So many things in life are a double edged sword.
While the current zeitgeist prefers the use of positive and actionable suggestions for improvement vs. simply calling our fault, and this is arguably more constructive, there are places for all types of people.
I used to be responsible for conducting trials of new things with end users. There are different scales for these depending on how far along the project is and other things. So often times you’re selecting these groups and picking X number of locations or people by whatever criteria is called for or you think is best for gaining feedback. So after any length of time you tend to keep lists of places to get feedback you’ve worked with and know will work with you again and had some element that you think is valuable.
So lots of people make “happy lists.” Lists full of people or locations where they tend to get excited and have positive outlooks on new things. Where there are generally intelligent people who often have lots of skills and knowledge either on the product end or on the business and development end so that their feedback is polished and professional and easily parsed. People who are just pleasant to deal with.
I had some of those- but my lists were FULL of people or locations I’d worked with that were miserable. Those who hated change, those who hated my company, those who weren’t the brightest or most skilled and those who had very little subject matter knowledge on the product or business and development sides but were skilled in their own work.
I liked people who raised issues- no matter how small or pointless. Complainers and whiners and not pickers.
I thank the not pickers. While it didn’t always make sense to cater to their every little bit pick- often times it did, and ultimately that feedback allowed us to prep the relevant parties for what to expect with wider product release so they could be ready with training materials or scripts to help diffuse the push back or so they could otherwise have data etc. to make for a better overall project end result.
I didn’t need them to offer solutions and that wasn’t their job- in fact, when it comes to things like that, simply giving people what they think they want can be the worst thing to do. There’s a balancing point between listening to what they say they want and understanding what they are doing and providing what bridges that gap. This isn’t philosophical- this is just my experience of seeing countless horrible failures because someone just did what the end user said they wanted. It depends on the user and size of the user base of course- a tool for one person who is sharp-
And you know well enough, Maybe they can design it themselves. Something for a quarter million people who are of mixed judgment…. Maybe don’t give them exactly what they want unless you want to end up with Homer’s car from that one Simpsons episode or worse.
So often times what are seen as “negative traits” are just signs a person isn’t where they perhaps are best suited to be. At a very high level table where these broad strategies and goals are being thought up you might not want a nit picker- they tend to bog the discussion down. At the top level you aren’t concerned so much about details- if you have good people you trust you’re going to come up with ideas and then they’re going to figure out how to do it in the details or tell you if it cannot be done feasibly. You may not want a nit picker at the labor level where you need people who are action oriented and follow established process or are problem solvers who find where
there is room for improvement and help to better the overall processes etc.
but a nit picker can be great for all sorts of detail oriented work. From the very narrowly focused like testing or quality work on specific product etc. to broader focused like compliance work. An old joke about the ISO standards of quality was that an ISO number at the minimum certifies that your processes may be terrible, but you do them consistently terribly. Lol.
Where there are governments and regulating bodies or financial regulators involved though- the core focus of compliance isn’t on the results or the profits or any of that- their primary role is to ensure that everything done, everything produced, is within the often strict rules for compliance.
I like to have not pickers along for things like pre planning meetings at lower levels like team or department levels. They often do slow things down a bit but they also often raise the red flag on dangers. Having a nit picker there who points out problems is a great way to see problems before they happen, and sometimes their seemingly irrelevant concerns are linked to a larger issue that someone else will realize upon reflecting on what they said. It’s also the case that the nit picker can be a sounding board of sorts. They may raise concerns that other team members have but won’t voice. So you can often ease fears or reservations of entire large groups and make people feel much better about the project and raise morale if you have a nit picker to bring up concerns that you can then assuage to a group. And much the same as my nit picker test groups fed data to be used on larger release…
Having nit pickers in pre planning stages can give you some idea as to what concerns people may have further along down the project chain. If you have 5 people at a medium level project meeting and one is a nit picker who raises all these issues big and small- you have some idea what you might encounter as you move to larger groups of lower level teams or to sponsors and stake holders etc.
that also gives you the ability to already have come up with solid responses so you are less likely to be caught flat footed and can better achieve buy in.
So often times it is my opinion that when we have trouble with a person or a type of person it may just be that person isn’t being utilized to best leverage their strengths. Few people have no redeeming qualities-
And in the sense of their ability to fit in to society or a group or be useful to society or a group, being able to find a persons “value” is a skill. It’s easy to take a Mary Sue type and be able to get value from them. A leader or manager only had value in that role if they give something to the team. If all they do is sign forms and do administrative tasks they’re an administrator or a secretary not a leader or a manager. It’s not that they aren’t helping the team by doing those things so the team can work- it’s that those things don’t command the salary and respect that many “leadership roles” provide. The average VP makes quite a bit more and is valued quite a bit higher than the average clerical worker- so those in such a position need to earn that by providing something that those workers don’t or else they should just be treated as a clerical role.
So to that end- if you’re employees are all amazing and don’t need you to do their jobs, if almost any half competent warm body could fill your desk, if you can’t or don’t provide council and coaching to your team as far as bettering their performance and skills or growing towards their personal and career goals- you aren’t really leading anyone. So one of the skills that makes for a suitable leader or manager is the ability to identify peoples abilities and traits and help to place them where those traits and skills are of the best value. It is generally universally true that a skill which separates the successful and often happy from the less so tends to be the ability to take a “negative” and turn it into a win. In daily life that can be turning a ripped dress into an amazing skirt or jacket. That can be taking a broken or discarded bulky item and making an awesome custom furniture or art piece. It can be simple things even like taking a loss on an investment and turning it into
A tax write off. There are millions of ways to take something that seems like a negative and turn it into something that works well or opportunity. So that’s a useful skill to work on.
The dark humor comes in when we realize that if we are the sort of person that Complains about a “Sandra” without suggesting or finding ways to find the best results of having a “Sandra” around- we are sort of guilty of being a “Sandra” a bit ourselves no?
While the current zeitgeist prefers the use of positive and actionable suggestions for improvement vs. simply calling our fault, and this is arguably more constructive, there are places for all types of people.
I used to be responsible for conducting trials of new things with end users. There are different scales for these depending on how far along the project is and other things. So often times you’re selecting these groups and picking X number of locations or people by whatever criteria is called for or you think is best for gaining feedback. So after any length of time you tend to keep lists of places to get feedback you’ve worked with and know will work with you again and had some element that you think is valuable.
I had some of those- but my lists were FULL of people or locations I’d worked with that were miserable. Those who hated change, those who hated my company, those who weren’t the brightest or most skilled and those who had very little subject matter knowledge on the product or business and development sides but were skilled in their own work.
I liked people who raised issues- no matter how small or pointless. Complainers and whiners and not pickers.
I didn’t need them to offer solutions and that wasn’t their job- in fact, when it comes to things like that, simply giving people what they think they want can be the worst thing to do. There’s a balancing point between listening to what they say they want and understanding what they are doing and providing what bridges that gap. This isn’t philosophical- this is just my experience of seeing countless horrible failures because someone just did what the end user said they wanted. It depends on the user and size of the user base of course- a tool for one person who is sharp-
So often times what are seen as “negative traits” are just signs a person isn’t where they perhaps are best suited to be. At a very high level table where these broad strategies and goals are being thought up you might not want a nit picker- they tend to bog the discussion down. At the top level you aren’t concerned so much about details- if you have good people you trust you’re going to come up with ideas and then they’re going to figure out how to do it in the details or tell you if it cannot be done feasibly. You may not want a nit picker at the labor level where you need people who are action oriented and follow established process or are problem solvers who find where
but a nit picker can be great for all sorts of detail oriented work. From the very narrowly focused like testing or quality work on specific product etc. to broader focused like compliance work. An old joke about the ISO standards of quality was that an ISO number at the minimum certifies that your processes may be terrible, but you do them consistently terribly. Lol.
Where there are governments and regulating bodies or financial regulators involved though- the core focus of compliance isn’t on the results or the profits or any of that- their primary role is to ensure that everything done, everything produced, is within the often strict rules for compliance.
that also gives you the ability to already have come up with solid responses so you are less likely to be caught flat footed and can better achieve buy in.
So often times it is my opinion that when we have trouble with a person or a type of person it may just be that person isn’t being utilized to best leverage their strengths. Few people have no redeeming qualities-
The dark humor comes in when we realize that if we are the sort of person that Complains about a “Sandra” without suggesting or finding ways to find the best results of having a “Sandra” around- we are sort of guilty of being a “Sandra” a bit ourselves no?