4 ms·

> The only true authority stems from knowledge, not from position. That's certainly not the full story. In many organizations, having a lot of knowledge about

> The only true authority stems from knowledge, not from position. That's certainly not the full story. In many organizations, having a lot of knowledge about something that someone else is supposed to know more about is a good way to make them feel uncomfortable or in extreme cases dislike you. From a practical vantage, knowing how to apply what knowledge you do have (and having the will to follow through) is a lot more valuable. It doesn't help to have a broad and deep understanding of software development and business but be socially awkward and suffer from severe akrasia.

bdunbar 15y ago
In many organizations, having a lot of knowledge about something that someone else is supposed to know more about is a good way to make them feel uncomfortable or in extreme cases dislike you. This. I worked for one org (USMC) where I was a young(er) worker, with more knowledge about our job (micro-computers, LANs) than most of my superiors. And this was okay. Encouraged, even. My lieutenant's job was to lead a team, not be a know-it-all. Then I stepped into the civilian world and found a majority of managers were freaked out when their juniors knew more than they did.
- iron_ball 15y ago
  On the other hand, in the armed forces, rank commands respect (or at least all outward forms). In the civilian world, those with rank may be more insecure.
  - bdunbar 15y ago
    I think it's more about culture, not respect for rank. A guy is supposed to learn at least the basics of the next higher-up job, sometimes two. Team leaders are supposed to reach down two levels, ensure juniors are properly schooled to step up. Obviously this is so if one's leader is zapped, juniors can step up and carry out the mission. But this works out well in nominal peace-time and non-combat jobs, too. And the better trained and schooled one's juniors are, the better the unit can carry out the mission. Example: one week into a three-week field exercise I was given 20 minutes to pack and report to a new, temporary, job, far away from my parent unit. We could do this because everyone under me (all of three guys, but still) knew what I did and could do the job. The only problem it caused was that they suddenly had one fewer person to stand watch in the server CONEX.
tesseractive 15y ago
I think the main point of this commandment is that people in higher positions are being encouraged to open their minds to those in lower positions who have more relevant knowledge. Wise team leads and managers do not point to their job title and inveigh "Respect mah authority!" Of course, if you are the person with greater knowledge but a lesser position, and you have bosses that are not as wise as you would prefer, then there is an art to deploying that knowledge and ensuring that the right thing gets done while allowing others to save face. This sort of diplomacy isn't the kind of skill that most developers typically have -- or even have the slightest interest in learning -- but it's an awfully useful skill to cultivate, whether you're dealing with corporate bureaucracy or cranky customers.

bdunbar 15y ago

In many organizations, having a lot of knowledge about something that someone else is supposed to know more about is a good way to make them feel uncomfortable or in extreme cases dislike you. This. I worked for one org (USMC) where I was a young(er) worker, with more knowledge about our job (micro-computers, LANs) than most of my superiors. And this was okay. Encouraged, even. My lieutenant's job was to lead a team, not be a know-it-all. Then I stepped into the civilian world and found a majority of managers were freaked out when their juniors knew more than they did.

iron_ball 15y ago
On the other hand, in the armed forces, rank commands respect (or at least all outward forms). In the civilian world, those with rank may be more insecure.
- bdunbar 15y ago
  I think it's more about culture, not respect for rank. A guy is supposed to learn at least the basics of the next higher-up job, sometimes two. Team leaders are supposed to reach down two levels, ensure juniors are properly schooled to step up. Obviously this is so if one's leader is zapped, juniors can step up and carry out the mission. But this works out well in nominal peace-time and non-combat jobs, too. And the better trained and schooled one's juniors are, the better the unit can carry out the mission. Example: one week into a three-week field exercise I was given 20 minutes to pack and report to a new, temporary, job, far away from my parent unit. We could do this because everyone under me (all of three guys, but still) knew what I did and could do the job. The only problem it caused was that they suddenly had one fewer person to stand watch in the server CONEX.

tesseractive 15y ago

I think the main point of this commandment is that people in higher positions are being encouraged to open their minds to those in lower positions who have more relevant knowledge. Wise team leads and managers do not point to their job title and inveigh "Respect mah authority!" Of course, if you are the person with greater knowledge but a lesser position, and you have bosses that are not as wise as you would prefer, then there is an art to deploying that knowledge and ensuring that the right thing gets done while allowing others to save face. This sort of diplomacy isn't the kind of skill that most developers typically have -- or even have the slightest interest in learning -- but it's an awfully useful skill to cultivate, whether you're dealing with corporate bureaucracy or cranky customers.