Everything depends on where you are. There are no rules that fits all organisations and all individuals.
Vint Cerf’s career advice for engineers
51–60 of 95 posts
Re: Vint Cerf’s career advice for engineers
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a "boss" of people that report to me and I oversee, and I certainly care and appreciate feedback and suggestions and criticism. But that's where it ends. I am under no obligation to do what this subordinate wants or thinks is best. It isn't a democracy or a decision by committee when we have hierarchical structures in place. You give your best advice, suggestions, opinions and recommendations...and then it's up t…
The question is not so much whether you do as you're told by your subordinate but how you handle the "disagree-but-commit" state. Ideally, the way it should work would be for the boss to say: "Okay, I think the right course of action is X, you think it's Y. We're in disagreement, but because I'm the boss, we'll do X. As you go about doing X, I won't intrude on your sphere of autonomy but will instead trust that you'r…
I think the way the disagreements are voiced and handled by the disagreer matter a lot in which of those two responses you would receive.
Also, I think it would matter a lot on how X vs Y turned out later. I.e. the difference between always disagreeing but also always getting it wrong. Or sometimes disagreeing but then getting it right and handling being right gracefully.
In my experience "shut your mouth and do as you're told" people are appreciated, more than employees who just disagree to disagree. However, the employees who voice their opinions, are able to articulate their stance and know when it is important to budge or when not to budge are always valued higher.
Re: Vint Cerf’s career advice for engineers
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, bosses, in the end, don't really care. They'll "appreciate" it in their minds (in the manner of a process being completed) but then not do anything with it, because that's not their job. They exist to create confusion and order from it and anyone honest enough to be a Good boss is quickly dethroned. Thanks for the book recommendation!
I'm a "boss" of people that report to me and I oversee, and I certainly care and appreciate feedback and suggestions and criticism. But that's where it ends. I am under no obligation to do what this subordinate wants or thinks is best. It isn't a democracy or a decision by committee when we have hierarchical structures in place. You give your best advice, suggestions, opinions and recommendations...and then it's up t…
What I meant was that there's a very marked disconnect between being a boss and being an employee. Most people are often both. Yet, when one's a boss, one forgets what it's like for the employee on the other end, and vice versa.
Work by / working with people that can bridge this gap is what startup culture (in tech) used to be all about.
Re: Vint Cerf’s career advice for engineers
#54> I tell my engineers that if they know I’m about to do something stupid, they have to tell me, so I don’t do it. My career advice: If your boss tells you to not be afraid to disagree with them, don't do it. It's a trap. I've been suckered into this one numerous times, and there was not a single occasion where it didn't backfire. People like to think of themselves as being that enlightened, but rarely (in my personal…
Also, sadly: "HR is your enemy. The role of HR is to protect the CEO and his team when they do something unspeakable and to smooth the way when firing people."
To be clear, the official role of HR is to protect the company, which objectives are defined by the owners, represented by the board, not the CEO. Goals of the CEO and the board may align, but they may not, in that latter case a non-corrupt HR function sides with the board. At the end of the day, the CEO is just another employee.
Re: Vint Cerf’s career advice for engineers
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure I see a "uniform political slant." People in the many fields that comprise liberal arts find many things to disagree with each other about, sometimes quite vehemently.
You're either not serious or you're so deep in the bubble you can't see the edges. Close to 100% of liberal arts teaching staff are Democrats [1] [2] [3]. It didn't use to be this way [4] [5]. [1] https://www.pacificresearch.org/why-are-teachers-mostly-libe... [2] https://www.thecollegefix.com/zero-republican-professors/ [3] https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/partisan-registration-and-... [4] https://nationalaffairs.c…
[flagged]
Re: Vint Cerf’s career advice for engineers
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, liberal arts is valuable, but the degree isn't. I've seen plenty of programmers who are very educated in history, philosophy, economics etc. The problem with the actual degree. 1. Liberal arts degrees have terrible economic returns, almost always negative, especially for men. Because... 2. Liberal arts is ill-suited for mass-market higher education. Can you really teach liberal arts with underpaid teach assistant…
> I've seen plenty of programmers who are very educated in history, philosophy, economics etc. I've seen plenty of programmers who think they're well educated in history, philosophy, economics, etc. But actually being educated is rare. Much easier to read stuff like "Guns, Germs, and Steel" uncritically and just quote it at people.
Yes, what some programmer don't really understand from atop their STEM superiority complex is that, similar to how you wouldn't be called a good programmer if you never actually write code; you don't really get considered a reference on "liberal matter" until you actually produce anything or hold a dialog with your peers on the subject. I mean, it makes sense, does a reclusive genius make noise if nobody is there to hear them?
So in short: they may be educated in that they read books, follow specialized news, and watch content. All of that is great, but they shouldn't feel ton equal footing with people who, you know, actually DO something with that knowledge.
Re: Vint Cerf’s career advice for engineers
#57> I tell my engineers that if they know I’m about to do something stupid, they have to tell me, so I don’t do it. My career advice: If your boss tells you to not be afraid to disagree with them, don't do it. It's a trap. I've been suckered into this one numerous times, and there was not a single occasion where it didn't backfire. People like to think of themselves as being that enlightened, but rarely (in my personal…
Yeah it could be with some managers. But, I've met Vint, asked him to sign a copy of his TCP/IP paper and even asked him if he'd get Robert Kan's signature and he did it. He's an incredibly nice and sincere human and very self aware. I would trust Vint as a manager.
Re: Vint Cerf’s career advice for engineers
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is not so much whether you do as you're told by your subordinate but how you handle the "disagree-but-commit" state. Ideally, the way it should work would be for the boss to say: "Okay, I think the right course of action is X, you think it's Y. We're in disagreement, but because I'm the boss, we'll do X. As you go about doing X, I won't intrude on your sphere of autonomy but will instead trust that you'r…
I think the way the disagreements are voiced and handled by the disagreer matter a lot in which of those two responses you would receive. Also, I think it would matter a lot on how X vs Y turned out later. I.e. the difference between always disagreeing but also always getting it wrong. Or sometimes disagreeing but then getting it right and handling being right gracefully. In my experience "shut your mouth and do as y…
> how X vs Y turned out
There's a cool idea that's related to that which also comes up in Ray Dalio's "Principles", which is to keep a log and do some kind of bean counting on who turns out to be right vs. wrong in situations of disagreements. The idea is that people who frequently turn out to be right should be given more influence. It's also a question that has been on my mind a lot in reflecting upon my career.
My observation has been that people have a very acute awareness of who the people are who they frequently find themselves disagreeing with versus who the people are who they seldom disagree with. And they have terrible memory when it comes to remembering what those disagreements were even about, let alone who ended up being right. If you are the "wronged party" in that dynamic, then bringing up your track record of disagreeing and being right is one of the worst things you can do.
People who disagree just for the sake of disagreeing are, in my mind, a myth, especially in the workplace where the stakes are high and disagreement tends to go hand-in-hand with conflict and power struggle and is therefore uncomfortable territory. Nobody would put themselves through that discomfort for nothing.
Re: Vint Cerf’s career advice for engineers
#59> I tell my engineers that if they know I’m about to do something stupid, they have to tell me, so I don’t do it. My career advice: If your boss tells you to not be afraid to disagree with them, don't do it. It's a trap. I've been suckered into this one numerous times, and there was not a single occasion where it didn't backfire. People like to think of themselves as being that enlightened, but rarely (in my personal…
And the worse are often those that brag about how "open to criticism" they are.
It's a trap for literally-minded/low-EQ people.
There are those that are indeed open to criticism, but those are almost never the one's that are gonna tell you about how open they are. Rather they are the ones that will actively engage in such discussions and technical arguments with you, and even enjoy it. You wont be "invited to criticize" them, you will be criticizing stuff and arguing together all the time, as if you're peers.
Re: Vint Cerf’s career advice for engineers
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, sadly: "HR is your enemy. The role of HR is to protect the CEO and his team when they do something unspeakable and to smooth the way when firing people."
To be clear, the official role of HR is to protect the company, which objectives are defined by the owners, represented by the board, not the CEO. Goals of the CEO and the board may align, but they may not, in that latter case a non-corrupt HR function sides with the board. At the end of the day, the CEO is just another employee.
>which objectives are defined by the owners, represented by the board, not the CEO
You'd be surprised how non-involved the board could be.
>At the end of the day, the CEO is just another employee.
In many cases they can also have a controlling share of the company, and most of their board and C-level be their pals and picks, so there's that.