Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The annoying habits of highly effective people

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 230 posts

Re: The annoying habits of highly effective people

#171

Post by a_imho »

village-idiot wrote: post #166
a_imho wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the blue collars sitting with other developers at lunch. We can pretend there is a meritocracy out there, but that's simply not true. Sure, in theory it might be possible to progress as a developer but in practice the roi of putting in enormous effort is simply laughable compared to the alternatives. A few percent raise realistically. Getting to the top? Not a chance.

It’s absolutely not a true meritocracy, that’s true. But if you’re claiming that individual contributor devs never get promoted for good work, that’s just clearly and utterly wrong.

I claim no one gets to the top for being a hard working developer.

Also claim quality engineering is only loosely correlated with advancement, it is one of the less efficient ways to secure a promotion/raise. In fact, managers often have no idea who is doing a good job.

Re: The annoying habits of highly effective people

#172

Post by manigandham »

dagw wrote: post #140
manigandham wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're focused on the actions rather than the results. Common mistake. People become leaders by creating and commanding change that positively affects the company. Land a major deal or create a new product line that doubles revenue? You're getting to the top. Working harder than the others is part of this process, and sometimes that means you come in at 5am, but it's not a requirement nor is it something that anyone…

Land a major deal or create a new product line that doubles revenue? You're getting to the top. Be in charge of the department/team that "lands a major deal or create a new product line that doubles revenue" and you're on your way to the top. Being the person who was in the office until 3 am working out the final details of that deal or fixing the show stopping bugs that let you actually launch the product won't get…

But that is your job, is it not? What is wrong with the person in charge of the entire department being recognized for meeting the goal? Are they not working hard in their position? What did they do before their current position and what is stopping you from getting to theirs?

There's a tendency to minimize the work by others because we don't have the same perspective, but it's rarely ever accurate. Or helpful.

Re: The annoying habits of highly effective people

#173

Post by dbingham »

Const-me wrote: post #162
DecayingOrganic wrote: post #115

"The largely dominant meritocratic paradigm of highly competitive Western cultures is rooted on the belief that success is due mainly, if not exclusively, to personal qualities such as talent, intelligence, skills, smartness, efforts, willfulness, hard work or risk taking. Sometimes, we are willing to admit that a certain degree of luck could also play a role in achieving significant material success. But, as a matte…

> Such a discrepancy between a Normal distribution of inputs, with a typical scale (the average talent or intelligence), and the scale invariant distribution of outputs, suggests Read this: http://www.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/papers/EPJB-17-723-2000... The authors started with even distribution of money, and random transactions with uniform probability, yet they arrived to very uneven distribution of outcomes.

This makes perfect sense given the multiplier affects built into the Capitalist system. The more money you have, the more easily you can grow that money. The moment an imbalance forms it would naturally continue to grow.

The fact that Capitalism will amplify and exacerbate any imbalance that forms, does not preclude the possibility that there are structural factors that help form those initial imbalances in Capitalism. Factors like differences in family wealth, access to education, access to connections with loan or startup capital, access to political connections, and so forth.

Re: The annoying habits of highly effective people

#174

Post by justaguyhere »

manigandham wrote: post #163
CalRobert wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had another offer lined up when I decided to chat with the boss' boss. It went about how I expected, I took the offer, and learned a good deal about how business works in the process. Communication is important - very important - but it's also often what people focus on when the reality is just a bigger pain in the ass ("so and so is a selfish twit who takes credit for others' work" is much harder to say than "we n…

I think that's an issue both in communications and in handling people. For example, did you have to take credit for that particular situation? What was the true downside of your boss taking credit? Why not cover for him and gain the ally? Build the relationship and you'll often find that it pays back in multiples. Business is 99% about relationships. The only way you can get what you want is by helping others get wha…

I don't get it - his boss took credit for his work, likely without his consent or even knowledge (I'd guess he came to know after his boss took credit). And yet, you want him to cover for his boss? He also mentioned his boss was incompetent. How can you trust such a person to watch out for you, even if you let it go?

Re: The annoying habits of highly effective people

#175

Post by waivek »

briandear wrote: post #64
exabrial wrote: post #53

I wouldn't call Tim Cook an effective manager though. He centralizes decisions on himself and had been turning Apple's reputation and Halo-effect into cash rather than innovation.

Have you ever worked for Apple? What you see and reality aren’t always the same. As far as innovation, have you used Apple Watch? Have you used CoreML? ARkit? Has any other company shipped a 7nm chip? Do you know the products in the pipeline? It’s pretty easy to snipe when news reports are your only source. It isn’t like Tim Cook publishes meeting minutes or Craig F or Eddy Cue are sitting around discussing Tim’s man…

Are there any resources that speak about Apple's supply chain? I'd love to learn more.

Re: The annoying habits of highly effective people

#176

Post by mooreds »

manigandham wrote: post #158
lotsofpulp wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Eventually the truth does come out Why does the truth eventually come out? Or is this an assumption?

Because performance is unlikely to be repeated and at some point the person who is wrongly taking credit will not be able to perform, but this can take days or decades depending on the organization.

And if it takes decades, well, their career is made.

Re: The annoying habits of highly effective people

#177

Post by mikeash »

data_spy wrote: post #116
DecayingOrganic wrote: post #115

"The largely dominant meritocratic paradigm of highly competitive Western cultures is rooted on the belief that success is due mainly, if not exclusively, to personal qualities such as talent, intelligence, skills, smartness, efforts, willfulness, hard work or risk taking. Sometimes, we are willing to admit that a certain degree of luck could also play a role in achieving significant material success. But, as a matte…

I understand what you are saying to a degree, however I've had more success than many colleagues due to me spending time every day to improve myself (usually technically). What you are saying is like saying some people are thin due to genetics, which can be true, but also many people are thin because they workout.

The importance of luck and circumstance to success is difficult to discuss because successful people who worked hard often get offended at the idea that there might be more to it than that.

You can do things to skew the distribution, but hard work is far from a guarantee of success, and likewise laziness is no guarantee of failure.

Re: The annoying habits of highly effective people

#178

Post by manigandham »

justaguyhere wrote: post #174
manigandham wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's an issue both in communications and in handling people. For example, did you have to take credit for that particular situation? What was the true downside of your boss taking credit? Why not cover for him and gain the ally? Build the relationship and you'll often find that it pays back in multiples. Business is 99% about relationships. The only way you can get what you want is by helping others get wha…

I don't get it - his boss took credit for his work, likely without his consent or even knowledge (I'd guess he came to know after his boss took credit). And yet, you want him to cover for his boss? He also mentioned his boss was incompetent. How can you trust such a person to watch out for you, even if you let it go?

Because relationships matter, and that's how you build that trust in the first place.

Why not work with them, teach them, and make them better. Instead of being upset, be on their side. Almost always, they'll help you in return. Being confrontational and going around them though, will only guarantee more negative outcomes. Remember that your boss's boss and other colleagues probably don't want to deal with someone who is seemingly more interested in getting credit rather than getting things done.

Re: The annoying habits of highly effective people

#179

Post by mikeash »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #67
enraged_camel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Being a CEO is hard Not necessarily. It completely depends on the company and the industry.

Yeah, some are harder than others but I can't think of a CEO job that isn't hard. It's always fraught with political risk, changing times, etc. etc.. From the 'inside' we might think it looks easy, we get a paycheque, it's all hunky-dory ... but from that top spot it's almost always hard.

I’m sure it’s hard if you’re a normal person with human feelings and take seriously your responsibility to your employees and shareholders.

If you can avoid that, it must be a great job. Massive pay, no labor, people do what you say, and if you screw up the politics and get fired you’re still set for life.

The implications of this are not great.

Re: The annoying habits of highly effective people

#180

Post by larrywright »

tomgp wrote: post #127
sonnyblarney wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, some are harder than others but I can't think of a CEO job that isn't hard. It's always fraught with political risk, changing times, etc. etc.. From the 'inside' we might think it looks easy, we get a paycheque, it's all hunky-dory ... but from that top spot it's almost always hard.

How hard is it really though? If someone said to me: "you can either work in an Amazon warehouse (either shift 7.00am-5.30pm or 5.45pm-4.15am) or be the CEO of Amazon but you're going to get paid the same whichever you choose" I know which I'd do.

Whether a job is hard or not depends on more than just how many hours you work and the physical aspect. Which of those jobs is more stressful? CEO, hands down. The decisions you make as a warehouse worker don’t matter all that much - if you make a bad one, the impact of that decision won’t be felt far. If the CEO makes a bad decision, it could lead to his removal, the failure of the company, huge financial losses, people losing their jobs. Just because something isn’t physically demanding doesn’t mean it’s not demanding.
Post reply on HN