81–90 of 99 posts
A better article if you're interested in this type of analysis, done well: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
I then spoke to him about this piece - http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2015/03/19/the-art-of-gig/- which I think is hilarious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
In my experience small companies, which can't afford to carry dead weight, are pretty intolerant of these kinds of people. But at a large company someone who does this well will be there as long as he wants. I work with one who's been at our company for at least fifteen years. My favorite trick is the Strategic Vacation. Somehow he always has a long vacation planned months in advance that allows him to dump whatever…
I am familiar with this one as well.
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…
For instance with the first example W-S in the article someone could very well be a W + S but you'd never know it because at their last job or through life experiences they've been beaten down constantly for their ideas even if they were great simply because of who they are or other such factors. That lead them to the self-confidence issues described in the W-S category in the article. I find people who do excellent work are rarely stupid and with guidance can even grow and excel to become great. Maybe not enough to become leaders but not everybody should be.
I get that the point is to raise awareness on the 2nd group described so the behavior is eventually adjusted or pointed out in other settings and I'm thankful for that because I've experienced it at work myself. Many people have probably experienced the same on group projects in school or otherwise. The ones who don't pull their weight but always seem to have an idea. The people here that think the article is BS might just not agree with the tone adopted for the subject at hand which is understandable as it comes off a bit condescending while getting its point across.
Once he got done telling them all about the strawberries that were 50 cents a pound underpriced at Safeway, `15 minutes later they could get back to work. He not only wasted his time, but also his co-workers.
Productivity noticeably went up after his departure. Nobody had complained about his time wasting stories until AFTER he left. Somehow they assumed I knew everything but didn't care (bizarre, since I am fairly frugal) .
So as the Boss in this scenario, sometimes it is hard to tell what the truth really is. My staff was trying to be nice, and not cause problems in the workplace. Thus causing a problem in the workplace.
Occasionally I do the Toyota 'stand in a circle' exercise in the factory to get a real sense of how people move around, how they spend their time. It is always surprising how my assumptions are often wrong.
http://theleanthinker.com/2007/07/09/the-chalk-circle/
I also watch for the "delegate to peers" routine. If I assigned it to you, I wanted YOU to do it. If I wanted your co-worker to do it, I would have assigned it to THEM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. It takes a while to see the abstract pattern underlying their behaviour. Once you see it, its very clear. But for a long time you're distracted by the details of day-to-day events and you think they're just another co-worker with some annoying habits. I'm confused why so many commenters are quick to shout "B.S" on this article (are they BSers in hiding?) but maybe he is oversimplifying too much. True S-W types a…
maybe he is oversimplifying too much I think that's it. Even distilled down to two variables ("smart" and "work"), you're talking about three "extremes": [1.0S,1.0W], [1.0S,0.0W], and [0.0S,1.0W]. Most people are probably in the 0.25-0.75 range on both variables. There are almost certainly more variables, and "smart" and "work" are terribly named.
In other words, an individual's value is context-dependent. It's really hard to make such crisp distinctions as in the article.
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…
They will see you coming long before you see them. They will have previously set up their reward system with you so it's a Mutually Assured Destruction relationship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I mean, I feel like everyone hating on this article either: You're ignoring the third possibility: S-W and CB types are more likely to say negative things about this article, and upvote criticizing comments (like one by basseq). Personally, I largely agree with the article (I relate to the W-S type). However I didn't really understand the difference between S-W and CB (highly distilled version? author didn't expand…
I am an S-W, 100%. This article basically describes exactly how I act. I know what I am and I hate it and desperately want to change. He's absolutely bang on that when a bullshitter hits a performance-based situation they're screwed (I'm an early career academic in exactly this situation, it sucks). S-Ws who don't want to change may well be criticising the article, but there are hopefully some other self-aware ones t…
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.
You're fortunate. My colleague and I almost spat out our drinks laughing, because we were literally sitting in a discussion with all three archetypes locked in a similar struggle. In many scenarios, it's easy for a person to be in the "S-W" role and get a great deal of success. I've watched the career of one in a large organization. At first they stumbled a few times and were "outed" as idiots. Then this person found…
If the pay was good it might be worth teaming up with them. I can handle the work if they can handle all the other shit.
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…
This seems like a great idea until you realise that these bullshitters thrive together and the meeting is full of them so they are going to hang on each others claims.