler then they're not in a role that values them. They'll get more respect, money, and opportunities for advancement by finding a different employer.
Separately, regarding people who are likely to have experienced discrimination and/or lack of respect in their local culture, I try to be encouraging and supportive -- which is different from empty bland politeness. "This PR is looking great, I especially like how it handles <some detail>! In the tests, could you also add a test case for <input that would cause a crash> and <input that would produce a wrong result>?" and so on.
I also find your examples of Asian cultures to be curious: I don't know much about Chinese culture, but I'm moderately well-versed in Korean culture and what they consider to be "normal" levels of politeness are off the charts deferential in western culture.
There is a level of politeness that is mandatory in professional situations such as meetings with an esteemed colleague from the SRE team to discuss development velocity, and there is a level of directness when going out after work for drinks with that cranky SRE who keeps insisting on more tests in your PRs. Even if they're the same person.
If you can convince them to "talk to me like you've had three beers, I promise I won't get angry" then they might come around. Depends on the person, though, some are just standoffish (or unfriendly, or dislike you personally) and they'll continue to be polite no matter what you do.
Edit to add: I also find that Brett from San Francisco is a strawman. I've worked in tech for a long time. I've never met a Brett. I've met a lot of incredibly toxic people who claim "I'm just being direct" when you confront them.
Again, not a strawman, I have personally worked with multiple Bretts. If you haven't then you've had great judgement in choosing where to work.
No man, I'm going to say "Sorry but... x" and "When you have the time, can you ... y? No rush" because it's polite and normal. The examples here aren't just blunt or technical, they're rude - the second person sounds like an engineer who's also an inconsiderate dick. Other people have priorities, responsibilities and limited time, "here's the trace" is unnecessarily demanding and disrespectful.
"The current error handling swallows exceptions silently, which is making debugging hell. We should propagate errors to the caller."
Thanks man, I'm glad I made debugging hell for you. No consideration of the factors that make debugging hell, no consideration for why debugging this might be your personal hell, just a flat out "you've made my life hell". Don't say that to someone who's not trying to be malicious. Be polite because all people deserve respect by default:
"The current error handling swallows exceptions silently, which is making my experience debugging difficult. Should we propagate errors to the caller? I think we should, because x. Do you know why it's y? Cheers 👍️"
I have met people who use the directness excuse to be plain rude or even bully juniors, so I really like the idea of these rules being implemented by the receiver.
I’m not arguing against you and believe what you said to hold true in many places, unfortunately. In my experience though, where I’ve mostly been in a junior capacity, the politeness becomes exhausting after a while. It’s also difficult to lay out the Crockers Rule as a junior. If your seniors are polite, you have no option but to be even more polite. Of course, I’d rather have an exhaustingly polite culture than toxic rudeness disguised as directness, but it would be nicer to have a more plain speaking culture for a change.
Heh, this reminds me of how so many times, when someone says they're "brutally honest", they're frequently more into excusing brutality than advancing honesty.
Regardless, part of social communication is the interpersonal negotiation of how to communicate with each other. It's fine for the author to convey to colleagues they want directness.
But it's a mistake to assume others are "making the recipient wade through noise to get to signal". Communication serves multiple purposes, and information conveyance is only part of it.
I read about this school of thought in the book The Courage to be Disliked, although, it never referred to it as Crockers Rules. At the very least, it’s liberating to speak in plain terms and not overthink about the opposite party’s reaction to that. The book I mentioned is written in the form of a Socratic discussion and focuses on the Adlerian Philosophy if anyone’s interested.
In my experience, in practice messages that would require Crocker's Rules are rarely "great" messages with a lot of info, and usually are just more about emotional state of mind/opinions.
"Tbh this code sucks" is the sort of thing that you might feel are good but that stuff is not only not actionable but might be totally wrong!
While I'm guilty of sending that kind of message, I feel like if you really go deep into "send me just info" then it's like... for a lot of messages you end up turning "this code sucks" to "I think this code sucks".
At the end of the day, technical convos work better when you stick to facts. And a good way to stick to facts is to try to say things in ways that don't make the other side mad... because often the things that make the other side mad are emotional stuff, not actual technical facts!
A dumb thing, imagine the following Crocker Requirer:
"I think this code sucks for reasons A, B, and C"
Here is a variant:
"A, B, and C"
(if you want to express discontent, "A, B and C bug me")
Notice how you probably don't need Crocker in the second one, and in the third one it's basically you saying "this is a me thing".
Even stuff like "this doesn't meet our code standards"... it feels like if you're going to have a convo about why you might as well jump to the chase with the breakdown.