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

Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

news.cornell.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 354 posts

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#191

Post by btilly »

Muromec wrote: post #169
jvanderbot wrote: post #164

It's surprising to me that people don't consider these coded language. Sure, the junior manager might use them vaguely to mimic, but IMHO, when vague language comes up at decision tables, it's usually coding something more precise in a sort of plausible deniability. A senior manager on reviewing a proposal asks them to synergize with existing efforts: Your work is redundant you're wasting your time. A senior director…

Its an interesting take, bit why is this coded ingroup messaging is communicated to outgroup then?

For a somewhat cynical explanation of why that happens, I recommend https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-....

As with all forms of cynicism, it has a grain of truth. And a much larger grain of truth than is comfortable.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#192

Post by tantaman »

This has been proven out again and again in my experience. Going as far back as being a student advisor in college. Any time I would run into someone using these words (in advising sessions, interviews, casual conversation), the speaker had no further depth when pressed on the topic they were trying to wave at.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#193

Post by jvanderbot »

elzbardico wrote: post #188
jvanderbot wrote: post #164

It's surprising to me that people don't consider these coded language. Sure, the junior manager might use them vaguely to mimic, but IMHO, when vague language comes up at decision tables, it's usually coding something more precise in a sort of plausible deniability. A senior manager on reviewing a proposal asks them to synergize with existing efforts: Your work is redundant you're wasting your time. A senior director…

There's CYA jargon, like layoffs, workforce rationalizations, letting someone go, challenging fiscal environment. And there's blatant bullshit, like paradigm shift, culture building, and so on. Two categories of execspeak.

I think those are just degree of difference in "context required to understand", not different categories.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#194

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

jvanderbot wrote: post #185
geon wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone else as confused as I was; apparently "IC" means Individual Contributor, as opposed to leadership or management.

Let's play "spot the manager"

I don't mean to shame anyone for learning new information, but even if you have no interest in management, your career will benefit greatly from knowing the terms and concepts that managers in your industry commonly use. There's a lot of people out there who are aggressively against learning "corporate jargon" and then find themselves lost trying to understand why their company's leaders talk and act the way they do.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#195

Post by excalibur »

> Employees who are impressed by vague corporate-speak like “synergistic leadership,” or “growth-hacking paradigms” may struggle with practical decision-making, a new Cornell study reveals.

Hey, I find that type of lingo nauseating, and I still struggle with practical decision-making.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#196

Post by cushychicken »

jvanderbot wrote: post #164

It's surprising to me that people don't consider these coded language. Sure, the junior manager might use them vaguely to mimic, but IMHO, when vague language comes up at decision tables, it's usually coding something more precise in a sort of plausible deniability. A senior manager on reviewing a proposal asks them to synergize with existing efforts: Your work is redundant you're wasting your time. A senior director…

it's usually coding something more precise in a sort of plausible deniability.

Yep. I'm a director now. This is exactly how it is. A big part of being effective in this role is understanding how direct you can be in a given scenario.

A senior manager on reviewing a proposal asks them to synergize with existing efforts: Your work is redundant you're wasting your time.

Option 1 is how I'd say it to a peer whose org is duplicating effort. You can give your advice, but at the end of the day: not my circus, not my clowns.

Option 2 is a more-direct way of how I'd say it to someone in my own org. I'd rephrase to: "Someone else is already doing this; focus your efforts on something more impactful."

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#200

Post by contubernio »

jvanderbot wrote: post #179
Muromec wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its an interesting take, bit why is this coded ingroup messaging is communicated to outgroup then?

One example elaborated: You _want_ most ICs to ignore a negative message that doesn't involve them, and you _want_ to give middle / lower managers the discretion to address an ICs "nonsynergistic" contributions on their own time. It's a signal not a prescription. This allows a public person to make a public statement and set direction without prescribing actions so lower management and ICs can do their thing. Upper m…

It would be a hell of a lot more functional to simply say directly what you want and mean.

This sort of management is dysfunctional even in it's premises.

Post reply on HN