Harvard Business Review takes a dive
Came across, what I initially believed to be, an interesting article on HBR. I couldn’t believe how unsubstantiated and weak this argument was. It was so bad, I couldn’t believe this was posted by Harvard Business Review. What’s going on at Harvard?
This was my response on the platform to which it was posted:
This article was loosely written and the argument posed was weak at best. The introductory premise, to which the author builds his argument from, is also left completely unsubstantiated. I quote:"The rub is that many of the verbal instincts and reflexes that we pick up as children (copied from our parents and teachers, who in turn copied them from their parents and teachers) actually undermine our effectiveness when we grow up and apply those same instincts as managers." - Is it not true that these mannerisms and modes of thinking, passed down by generation, can be either, and/or, beneficial or not, to present day managerial situations? How do you substantiate such a broad claim? I understand the theme of the article, agree with some of the examples within of exchanging "why" for "how." However, this needs to be rewritten and the argument reframed. I see "how" being more of a step forward, a bridge between the two parties, in appropriate context. I don't see "how" being the universal replacement for "why" and I definitely don't agree with the broad claim that the logic we've developed from the past is not beneficial today.
The article is not advocating “how” as a universal replacement for “why”, but rather advocates getting rid of “why” as the default response to anything negative happening in personal relations.
I understand that I just thought it was very loosely written. It’s a very “short” thought. I would have expected the author to expand on what justifies “why” in a disagreement and what justifies “how.” You follow? He also just implies a broad claim that somehow the “why” of yesterday is somehow not applicable today. “Why” brings further understanding into a discussion. “How” creates a bridge. But first we need to completely understand “why” before we just jump to “how?” There’s an appropriate time for why and there’s an appropriate time for how. Shortening this understanding to just asking more how instead of why, is a mockery to the human intellect. This was nothing more than a click bait, short circuited, article that I didn’t believe Harvard Business Review would attach itself to.
Reads like a long LinkedIn post.
Agree?
If you ask "Why haven't I been promoted?" or "Why are you breaking up to me?" that will prompt your boss or partner to think of a million reasons why you're a shitty employee or partner, and then will be less likely to change their mind because of this.
Currently, the knee-jerk response to something bad happening in personal relations is first "why" and then "how", but the article is advocating skipping straight to the "how" part because it can produce a less negative response from the opposite party. This goes against typical logic which is “what am I doing wrong -> how do I fix it”.
Correct. And I agree with that for the most part but in my opinion the author did a horrible job of crafting his argument around the idea. The argument is weak, and overall the article is loosely written. The author also provides, in the beginning of the article, a base claim that somehow the logic of the past is somehow not useful today. This article is something you’d expect from an undergraduate student still crafting his writing skills. This is not something I expected HBR to publish.
Maxime sed adipisci consectetur totam quam ipsum. Aut sed qui animi facilis sed inventore alias suscipit. Enim repellendus qui blanditiis assumenda voluptas. Vitae esse soluta temporibus omnis. Voluptatem sed deleniti beatae et illum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Fugiat eum perspiciatis aspernatur voluptatum tempore culpa aut provident. Repudiandae et totam ut et accusantium ut. Aut quas saepe voluptatem accusantium adipisci. Aut ipsum omnis repellat sunt.
Quis et rerum voluptatum labore omnis saepe atque quo. Tempore iure voluptas tempore sed ea porro. Porro quis alias temporibus voluptates maiores.
Necessitatibus repellendus sit quas dolor. Quia voluptas fugiat et laudantium atque. Qui ut praesentium corporis dolore est veniam. Repellendus sit natus fugiat.