4 ms·

It is natural to feel challenged and threatened by obviously more intelligent co-workers and subordinates. Most people probably don't want to work with someone

by vii 15y ago

It is natural to feel challenged and threatened by obviously more intelligent co-workers and subordinates. Most people probably don't want to work with someone who thinks they are a superstar, and would prefer just to go home at a regular time. Those of us who wish to work in an intellectually challenging environment are probably a minority. It is unfortunate that the article uses the term 'clever' to make a slightly unclear differentiation from 'knowledge worker.' Maybe if the term 'innovator' were selected then the article would be clearer. It would also help to explain why frequent feedback may be disadvantageous. Managing or harnessing innovative people is extremely difficult and it is an important subject to discuss and study.

forkandwait 15y ago
I disagree that "those of us who wish to work in an intellectually challenging environment are ... a minority". I think what is true is that most people don't have the opportunity to be truly human at work (challenged, interested, etc) because the current system doesn't hire human beings, but just "function-fulfillers". Then we get disappointed when the human beings we hired don't act like simple robots... go figure ... (I don't know how true to life the books are, but the Toyota Way series makes a big point about how important it is to allow -- demand, in fact -- people to grow and challenge themselves, from the engineers to the production workers. It is the US unions insistence on highly constrained work rules and job functions that made Deming hate them, rather than anything to do with wages.) Also -- nobody wants to work with an arrogant asshole who "thinks they are a superstar", whether they are "a clever" or "a stupid". But it is only folks with low self esteem or power trips who willingly surround themselves with people of less talent themselves. Knowledge worker? Innovator? -- that could be anyone, including a fry cook at McDonalds, if it was allowed to them. I have worked some shit, shit jobs, and I was always struck by how the spread in raw intelligence was about the same as in my elite private high school (now study skills and entitlement, however, is something the "non-clevers" just don't have at the moment, but that is a cultural thing that could be changed, if we cared.)
- vii 15y ago
  It is not sensible to hire people who will become rapidly frustrated at the function they are delegated to perform unless you have another position to promote them into. Often you need someone to perform a dull role. There are plenty of people, even knowledge workers, who are satisfied with a steady paycheck and a low level of workplace stimulation. Should one force them to improve? If you do, then they often move on (in my experience). That is why the distinction brought up between innovators and knowledge workers is important.
  - forkandwait 15y ago
    "Often you need someone to perform a dull role." If you see your company as a machine in which you and a few select managers are the controllers, and everyone else is, somewhat literally, just a tool. This is the subconcious model that permeates our society, for better or for worse. "There are plenty of people, even knowledge workers, who are satisfied with a steady paycheck and a low level of workplace stimulation." Really? That sounds a lot like somebody in power justifying to themselves why the other people are not in power -- because they are "satisfied" with their lot. This is a very, very old trope, including the whole White Man's Burden thing, etc.

by vii 15y ago

forkandwait 15y ago

I disagree that "those of us who wish to work in an intellectually challenging environment are ... a minority". I think what is true is that most people don't have the opportunity to be truly human at work (challenged, interested, etc) because the current system doesn't hire human beings, but just "function-fulfillers". Then we get disappointed when the human beings we hired don't act like simple robots... go figure ... (I don't know how true to life the books are, but the Toyota Way series makes a big point about how important it is to allow -- demand, in fact -- people to grow and challenge themselves, from the engineers to the production workers. It is the US unions insistence on highly constrained work rules and job functions that made Deming hate them, rather than anything to do with wages.) Also -- nobody wants to work with an arrogant asshole who "thinks they are a superstar", whether they are "a clever" or "a stupid". But it is only folks with low self esteem or power trips who willingly surround themselves with people of less talent themselves. Knowledge worker? Innovator? -- that could be anyone, including a fry cook at McDonalds, if it was allowed to them. I have worked some shit, shit jobs, and I was always struck by how the spread in raw intelligence was about the same as in my elite private high school (now study skills and entitlement, however, is something the "non-clevers" just don't have at the moment, but that is a cultural thing that could be changed, if we cared.)

vii 15y ago
It is not sensible to hire people who will become rapidly frustrated at the function they are delegated to perform unless you have another position to promote them into. Often you need someone to perform a dull role. There are plenty of people, even knowledge workers, who are satisfied with a steady paycheck and a low level of workplace stimulation. Should one force them to improve? If you do, then they often move on (in my experience). That is why the distinction brought up between innovators and knowledge workers is important.
- forkandwait 15y ago
  "Often you need someone to perform a dull role." If you see your company as a machine in which you and a few select managers are the controllers, and everyone else is, somewhat literally, just a tool. This is the subconcious model that permeates our society, for better or for worse. "There are plenty of people, even knowledge workers, who are satisfied with a steady paycheck and a low level of workplace stimulation." Really? That sounds a lot like somebody in power justifying to themselves why the other people are not in power -- because they are "satisfied" with their lot. This is a very, very old trope, including the whole White Man's Burden thing, etc.