|
|
|
|
|
by kqr
1376 days ago
|
|
I hate that idea. If I criticise an idea in public, and I'm wrong in my criticism, then five other people will immediately correct me. Or provide nuance and perspective I miss. Also with private criticism, any decision tends to gravitate toward the opinion of the highest paid person. If the debate happens in public, everyone has more of an equal chance to be heard. ---- Edit: almost forgot! Private criticism also leads to an air of suspicion, in my experience. When everything public is upbeat and positive you start to wonder what terriblenesses people are hiding. It might be nothing, but that's the thing -- you just don't know. Being able to publically discuss both the good and the bad is a prerequisite for a smooth operation, and the hallmark of a mature organisation. |
|
This. When I get criticized in private on an technical matter by someone more senior than me and disagree with them there isn't much I can do. Maybe I already have a good relationship with them and we can talk it out but if not I just have to suck it up. I can maybe escalate to higher up but that is also very risky and might more harm than good.
There isn't much I can do to defend myself.
In public there is a chance of other people offering their opinion. Senior people might get kept in check if their critic seems too unreasonable to the rest of the team.
I think a good rule is to criticize technical stuff in public and personal stuff in private.