"[A] raucous, rough-and-tumble culture of open debate on the technical merits"
does not conflict with
"a "polite" "respectful" org"
while
"a big bully, always had to be right, and you knew that if you ever expressed an opinion about anything in his domain, he'd come after you like a fucking pitbull and worry your flesh until you submitted, using the power of his office and his connection to the founder to ensure you bent the knee"
has, in my experience more in common with not being the second. In fact, in my experience, what I think you mean by "rough-and-tumble culture" supports the pitbulls much more than any form of making good decisions.
Boy I really wish I'd written a little more. Serves me right for underestimating the breadth of experiences on this board, and how that can lead to drastically different takes.
If you were to argue that the pre-fear environment was unprofessional, exclusionary, immature, and that it often led to miscommunications and hard feelings, I'd have a hard time disagreeing. It's certainly not my preferred style (any more) and I think we can all do better and be nicer without giving up the meeting of the minds that's so essential to progress, at any scale.
But what came after? It was polite—because nobody talked. It was respectful—because everybody was afraid. Afraid I can't go into further detail, but it led to far greater harm in the long run, for the whole world, not just the company.
Many (most?) of the comments on this and similar threads seem to come from a belief that any attempt to encourage or (heaven forbid) enforce polite and respectful communication automatically mean a culture of fear and silence. Which is weird, given that HN discussions are usually reasonably polite and respectful, and that enforcement is reasonably visible. I apologize if I assumed your comments were from that mold. I was mistaken.
But I still disagree that an appearance politeness and respect or attempt to promote them is either a sign of, or responsible for, harm to a company (or the world).
Oh, and I did remember a decent example: IBM in the 1990s up through 2005 (that being the last time I worked there). He who talked loudest wins. Anyone who could spew tech-sounding gibberish like a Star Trek screenwriter at high volume was apparently automatically made a Technical Fellow. It led to a long series of bad technical decisions---and anyone who disagreed was treated unprofessionally and immaturely, and excluded---that ultimately hollowed-out the company.
I assume the "" are relevant in "polite" "respectful" (i.e. a culture thats only very superficially so/only when it is convenient), and that's very much in conflict with open debate.
does not conflict with
"a "polite" "respectful" org"
while
"a big bully, always had to be right, and you knew that if you ever expressed an opinion about anything in his domain, he'd come after you like a fucking pitbull and worry your flesh until you submitted, using the power of his office and his connection to the founder to ensure you bent the knee"
has, in my experience more in common with not being the second. In fact, in my experience, what I think you mean by "rough-and-tumble culture" supports the pitbulls much more than any form of making good decisions.