4 ms·
> and those you expect to do the actual "management" stuff so that you don't need to. Sounds like your answer is: When there are items that smart people want t
by jpdoctor 15y ago
> and those you expect to do the actual "management" stuff so that you don't need to.
Sounds like your answer is: When there are items that smart people want to outsource, they often go work for people stupider than them rather than hire people to take care of it.
Do I have that right?
- zem 15y agono, i think you're falling into the common technical-person trap of assuming that raw intelligence is the only measure of competence. i don't want to work for myself, and i don't want to hire people - i want to be competent at my job, and work for someone who is competent at theirs. that someone may or may not be more intelligent than me; it's largely irrelevant as long as they're smart enough to do their job well. (and i may or may not be more intelligent than they are; it should likewise be irrelevant to them as long as i do my job well)
- jpdoctor 15y ago> no, i think you're falling into the common technical-person trap of assuming that raw intelligence is the only measure of competence. No, I am looking at the logical consequence of "hire people smarter than yourself". If A is smarter than B, then B is less smart than A. Therefore: "hire people smarter than yourself" implies hiring people who are willing to work for someone dumber.
- zem 15y agocertainly. it's just that the word "dumber" has connotations of "stupid and therefore not worth working for".
- jtheory 15y agoMeh -- "smart" doesn't work on a single scale. Your boss can be smarter than you at his job, and successfully hire you, smarter than he is at your job. That's an odd way to word it, but the fact remains -- there are generally different skillsets and competencies involved, and you are looking to build or be a part of a team with complementary talents.