3 ms·

You just made the author's point about respect...

BigBubbleButt 7y ago
I'd say OP swiftly took the air out of the author's argument, which is that geeks are wonderful to work with once you know how. What OP did was essentially say geeks are better than everyone else and management can fuck off, not exactly making geeks seem like team players.
- Rury 7y ago
  Not sure, they both seem to be saying the same thing to me. I inferred OP essentially saying: business is IT. They're synonymous - and I'd largely agree with this. All businesses deal with managing information, be it storing financial records, IP info, or transmitting data amongst users or employees. The I in IT is "Information", and all businesses deal with information/data. Anyhow, the article starts out saying management often views geeks as being business challenged, which such a viewpoint is questionable given what IT is. Arguably, geeks are better at business (i.e. information handling and problem solving) than non-geeks. Hence, the point about respect in the article. IT Pro's won't simply respect someone because they're the boss. They respect those who are competent at solving business (IT) problems, regardless of demeanor or hierarchal rank. As so, this bottom-up respect speaks volumes as to success of a team (as the lack of it indicates the leaders are charlatans).
  - BigBubbleButt 7y ago
    I feel like this is a much more subtle way of reframing what OP said. > Arguably, geeks are better at business (i.e. information handling and problem solving) than non-geeks. Do you believe there's something that geeks aren't better at than non-geeks (when it comes to being an employee)? Because OP's point, as I read it, was that geeks are superior and should be running everything and was incredibly dismissive of non-geeks being useful. I agree that respect is earned, not given. But if you just immediately dismiss what someone has to say because they aren't part of your geek tribe, you are beginning the relationship from a hostile standpoint. Why would non-geeks look at this as anything other than geeks being antagonistic? > Anyhow, the article starts out saying management often views geeks as being business challenged, which such a viewpoint is questionable given what IT is. I read the article differently. It was much less about geeks being business challenged and much more about geeks being elitist, such as OP's bellicose comment. If neither side is willing to work with the other side, the fault almost certainly lies with everyone.
    - Rury 7y ago
      >I read the article differently. It was much less about geeks being business challenged and much more about geeks being elitist I think the article could have been about anyone being elitist, it just so happens to be about IT teams. Just remove geeks and non-geeks out for a moment. Think the nature of hierarchy in general. A stable hierarchy has the best people as its leaders, which is when society benefits the most and teams work together best. If however, the leaders are charlatans, then more competent underlings will stop respecting or listening to the leaders, and/or may challenge the leaders. Typically life is worse off (for society as a whole) under bad leaders than good leaders. This is why bottom up respect speaks volume to the success of a team. The article speaks a bit on this in the section about respect, and suggests favoring competency as a solution. Anyhow, I don't think OP's point necessarily is at odds with this as the 2nd poster pointed out. OP argues that IT folk act elitist, because perhaps they actually are but find themselves following “random authority figure of the week”, (rather than the best authority). Whether or not that’s true is subject to debate. I’m sure it is in some cases and others not, but I largely agree with the part of his argument about business being largely synonymous with IT. >Do you believe there's something that geeks aren't better at than non-geeks Sure, everyone is flawed. No one is fully aware of everything. As so, some may need help with understanding the scope of things, other people’s viewpoints, and problems. Some may have trouble communicating novel ideas, or solutions, and need help in deploying them. Think people skills. I think this is why technical people say it’s helpful to have a manager who acts as a sounding board.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        "I think this is why technical people say it’s helpful to have a manager who acts as a sounding board." You are saying the usefulness of a manager is the same as, say, a stuffed octopus. I think this is illustrative of a cultural gap. Someone else might claim that all of the interesting and challenging problems in business are management problems that technical people as such don't even acknowledge.
        loopz 7y ago
        Instead of using straw-men, assumptions about where/who argument is from or downmodding, other strategies would be more constructive.
- loopz 7y ago
  Thanks for some benefit of the doubt (and karma sacrifice). Of course, when you kick both "sides" on the shinbone, you'll hit a nerve. Though original post was probably too unclear. In my intent, there's nothing wrong with the business "side" (except that there are "sides"!). Though you can't do business today and expect, even demand, to stay ignorant of technology. Staying ignorant is a choice that shouldn't be part of important decisionmaking. Likewise, geeks should go out more, get laid, jk. This is a forever problem, but somehow the organization should make it easy for people to hash things out on a whiteboard together. This need better collaborative environments than what enterpricey corps manage today. They're great at producing hostages though! Article was a bit TL;DR and didn't bring much to the table other than trying to whitewash geeks, as if that's required now? Just a symptom of the above. In my experience, you can generalize the same way for every important function, but ain't a constructive path at all.

I'd say OP swiftly took the air out of the author's argument, which is that geeks are wonderful to work with once you know how. What OP did was essentially say geeks are better than everyone else and management can fuck off, not exactly making geeks seem like team players.

Rury 7y ago
Not sure, they both seem to be saying the same thing to me. I inferred OP essentially saying: business is IT. They're synonymous - and I'd largely agree with this. All businesses deal with managing information, be it storing financial records, IP info, or transmitting data amongst users or employees. The I in IT is "Information", and all businesses deal with information/data. Anyhow, the article starts out saying management often views geeks as being business challenged, which such a viewpoint is questionable given what IT is. Arguably, geeks are better at business (i.e. information handling and problem solving) than non-geeks. Hence, the point about respect in the article. IT Pro's won't simply respect someone because they're the boss. They respect those who are competent at solving business (IT) problems, regardless of demeanor or hierarchal rank. As so, this bottom-up respect speaks volumes as to success of a team (as the lack of it indicates the leaders are charlatans).
- BigBubbleButt 7y ago
  I feel like this is a much more subtle way of reframing what OP said. > Arguably, geeks are better at business (i.e. information handling and problem solving) than non-geeks. Do you believe there's something that geeks aren't better at than non-geeks (when it comes to being an employee)? Because OP's point, as I read it, was that geeks are superior and should be running everything and was incredibly dismissive of non-geeks being useful. I agree that respect is earned, not given. But if you just immediately dismiss what someone has to say because they aren't part of your geek tribe, you are beginning the relationship from a hostile standpoint. Why would non-geeks look at this as anything other than geeks being antagonistic? > Anyhow, the article starts out saying management often views geeks as being business challenged, which such a viewpoint is questionable given what IT is. I read the article differently. It was much less about geeks being business challenged and much more about geeks being elitist, such as OP's bellicose comment. If neither side is willing to work with the other side, the fault almost certainly lies with everyone.
  - Rury 7y ago
    >I read the article differently. It was much less about geeks being business challenged and much more about geeks being elitist I think the article could have been about anyone being elitist, it just so happens to be about IT teams. Just remove geeks and non-geeks out for a moment. Think the nature of hierarchy in general. A stable hierarchy has the best people as its leaders, which is when society benefits the most and teams work together best. If however, the leaders are charlatans, then more competent underlings will stop respecting or listening to the leaders, and/or may challenge the leaders. Typically life is worse off (for society as a whole) under bad leaders than good leaders. This is why bottom up respect speaks volume to the success of a team. The article speaks a bit on this in the section about respect, and suggests favoring competency as a solution. Anyhow, I don't think OP's point necessarily is at odds with this as the 2nd poster pointed out. OP argues that IT folk act elitist, because perhaps they actually are but find themselves following “random authority figure of the week”, (rather than the best authority). Whether or not that’s true is subject to debate. I’m sure it is in some cases and others not, but I largely agree with the part of his argument about business being largely synonymous with IT. >Do you believe there's something that geeks aren't better at than non-geeks Sure, everyone is flawed. No one is fully aware of everything. As so, some may need help with understanding the scope of things, other people’s viewpoints, and problems. Some may have trouble communicating novel ideas, or solutions, and need help in deploying them. Think people skills. I think this is why technical people say it’s helpful to have a manager who acts as a sounding board.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      "I think this is why technical people say it’s helpful to have a manager who acts as a sounding board." You are saying the usefulness of a manager is the same as, say, a stuffed octopus. I think this is illustrative of a cultural gap. Someone else might claim that all of the interesting and challenging problems in business are management problems that technical people as such don't even acknowledge.
      - loopz 7y ago
        Instead of using straw-men, assumptions about where/who argument is from or downmodding, other strategies would be more constructive.
loopz 7y ago
Thanks for some benefit of the doubt (and karma sacrifice). Of course, when you kick both "sides" on the shinbone, you'll hit a nerve. Though original post was probably too unclear. In my intent, there's nothing wrong with the business "side" (except that there are "sides"!). Though you can't do business today and expect, even demand, to stay ignorant of technology. Staying ignorant is a choice that shouldn't be part of important decisionmaking. Likewise, geeks should go out more, get laid, jk. This is a forever problem, but somehow the organization should make it easy for people to hash things out on a whiteboard together. This need better collaborative environments than what enterpricey corps manage today. They're great at producing hostages though! Article was a bit TL;DR and didn't bring much to the table other than trying to whitewash geeks, as if that's required now? Just a symptom of the above. In my experience, you can generalize the same way for every important function, but ain't a constructive path at all.