Headlines from Slashdot
45% Voted 'To be overall better for me than was 2009.' for 'As 2010 approaches, I expect the next year ...'
Geeks Prefer Competence To NicenessComments:300
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:14 AM
from the catching-more-geeks-with-vinegar dept.
from the catching-more-geeks-with-vinegar dept.
Death Metal writes "While everyone would like to work for a nice person who is always right, IT pros will prefer a jerk who is always right over a nice person who is always wrong. Wrong creates unnecessary work, impossible situations and major failures. Wrong is evil, and it must be defeated. Capacity for technical reasoning trumps all other professional factors, period."
Comments
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
It's hard to tune heavily tuned code. :-)
-- Larry Wall in <199801141725.JAA07555@wall.org>
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
and yet (Score:4, Funny)
Re:and yet (Score:4, Funny)
Clearly we prefer incompetent jerks to either of the types mentioned in the summary :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, it's just that we prefer jerks and don't care about competence, as long as they're abusive.
Proof: We let managers run companies.
Re:and yet (Score:4, Funny)
Warum tun wir das?
I would take (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I would take (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm perfectly happy with my situation. A boss who is pleasant, willing to go to bat w/ HR/training/ES&H/upper management/whoever, has no technical skills, accepts that he has no technical skills, and yields to recommendations from us underlings on most issues that won't affect his performance review.
On a side note, The IT Crowd may amuse some. Brit show with an incompetent IT boss, a pair of competent IT grunts, and bad English humor (humour?).
Re:I would take (Score:5, Insightful)
Good IT pros are not anti-bureaucracy, as many observers think. They are anti-stupidity.
Truer words were never spoken.
Re:I would take (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. A boss doesn't have to be technical, nor "right" all the time, so long as the boss acknowledges what he or she doesn't know and doesn't try to pretend he/she knows something that he/she doesn't.
It is when a boss thinks he or she knows everything but actually knows nothing that errors are made. A boss can be completely clueless as long as he/she defers to your expertise. The ones we really can't stand are the ones who are clueless but don't know it. They give bad advice that leads their underlings repeatedly down wrong paths, then ding the underlings on salary reviews for listening to them.
Only slightly better are the bosses that let their employees graze and don't give them any guidance about what they are trying to accomplish. Neither type of boss is particularly effective, and both are, sadly, far more common than good bosses.
Re:I would take (Score:5, Insightful)
The over-technical boss isn't only bad if he/she is clueless and frequently wrong--- one who's usually right and refuses to delegate anything to anyone can be a huge pain too, because they don't actually have the time to do every single person's job for them, but often try to micromanage as if they did. I mean, if they could actually do the details of everyone's project, why have employees under them at all? Sometimes a manager doesn't need to know the details, even if they're smart and knowledgeable enough that they could be brought up to speed if necessary.
Re:I would take (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait: If the nice person is always wrong, why not enjoy working with them while doing the opposite of whatever they do? If someone is occasionally wrong, you have to look carefully at everything they do to find the wrong stuff.
Re:I would take (Score:5, Insightful)
Because nice people that are always wrong aren't necessarily doormats. They champion their opinions to whoever makes decisions, and that becomes the plan of record. Anyone not supporting the plan of record has a lot to answer for come end-of-year review time. Even if what he was doing turned out to be correct. Most organizations get very upset with engineers/developers/"IT Pros"/geeks who decouple from the hive mind, even if they are correct. Management will wonder why, if you knew it was wrong, you didn't bring this up and save a lot of time and money doing it right in the first place. When teamwork counts, one person can't do all the work, thus it's critical to support the people that know their shit.
My current team has a belief that if we keep around one or two nice dummies that the team is more cohesive and works better, even though they are always ignored. But that doesn't work either, they're usually plenty smart enough to know they're being ignored and they tend to leave. Management attempts to correct for this by lecturing us on proper social behavior, which of course no one gets. So at the end of the day the painfully right person ends up "in control" (i.e. in a place where he can do real harm to morale) while the nice people tend to go somewhere they are wanted, often marketing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Management will wonder why, if you knew it was wrong, you didn't bring this up and save a lot of time and money doing it right in the first place.
Simple answer: I got tired of lousy reviews for 'being combative' and trying to bring things up. Either listen to my advice or don't complain when things explode.
Ah yes, (Score:3, Funny)
You follow the sysadmin oath then eh?
I am hired because I know what I am doing, not because I will do whatever I am told is a good idea.
This might cost me bonuses, raises, promotions, and may even label me as âoeundesirableâ by places I donâ(TM)t want to work at anyway, but I donâ(TM)t care.
I will not compromise my own principles and judgement without putting up a fight.
Of
Re:I would take (Score:4, Insightful)
You actually need to be fairly strong willed at times to properly get your point across! That can be perceived as being a "jerk" by the person on the receiving end at the moment.
No you don't. You need to have a persuasive argument and be speaking with rational people. If you surround yourself with people who are always "right", when life is mostly subjective, you'll be miserable.
... well ... the world continues to mock them. Because, lets face it - being right doesn't count for everything, and in a job where being 'right' is subjective (almost everywhere except IT), then niceness matters a lot more than competence. People can always learn and do better next time - but you can't take back the death threats you sent while upset.
Perhaps this explains why the IT crowd is mocked so easily - people who convinced that being 'right' makes them superior are suddenly thrust into the real world, where there are very few 'right' answers. It's easy to see who doesn't fit in, and when those people start complaining that the world should change to accept their brillance
Now, I suppose there are life and death situations where being right means survival. But seriously, how many people live in those situations? Not even doctors can choose 'right' or 'wrong'. Doctors choose what is 'best' in their opinion, which is why doctors sometimes differ in treatment recommendations. I have a hard time believing that a) the slashdot crowd works in life/death situations where right is not subjective, and b) that it is impossible to be both 'right' and 'nice'. Seriously, isn't this just creating a false dichotomy?
Re:I would take (Score:4, Insightful)
You actually need to be fairly strong willed at times to properly get your point across! That can be perceived as being a "jerk" by the person on the receiving end at the moment.
No you don't. You need to have a persuasive argument and be speaking with rational people. If you surround yourself with people who are always "right", when life is mostly subjective, you'll be miserable. Perhaps this explains why the IT crowd is mocked so easily - people who convinced that being 'right' makes them superior are suddenly thrust into the real world, where there are very few 'right' answers. It's easy to see who doesn't fit in, and when those people start complaining that the world should change to accept their brillance ... well ... the world continues to mock them. Because, lets face it - being right doesn't count for everything, and in a job where being 'right' is subjective (almost everywhere except IT), then niceness matters a lot more than competence. People can always learn and do better next time - but you can't take back the death threats you sent while upset.
Now, I suppose there are life and death situations where being right means survival. But seriously, how many people live in those situations? Not even doctors can choose 'right' or 'wrong'. Doctors choose what is 'best' in their opinion, which is why doctors sometimes differ in treatment recommendations. I have a hard time believing that a) the slashdot crowd works in life/death situations where right is not subjective, and b) that it is impossible to be both 'right' and 'nice'. Seriously, isn't this just creating a false dichotomy?
Any job I've worked in "being right" has been a key to success. Being right means less loss and more profit, and I don't know if you're speaking from the perspective of a kindergarden teacher, but in business this is what counts. I will admit that anybody can make mistakes, and the hypothetical "always right" person doesn't exist, so the hypothesis is rather nonsensical. However there are people who shut the hell up when they don't know something instead of spreading useless hearsay that in the end cause problems for everyone. These people who tend to find out, instead of assume, are always my preferred colleagues. It's a matter of trust, and douchebags or not I tend to surround myself with trustworthy people. My friends however are both trustworthy and pleasant, and my colleagues I cannot choose but I value the work they do more than how much they smile. I don't understand how you got modded up for this useless post, but either get over your hate for IT's, probably due to some IT who treated you bad for doing something idiotic, or seek help. For this suppressed anger of yours is not healthy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't believe the post, or article, ever said that nice people are always wrong, right people are always jerks, or jerks are always right.
The question was... given the choice between A and B which would you prefer.
Or... another way to ask... which quality do you prefer, correctness or niceness?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If he's always wrong then you better find a new job. The company will go out of business soon.
Or do you just not understand how business actually works and instead just have some academic outlook on it and he does things right but different from your viewpoint.
If you have all the answers why not go start your own business and run him out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, no. Today, it's no so much whether you're right or wrong, or whether you make the right business decisions. It's who you play golf with.
So unless you play golf with more important people, don't try to open your own business. Even if you're better.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The belief that running a business is synonymous with having a good product or providing a decent service is the great flaw in capitalism.
They are correlated, but not directly. There are many variables that affect a good business. If a business person is good at business, but isn't all that great at serving the core product, or knows enough about serving the core product to hire up from his/her own talents, then they ought to learn how to recognize the difference between change for the sake of change and ch
Just IT people? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory - There is no fix for stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It works in almost every aspect of life. I worked in a sales environment for about a month and I can tell you, the guys who are great at sales, tend to be real assholes. But you know why they have a job? They're GREAT at it.
Even a receptionist can be a little snarky if she is so fluid with the paperwork that she can do more than is expected of her.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. You can come to an agreement not to deal with someone face-to-face if their demeanor rubs you the wrong way. You can put a "buffer" person between yourselves, even. On the other hand, when your organization has some dumbass who is not only failing to do their job but requiring other people to come behind and fix the mistakes or clean up the messes, you have a major problem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Geeks Prefer Competence To Niceness (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, this is why we put the liberal art majors in their own building.
Re:Geeks Prefer Competence To Niceness (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Geeks Prefer Competence To Niceness (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't count the number of times I've wondered why I'm in a meeting or why I've been consulted at all. If you aren't going to respect my opinion, you needn't bother asking. It only makes it that much more depressing when I have to clean up your mess later without so much as a, "yeah, I guess you were right."
Re:Geeks Prefer Competence To Niceness (Score:5, Interesting)
%100 percent our fault as geeks.
Geeks give away their power. We work for corporations or consult for them when they are not interested in any of our goals or values. Geeks are always bending over, spreading their ass cheeks and whining about getting fucked.
They have superior intelligence (generally) but shy away from running things or accepting authority.
What geeks generally don't get is that when you throw up your hands at a people/leadership oriented task you look as stupid as the people you (rightfully)deride for throwing up their hands at the slightest computer issue. When you back off from business tasks and say "I don't do that I'm a techie" you look as silly as a person who has an Outlook problem and says "I'm not a techie I don't do that"
How many IT departments in non IT companies can actually say that they are treated like a part of the business and not just like an irritating expense.
Re:Geeks Prefer Competence To Niceness (Score:4, Insightful)
We work for corporations or consult for them when they are not interested in any of our goals or values. Geeks are always bending over, spreading their ass cheeks
And if we don't, we are "jerks". And so this story.
Re:Geeks Prefer Competence To Niceness (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if work is depressing then there is something wrong with it. I suggest you fix your attitude because caring so much about it that you get depressed is not healthy.
At my work, I'm also usually right. As I'm sure most techies reading /. often are. People have this peculiar habit of interrupting me when discussing to make my argument appear weaker than it is. I let them, because I'm a soft-spoken guy and I really don't care that much. A month or two later, my predictions come true and we do it my way instead which I initially suggested. I don't tell people "I told you so" because I don't need the acknowledgement. My reward is the salary, their reward is that they get to borrow my brain for 8 hours/day. If they wish to spend my 8 hours on futile, dead end projects then so be it. There is no reason for me to get emotionally involved.
I read a study (in a tabloid, but still) about that most people prefer to work with nice failure persons rather than excellent jerks. That shows how fucked up many of us techies priorities are. We prefer what is best for the company rather than enjoying the time we spend at work. Self-sacrifice is not a virtue, it is the losers mind set.
I'd recommend every techie to work as a consultant at least for a year or two. Because when you do, you learn that your life is not tied to the company's bottom line. Problems and stupid managers aren't frustrating anymore. The more stupidity and bad decisions, the more billable hours you can charge them. Stupid techies work overtime to clean up the mess, smart techies bleed them dry while doing it. :)
Re:Geeks Prefer Competence To Niceness (Score:5, Interesting)
If they wish to spend my 8 hours on futile, dead end projects then so be it.
I couldn't disagree more. I enjoy my job- I get personal satisfaction out of what I do. I'm proud of what I do.
I don't think I could live with myself knowing that I spent 9 hours on something completely useless and wrong. Even if the job is difficult or unpleasant, it's still important for me to know that it is worthwhile in some way.
I've worked with one or two people with your viewpoint (would count blades of grass all day as long as they were getting paid). It's a viewpoint that is utterly alien to me. Does it affect your personal relationships, too, or are you able to compartmentalize so well that you're two different people each day?
-b
Yep (Score:2)
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless the nice but makes mistakes person causes *me* a lot of extra work, I'd take nice. I'm at work because the makeup of society forces me to be, not because I want to. Might as well make it as enjoyable as possible.
Now if his failures come rebounding onto me, then he can be a liability. Luckily life isn't usually a comparison of extremes- you can get someone who's competent and easy to get along with most of the time.
lies and slander (Score:2)
"Wrong is evil, and it must be defeated. Capacity for technical reasoning trumps all other professional factors, period."
A pity that most of management aren't geeks and thus the only thing you're really hurting is your own reputation and your coworkers by acting that way. You'll be ten times more effective at getting the right thing to happen if you can put a little bit of sugar on your requests. Also, since IT is a support role in most organizations, being able to talk to them without making them feel stupid for doing so is a definite plus when you'll need their approval.
Not me (Score:2, Insightful)
Since I'm always right I prefer to work with nice persons without initiative that are gullible to my points of view and always smile.
(ergo I'm a self-confident a-hole and you would like to work with me !:)
True; but... (Score:5, Insightful)
If somebody is kind of useless; but nice, they'll at least roll over after fucking up. If somebody is an arrogant dickhead, they'll fuck up and be personally offended at any attempt to do things properly.
Re:True; but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well I'd put the problem more generally as: people don't divide cleanly into "nice people who are always wrong" and "jerks who are always right". Jerks are often the people who *think* they're always right, but often are wrong quite a lot. "Nice people" are sometimes secretly jerks who think they're always right, and the niceness is just a form of condescension. But no one is right all the time, and a lot of times there really isn't even a "right answer" so much as "the best answer we can come up with right now."
A lot of it really ends up being a matter of degrees. Would I tolerate a little bit of assholishness for some real brilliance? Sure. But after a certain point, you can be too much of an asshole to be worth it. Along with everything else, being actually often means you *aren't* right. If you're causing interpersonal problems on a team, creating more work for everyone else, and making everyone else hate working with you, then you're kind of doing the wrong things.
Plus, there are enough people out there who are competent and at least decently nice. It's not really a choice you have to make all the time.
Best quote (Score:5, Interesting)
IT pros are sensitive to logic -- that's what you pay them for. When things don't add up, they are prone to express their opinions on the matter, and the level of response will be proportional to the absurdity of the event.
If only I could get my current manager to understand that. Perhaps then he'd understand why our department reacts the way it does to policies handed down from the parent organization.
I thought the article was basically ego-stroking but at the same time, most of it was spot-on. Why is it that so many writers understand this stuff, while so many IT management organizations do not?
Re:Best quote (Score:4, Insightful)
Want to work in a business environment? That means that sales is king. You may support sales, you may even support your customers, but driving business through the door is the most privileged role. Those customers won't, for the most part, want an arrogant prick who's always right; they'll want an accommodating, amiable fellow who's right more than half the time.
You're absolutely correct that sales is king. No dispute, there. A business has to have income in order to survive.
What I do think is wrong, however, is that management oftentimes downplays or ignores IT's recommendations in an effort to chase the short-term sale. As the original article pointed out, "IT Pros" typically don't make recommendations that are without merit. A business that sells an IT-based product (for instance) should listen closely to the people creating that product, but that doesn't seem to happen often enough. A development or architecture team will lay out an optimal plan for producing a product, but the business side will force everyone down a different path in order to meet arbitrary release dates, please one big customer, or meet some goal sitting on a vice-president's last review. The final product winds up being something no one is happy with, and that causes problems down the road for everyone.
So no, a narrow focus on technical solutions is not the right way to go about things. But neither is chasing potential income while eroding your technical base.
"Wrong is evil, and it must be defeated" (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds great. Let me know how that goes, okay? Tell me when the war is over, and teh stupid is vanquished. I'll hang a banner for you.
People with this attitude will have a hard time working with anyone outside of a very small group of very competent people; i.e. in the real world. Most people really aren't experts, they aren't always right, they frequently make mistakes.... but they are not evil. I try to reserve the word 'evil' for people who seek to hurt others for fun.
If all you have a choice of is 'competent' or 'nice', I suppose I would temporarily choose 'competent'. I would then seek to find a little more of BOTH in one human.
Can't happen (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a situation that usually can't happen. The reason is that jerks are very often wrong, but, because of their personality type, they won't admit it. Even if a nice guy is wrong, he will more often than not own up to his mistakes instead of charging blindly ahead.
And I don't think being a nice guy and being competent is some rare thing. In my experience, people who are extremely competent have nothing to prove and are therefore pretty easygoing. The jerks are usually the ones who don't know shit but want to make everyone think they do. They're the ones who kiss their superiors' asses and have them believing they know what they're doing. They also belittle their underlings, who are often the ones who actually do the work.
Jerky competence is a bit of an oxymoron (Score:4, Insightful)
It's usually the incompetent who feel the need to act like a jerk to distract everyone from their own performance.
Ahem. (Score:5, Insightful)
1 + 1 = 2.
Your mother.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yo momma so associative, her Grothendieck group is isomorphic to Z for a bounded complex of finite dimensional vector spaces possessing the standard Euler characteristic.
I can attest to that (Score:5, Funny)
Although my place of work is generally full of competent people, my girlfriend's isn't, and while it is frustrating for her, it provides a constant inflow of amusement when I hear her evening updates. The last one involved a girl walking out of the room because she was pissed off at the two other girls working with her. My girlfriend asked her what's wrong, and it went on like:
- Oh, there was too much tentonton.
- Uhmm... tentonton?
- Yeah, you know, too many girls.
- Uhmm... do you mean testosterone?
- Yeah, that.
- But that's a male hormone.
- Whatever, the female one.
Tentonton. And the best is that this is not exceptional.
Nice and Jerk are irrelevant (Score:4, Informative)
The first level of filtering is to remove incompetence. If a person can't do the job, they're out. Personality, odor, presentation, etc. mean nothing at this point. If that initial filter means the only remaining candidates are smelly jerks then make sure your office has positive air pressure and a door that locks.
If that initial filter leaves you with some NICE people who are also competent, then you filter out the jerks. If you still have choices left, filter out the smell. If you still have choices left, filter out the people who dress like they're homeless.
It doesn't mean that I LIKE jerks. It means that personality is secondary to competence. And there are plenty of nice people who are also competent. But nice people who can't do the job aren't even considered.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you mean negative air pressure, you fucking retard?
An excellent example of what's more common: A jerk who's always wrong.
House (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately evaluating !(clusterfuck) leads to a clusterfuck because it implements its own operator!.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As a very geek friendly woman that I knew in the past said "I am easy, but I am really picky"
-Steve