[notepad0x90]

> You could have just say "This line here will have harmful impact on users".

But I don't even care about that line, it's already caught and will be fixed. I want them to know it was their lack of care and their negligence, I want them to take personal responsibility for that and for future work they do. But I also would want such a person to know it isn't a personal attack, just a very serious area of improvement and a mistake that can't be repeated.

I suppose my point is, the receiver of the criticism should allow for negative words and personal criticism without taking it as an insult. but the phrasing should be focused on the problem with relation to the person that caused it. The moment the focus of the sentence becomes the person, that is probably inappropriate? Just thinking out loud.

[evgen]

> I want them to know it was their lack of care and their negligence, I want them to take personal responsibility for that and for future work they do. But I also would want such a person to know it isn't a personal attack, just a very serious area of improvement and a mistake that can't be repeated.

You are an asshole. Your lack of care and negligence in your interactions with your peers has a detrimental effect upon your team's productivity and internal communication. Please take responsibility for this failure in intra-personal skills and acknowledge the impact your lack of empathy will have on your future work. This is not personal, I am just directing your attention to an area you need to improve and where future mistakes like this should not be repeated.

[notepad0x90]

I think you misunderstood me, and I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. In my opinion your response is not helpful to having a constructive discussion. Since you insulted me directly, I will not discuss the details of this topic with you.

[amy214]

Your core point isn't wrong. If someone identifies a business-ending bug before it causes problems - absolutely you want to let the coder know how gnarly that is. I speak for myself, perhaps others, when it's this point that people don't like:

>In other words, you need people to feel very bad about what they've done, not as an attack on their personality, character or even competence but to help them understand the severity of the situation.

So, yes, clearly communicate the bug is existential in nature, but make it "OUR" bug, not "YOUR" bug, that we will fix it together, express great trust and confidence in the person despite this. What you get out of that is - yes, actually you would be making them feel bad, in this case the guilt of disappointing someone who believes in them (actually probably they would feel worse here than a direct "nothing personal" attack), and at the same time preserving and even enhancing the trust and loyalty of your relationship. Directly making them feel horrible by chewing them out has the same effect, but at the cost of burning your relationship, trust, motivation, etc. Difference between "safe relationship" and "unsafe relationship"

[notepad0x90]

I agree with everything you said. I think it's also important to let them know that you wouldn't be having that conversation with them if you didn't trust them to learn from the experience. I don't support or promote chewing out, berating, or being abusive to someone in any context. I think that's what the parent commenter misunderstood.

The main thing I learned from this thread is to avoid making a person feel bad in the sense that they are alone in it or somehow they are incompetent and irresponsible. A lot of times, I lead with one of my great screw-ups just so they know I'm not talking down to them. it's more of a "screw ups happen, I've screwed up. and now so have you, we can't make mistakes like this, it was really bad" type of a discussion.

[aatd86]

Ha!

[542354234235]

But you don’t know negligence is the reason. You are just assuming that you understand how the situation arose and what their internal state of mind was the led to it. But it could have ignorance, rather than “negligence”. They might not fully understand that specific code usage, in which case instruction and mentorship would be the remedy.

Second, do you have any evidence that calling someone negligent actually leads to better performance? Is that an established best practice for reducing errors or does that just satisfy your own feelings of annoyance or dissatisfaction?

Third, “this is negligent” is not constructive. Neither is "This is really bad, you messed up, this type of a mistake is unacceptable and horrific". These are not actionable nor are they specific. They are emotional. Feedback outlining (or directing them to resources) on how to do a proper code review to catch mistakes like this, is actionable and specific.

Finally, the swiss cheese method of safety is always better than the “just stop making mistakes” method. Aviation safety does not rely on pilots “just not making mistakes”. There are studies of procedures, warnings, training, etc. to reduce the likelihood of an arror and redundant systems to make errors survivable. And there are checklists, so many checklists. Have you instituted checklists for code writing and review before it comes to your level? If something is so critical, is it negligent to allow code to be written and submitted based on each persons individual, subjective idea on what is thorough and what is a negligent level of review?

[jackyinger]

You’re focusing on your side of the communication, but to be really effective in any communication you need to focus on how it will be perceived by the recipients.

If they messed up, you want to help make them better so it doesn’t happen again right? So really you want a positive outcome for everyone. You don’t have to sugar coat it tho, just share it in a way that makes it a learning moment.

[notepad0x90]

You're totally right, I can agree with what you said, but adding to it: I would want the other person to understand how bad the situation is, that's all. I used the analogy (hyperbole) of misconfiguring a nuclear bomb's timer in a sibling comment.