151–160 of 190 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give examples of zombie institutions?
Boeing? Id look at old school defense and enterprise b2b corps. In a lot of cases they sell out of date products and if they somehow lost all blueprints / source code they probably wouldn’t be able to even reproduce it because no one there even knows how it works
For example, there are people who work as value producers who overperform not because they are "clueless" -- they are well aware that the company is not loyal to them, and they got a "bad deal" -- but because they enjoy the work they do, or they have an internal drive to do a good job at whatever they do, or they believe doing a good job makes a difference in the world, etc. And at least some of such people are unlikely to accept a "promotion" to a managerial position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, spoken German can handle that just fine. Spoken German has different rules from written German (and, of course, people have quite a bit more tolerance for minor breaks of grammatical rules in ad-hoc spoken language anyway.) To give an example: a bog standard German sentence puts the verb in second place. Everything else is fairly flexible, eg you can either put object or subject first (unlike in written English,…
> In spoken German, you can get away with "Barbara besucht das Restaurant, weil.. sie hatte ja Hunger." Especially if you pause to think at the place marked by the two dots. Native German speaker: When I hear such a wrong placing of the finite verb in a subclause, I immediately think that the respective speaker is either uneducated (when the person is a native speaker) or (if the person is a foreign speaker) had a re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just normal, it's desirable. You do not want your director / C-suite guy reviewing pull requests, filing bugs, or being obsessed with code library choices. That's what you get when you endlessly promote your busy/productive code-loving IC types. You want someone who is a naturally fluent speaker, strongly outspoken, who holds strong opinions, and wants to focus on processes and long-term roadmaps and so on.…
That's all worthless if they don't actually have good ideas, though. And I don't believe someone who is all talk actually has good ideas. You have to be rooted in good practice.
One person's 'all talk' is another person's 'all walk'.
The article is rife with references to a mediocre tv show, but it doesn’t contain a single example of the principle as applied to a firm. The author is an expert in something, but it isn’t business.
If the Office is a mediocre comedy TV show, what's a great comedy TV show?
I’ve read this before, and while an entertaining thought experiment, I’m not sure there is anything really actionable here. Maybe just be mindful that people are trying to exploit you.
Not true! This was actually a life-changing read for me. I stopped being the rock-star developer and turned to quiet quitting before quiet quitting became a thing thanks to this. I'm not joking. No more over-time, far less stress, more time with family, and no more burn out. I have no regrets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's all worthless if they don't actually have good ideas, though. And I don't believe someone who is all talk actually has good ideas. You have to be rooted in good practice.
If you're free to define "all talk" as "not useful" then yeah - you've created a tautology. All I'm saying is some folks that are awful to work with side by side as technologists are super useful to an org in other places. One person's 'all talk' is another person's 'all walk'.
> never wanted to take on advice, always fought on really shady grounds, but he fought everything, almost like it was either his idea of what was on-point or nothing
Yes, you can be productive through communication, but if that's the kind of "talk" you want in your C-suite then I don't want to work in any company where you have influence.
It's almost like communicating effectively requires detailed knowledge of the real world, knowledge most often and most effectively gained by... doing things.
This just reeks of bitterness. Sounds like someone trying to get to the top, failed somewhere along the way and constructed this model to funnel frustration and sorta explain away their failure. The judgment permeates the model, apparently the only desirable position js at the top (but then you're a sociopath), second best is a checked-out loser. To me, being a "clueless" or "over-performing loser" is preferable to a…
> The Losers are not social losers (as in the opposite of “cool”), but people who have struck bad bargains economically – giving up capitalist striving for steady paychecks. Both Michael and Dwight are excellent salesmen, but both struck bad (financial) deals for a steady paycheck. If you've been a loser in previous jobs you gave up much better money for the benefit of executive and shareholders.
This model suggests that the only way you can strike a good financial deal is to be an executive (for which you need to be a sociopath). It's a circular proof by definition.
> If you've been a loser in previous jobs you gave up much better money for the benefit of executive and shareholders.
Did I? This model just assumes it without bothering to substantiate it. There's no accepted way to calculate value one is producing in an organization. How much value is an HR person, logistics worker, production worker really producing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“INFJ”, that’s from that workplace astrology, right?
Meyers briggs is not “astrology” - it doesn’t claim to predict anything. It categorizes how people already consciously see themselves with Carl Jungs archetypes. The main point of the archetype concept is to then explore the part of you that is different from how you see yourself- your “shadow” for the purpose of personal development. It’s not mysterious, mystical, or claiming to be science- it’s just a very simple s…
The history section of the Wikipedia page reads like an awful lot of effort went into making it seem scientific.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator
This part also seems like it was intended to be predictive:
>Briggs and Myers began creating their indicator during World War II (1939–1945)[7] in the belief that a knowledge of personality preferences would help women entering the industrial workforce for the first time to identify the sorts of war-time jobs that would be the "most comfortable and effective" for them