4 ms·

Ironically, this article also reeks of bullshit. The massive characterization: the sloppy nerd (W-S), the consummate bullshitter (S-W), and the "rare" real tal

by basseq 10y ago

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.

CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
> The "CB's" he's describing are so incredibly transparent, they might as well be strawmen. Strawmen or not, I've worked for two. Those aren't fond memories.
- IsaacL 10y ago
  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 are pretty rare and are probably evidence of some extreme psychological disorder. (E.g., malignant narcissism or sociopathy. Robert Hare is a researcher in criminal psychology and wrote a book on such people: https://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0061147893 https://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp...).
  - basseq 10y ago
    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.
    - mturmon 10y ago
      I agree, and add that sometimes people who have a tendency to BS can surround themselves with more grounded people, so that the whole package works. Their confidence and superficial knowledge can even make them seem more relatable to customers than a deeply knowledgable specialist would. In other words, an individual's value is context-dependent. It's really hard to make such crisp distinctions as in the article.
- Asooka 10y ago
  I feel the article is written in a way that's crystal clear for those who know what it's talking about, but looks like a strawman for those who don't. I understand instinctively the kind of people he means, but the wide brush he paints with makes it seem like he's going off stereotypes.
robin_reala 10y ago
It is hosted on LinkedIn, which is a bad sign from the start.
ptero 10y ago
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 teams.
- switchbak 10y ago
  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 the ways the article describes. Personally, I've seen a lot of this kind of behaviour, and I thought the article pretty much nailed it. Tangentially related to the highly cynical Gervais Principle: http://www.makingitanywhere.com/escape-your-job/ http://www.makingitanywhere.com/escape-your-job/
  - ptero 10y ago
    Maybe my comment was not written clearly enough. I am not saying that what is described in the article as BS managers are good, effective managers. They are not -- two things: required long hours and not taking responsibilities are killer signs. 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.
- Arwill 10y ago
  The things done by people described in the article is not the same as what the work of managers is. These are not managers, and as the article says, these can be more junior people who will "boss around" senior developers too. And besides that their self-promotion can be seen as unfair, i have seen some actual damages materialize as consequences: As they are focusing on perception, effective real work done becomes less. If the client once chooses to evaluate real progress and the paper-pushing becomes evident, the project might be cancelled. The bullshitter can transform the project itself. Instead of pursuing the original goal of delivering, they will invent new goals, and unnecessary work items. They will shape what the project does, so that they can deliver. If the project were to go in its original direction, they could not contribute anything useful. So now they invent administrative tasks or superfluous technical tasks, where they can deliver. Their toxic behavior can become accepted even by the management. This is when the real project manager accepts that its more profitable to bullshit, than to actually deliver. The project will fail at some point, but its easier for the whole team to bullshit until that time, than to deliver.
JamesBarney 10y ago
I think in organizations you have people who craft their messages to different degrees. I imagine almost all of our manager's have said "Oh we can't say that in that meeting" or "how do we put a better spin on that". And I totally believe people who do this more, and better tend to rise to the top. Competence as perceived by your boss and boss's boss are driven by your results and perception management. And this problem gets worse because they higher you go the less control you have over your actual results. i.e. A developer has a lot more control in delivering a solid piece of performant maintainable code than a V.P. does in delivering revenue growth. And eventually you end up with CEOs who sit around and play roulette while explaining to the board how the losses were unavoidable, and the wins solely driven by his leadership.
Spooky23 10y ago
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 the right role, and is now a senior leader. The true master bullshitters are insecure & smart and surround themselves with pliable people who will work like donkeys. The tell for these people is vanity. They seek self validation by advertising credentials, announce any promotion and are forceful about projecting whatever title or responsibility they possess. Usually they are attracted to "hot", high growth areas. (easy to hide sins in growth) Infosec is a breeding ground for these people.
- flukus 10y ago
  > The true master bullshitters are insecure & smart and surround themselves with pliable people who will work like donkeys. 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.
  - ivan_ah 10y ago
    That's a good point. A bullshitter in a middle management role can serve to shield developers from all the bullshit that comes from above. That's a very useful contribution—so the productive devs can focus on working rather than attend endless meetings. It's like a sacrificial lamb offered to the business side so they can use him/her in their rituals (meetings, client calls, etc).
    - rplst8 10y ago
      Isn't it a bit like the Jobs + Woz combination?
      - ivan_ah 10y ago
        Kind of, but Jobs was a "product guy," not just a manager type.
kafkaesq 10y ago
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.

by basseq 10y ago

CiPHPerCoder 10y ago

> The "CB's" he's describing are so incredibly transparent, they might as well be strawmen. Strawmen or not, I've worked for two. Those aren't fond memories.

IsaacL 10y ago
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 are pretty rare and are probably evidence of some extreme psychological disorder. (E.g., malignant narcissism or sociopathy. Robert Hare is a researcher in criminal psychology and wrote a book on such people: https://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0061147893 https://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp...).
- basseq 10y ago
  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.
  - mturmon 10y ago
    I agree, and add that sometimes people who have a tendency to BS can surround themselves with more grounded people, so that the whole package works. Their confidence and superficial knowledge can even make them seem more relatable to customers than a deeply knowledgable specialist would. In other words, an individual's value is context-dependent. It's really hard to make such crisp distinctions as in the article.
Asooka 10y ago
I feel the article is written in a way that's crystal clear for those who know what it's talking about, but looks like a strawman for those who don't. I understand instinctively the kind of people he means, but the wide brush he paints with makes it seem like he's going off stereotypes.

robin_reala 10y ago

It is hosted on LinkedIn, which is a bad sign from the start.

ptero 10y ago

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 teams.

switchbak 10y ago
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 the ways the article describes. Personally, I've seen a lot of this kind of behaviour, and I thought the article pretty much nailed it. Tangentially related to the highly cynical Gervais Principle: http://www.makingitanywhere.com/escape-your-job/ http://www.makingitanywhere.com/escape-your-job/
- ptero 10y ago
  Maybe my comment was not written clearly enough. I am not saying that what is described in the article as BS managers are good, effective managers. They are not -- two things: required long hours and not taking responsibilities are killer signs. 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.
Arwill 10y ago
The things done by people described in the article is not the same as what the work of managers is. These are not managers, and as the article says, these can be more junior people who will "boss around" senior developers too. And besides that their self-promotion can be seen as unfair, i have seen some actual damages materialize as consequences: As they are focusing on perception, effective real work done becomes less. If the client once chooses to evaluate real progress and the paper-pushing becomes evident, the project might be cancelled. The bullshitter can transform the project itself. Instead of pursuing the original goal of delivering, they will invent new goals, and unnecessary work items. They will shape what the project does, so that they can deliver. If the project were to go in its original direction, they could not contribute anything useful. So now they invent administrative tasks or superfluous technical tasks, where they can deliver. Their toxic behavior can become accepted even by the management. This is when the real project manager accepts that its more profitable to bullshit, than to actually deliver. The project will fail at some point, but its easier for the whole team to bullshit until that time, than to deliver.

JamesBarney 10y ago

I think in organizations you have people who craft their messages to different degrees. I imagine almost all of our manager's have said "Oh we can't say that in that meeting" or "how do we put a better spin on that". And I totally believe people who do this more, and better tend to rise to the top. Competence as perceived by your boss and boss's boss are driven by your results and perception management. And this problem gets worse because they higher you go the less control you have over your actual results. i.e. A developer has a lot more control in delivering a solid piece of performant maintainable code than a V.P. does in delivering revenue growth. And eventually you end up with CEOs who sit around and play roulette while explaining to the board how the losses were unavoidable, and the wins solely driven by his leadership.

Spooky23 10y ago

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 the right role, and is now a senior leader. The true master bullshitters are insecure & smart and surround themselves with pliable people who will work like donkeys. The tell for these people is vanity. They seek self validation by advertising credentials, announce any promotion and are forceful about projecting whatever title or responsibility they possess. Usually they are attracted to "hot", high growth areas. (easy to hide sins in growth) Infosec is a breeding ground for these people.

flukus 10y ago
> The true master bullshitters are insecure & smart and surround themselves with pliable people who will work like donkeys. 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.
- ivan_ah 10y ago
  That's a good point. A bullshitter in a middle management role can serve to shield developers from all the bullshit that comes from above. That's a very useful contribution—so the productive devs can focus on working rather than attend endless meetings. It's like a sacrificial lamb offered to the business side so they can use him/her in their rituals (meetings, client calls, etc).
  - rplst8 10y ago
    Isn't it a bit like the Jobs + Woz combination?
    - ivan_ah 10y ago
      Kind of, but Jobs was a "product guy," not just a manager type.

kafkaesq 10y ago

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.