4 ms·
The article is based on a compelling premise, but the analysis is often generic enough to be meaningless and leaves much to be desired. Most of the do's and d
by DevX101 15y ago
The article is based on a compelling premise, but the analysis is often generic enough to be meaningless and leaves much to be desired.
Most of the do's and don't infographic were either false or obvious. Example, Do: 'Talk Straight'. Don't: 'Use bull or deceive'. Really? I'm pretty sure this advice applies to every management position in existence outside of politics.
I'd like to see an in-depth analysis of why the best engineers go to Google, but not AOL. I'd like to see more empirical based analysis on how to keep incredibly smart people to stay at your organization even though they're sharp enough and confident enough to go out on their own.
It seems he's pushing a book about 'Clever Management'. I haven't read the book but if this article is any indication it will be one of those 80% filler business books that you read and walk away feeling like you didn't really learn anything new or non-obvious.
- medinism 15y agoAgreed. The article was shallow and unimaginative. I was hoping for some nugget around what makes clever people not realize they are wasting their time at your company and move somewhere where their contributions really matter. but no dice!
- wccrawford 15y agoActually, sheeple are sometimes led best by deception. If something bad is happening, sheeple would rather hear deception than the truth. It enables them to keep going, instead of despairing. "Clevers", on the other hand, will rebel when there's deception, but will dig into an honest challenge. His list is actually quite good, even if some of the parts seem obvious. He seems to have gone for a more complete list, rather than try to only list things that don't seem obvious. Also, "clevers" are more sensitive to the 'do not' list than sheeple are. They are much more likely to rebel. By rebel, I mean cause discord or quit.
- smoyer 15y agoWhere can I get reimbursed for the 90 seconds it took to skim this article? If the book is at all worthwhile, this is horrible advertising.