71–80 of 99 posts
I wonder why the higher-up managers aren't able to spot bullshitters, and if they could be trained to do so. It would certainly benefit their organizations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have worked with similar people. It can be fun to take them down, if you're so inclined. It takes patience and discipline but it's oh so satisfying.
You should explain how it is done. I expect most people who are suffering in this sort of situation don't think it is possible to take such a person down, much less know how.
- documenting their BS claims (for your own usage, primarily)
- building trust and credibility with superiors and peers
- biding your time and eventually calling them out on BS in meetings, but only doing so when:
a) they go quite deep into the BS (as they inevitably do)
b) you have firm and credible facts/knowledge ready to use against the BS
c) you are able to pull it off in a calm manner, preferably something that could be perceived as you just asking for a clarification, but still leaves the meeting in a slightly uncomfortable state because the bullshitter's "explanation" seems so obviously fake to anyone with half a brain.
2-3 well-directed questions for "clarifications" like that can be quite lethal over time.
I guess that's a more interesting story than W-Ss that 'disappear' after they get burned by the corporate environment.
I mean, I feel like everyone hating on this article either: 1. has never had the misfortune of working with one of these people. "poser" devs who care more about "communicating up" and making a show of their (often quite trivial) contributions 2. has worked with people like this, but doesn't perceive the behavior described in the article, for whatever reason. A couple times in my life, not just in software, I have wo…
Maybe a majority of HN readers these days are fakers?
It has to be possible, right? After all, they are reading and replying instead of working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that many good, effective managers would end up in the "bullshitter" basket by the definitions of this article: they delegate work (they better!), they do not work themselves if you define work as writing code or spending time in the lab, etc. IMO effective managers should be doing exactly that -- surround themselves with smart people, delegate and make working conditions fulfilling and enjoyable for their te…
Effective managers don't steal the credit that their team members have done. Quite the opposite in fact, they make a point of highlighting exemplary work and rewarding those that have made important contributions. Management is also much more than _just_ delegating (of course), and I think I'd be pretty clear the difference between a good manager and a bullshitting manager, unless the higher ups are easily fooled in…
My point was that the classification into S-W, etc. is simplistic and does not distinguish between good managers and poor ones. Good managers exhibit some of the same traits (delegating, surrounding themselves with smart people, etc.).
On stealing credit: can you elaborate what you mean by that. In my book, a good manager should advertise his best contributors to his management in exceptional cases. But most of the time, the manager himself should receive credit from his superiors on his team progress and request goodies (raises, bonuses, etc.) for his team in return.
I mean, I feel like everyone hating on this article either: 1. has never had the misfortune of working with one of these people. "poser" devs who care more about "communicating up" and making a show of their (often quite trivial) contributions 2. has worked with people like this, but doesn't perceive the behavior described in the article, for whatever reason. A couple times in my life, not just in software, I have wo…
I remember the first time in my career I encountered someone like this. I thought I was mistaken or crazy, or just naive since I was new to corporate work. This person MUST do something or he'd have been fired! But after watching for weeks, then months, as he literally accomplished nothing, instead spending all his time self-promoting, taking credit for other people's accomplishments, and "managing upward", I was con…
My favorite trick is the Strategic Vacation. Somehow he always has a long vacation planned months in advance that allows him to dump whatever he's been tasked with onto someone else (like me, for instance).
"It's basically done, but I haven't added Y or Z yet" is always the prelude to receiving something he's been "working on" for three months and actually put in, charitably, two or three days of actual work.
But he's a good looking, personable kind of guy. Everybody likes him, particularly the managers, as a person. So while nobody wants him on their team he's managed to avoid getting a reputation that would keep him from moving to other teams.
Ironically, this article also reeks of bullshit. The massive characterization: the sloppy nerd (W-S), the consummate bullshitter (S-W), and the "rare" real talent (W+S). Which sets up the classic, "you're successful, so you must be a bullshitter" (because those S+Ws are sooo rare ). The "CB's" he's describing are so incredibly transparent, they might as well be strawmen.
The characterization is a bit overdrawn, but not by much. In my experience the more common scenario is not that of the S-W who does "no work" -- but rather the kind who basically does seem to "deliver" a lot, but, and here's the catch, with very significant hidden costs: in the form of (outrageous amounts of) technical debt, people around him burning out and/or quitting, etc. Which management usually does, ultimately, catch onto -- but not until the damage has been done, business opportunities have been lost, and his coworkers health, relationships and/or professional reputations have been damaged -- in some cases quite severely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should explain how it is done. I expect most people who are suffering in this sort of situation don't think it is possible to take such a person down, much less know how.
I don't have any brilliant insights besides the obvious: - documenting their BS claims (for your own usage, primarily) - building trust and credibility with superiors and peers - biding your time and eventually calling them out on BS in meetings, but only doing so when: a) they go quite deep into the BS (as they inevitably do) b) you have firm and credible facts/knowledge ready to use against the BS c) you are able t…
Anyone who is doing a good enough job of perception management is going to be better at managing perceptions from conversations better than you. They've had more practice!
You can end up looking like a person who overly cares about individual glory/not being a "team player"/trying to rain on someone else's parade.
Especially with C. People can spot disingenuous comments much easier than non-expert comments.
And easier way would be to implement something like stand-ups or demo days where each person has to own something.
Consistent underperformance should then be easily visible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should explain how it is done. I expect most people who are suffering in this sort of situation don't think it is possible to take such a person down, much less know how.
I don't have any brilliant insights besides the obvious: - documenting their BS claims (for your own usage, primarily) - building trust and credibility with superiors and peers - biding your time and eventually calling them out on BS in meetings, but only doing so when: a) they go quite deep into the BS (as they inevitably do) b) you have firm and credible facts/knowledge ready to use against the BS c) you are able t…