5 ms·

Wisdom, right here. My position has one foot in the engineering department and one on the factory floor. The engineers think the factory workers are all troglod

by 0xEF 2y ago

Wisdom, right here. My position has one foot in the engineering department and one on the factory floor. The engineers think the factory workers are all troglodytes that just have to push buttons, and the factory workers think the engineers don't do anything but sit in front of the computer. Oddly, both believe the other does not have to think because the machine/computer does all the thinking for them, which is so far from the truth. It all seems to grow from a Seed of Ignorance:; a complete lack of understanding of what someone else's job actually entails, coupled with the subjective measure of how difficult a thing is which is largely based on our own narrow limitations and experiences. It's a weed that grows easily and is difficult to kill in the manufacturing sector.

diggan 2y ago
> It's a weed that grows easily and is difficult to kill in the manufacturing sector. In my experience, it seems to apply to every sector out there. I got started in a different industry than what I'm active in now, and what you describe I have seen across any type of job I've held.
jumping_frog 2y ago
Then there are Excel collar workers who decide what gets build in the first place or what needs to be downsized. People in private equity decide which resource is worthy of keeping or which needs to be let go.
kxrm 2y ago
I wonder if there would be any benefit to allowing each to take a peek into the other's world? I am not sure how it could be done, but some way to allow them to try on the other's role for a day so they can see a full picture of what their co-workers do.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - TuringTourist 2y ago
    Somewhat ironically you are underestimating the amount of effort it takes to be as universally reviled as that person. Presumably because you, like most people, have never been in that field.
  - 0xEF 2y ago
    This is a pretty ignorant attempt at a spicy take. Before you can even have this conversation, you need to define what "work" is and take into account the stressors of that work, the abilities of the workers, etc. This mentality of "us vs them" when someone wants to ask "who works harder" accomplishes nothing aside from pointing out disgruntled laborers who got suckered into punishing jobs for laughable compensation. It stems from this a twisted pride, typically from the laborer side of things, that I have seen so many times I've come to just expect it from them. The problem with that stance is that it falls apart with any scrutiny, after the laborer who wants to call someone else out for "not working as hard as they do" realizes that they are being exploited, which is nothing to be prideful about. It's silly, as was your contribution to this conversation. I recommend reframing it as each position being important to the team, but requiring different demands and skill sets to which different people can contribute. It's not a competition and nobody wins by trying to diminish the contribution of others.
  - gopalv 2y ago
    > If most factory workers saw how little some office workers worked The only morally acceptable form of bigotry in society is against the lazy & stupid. So if you want to hate, you need to turn everything into one of those two things.
    - bumby 2y ago
      There’s plenty of psychologists that think those are immutable traits (e.g., how disciplined someone is may be related to their genetic disposition for conscientiousness), so I’m not sure about it being a wholly moral argument.
- mianosm 2y ago
  This is a hard business decision to make as it doesn't directly increase revenues and directly reduces productivity. Might be smart in many instances to do cross training, and on the job perspective expanding, but at the end of the day: it's usually better to let the animous live...and the spice flow.
- 0xEF 2y ago
  I've worked at companies on both ends of this spectrum, so I can speak to this with some authority. Company A(CA) had tons of open channels between sales, engineering and machining. Sakes reps had to spend time with the service dept every few months, helping with repairs and what not. One sales guy opted to do it more often because it helped him understand the products better, which helped him sell. Engineering and machining were constantly showing each other different things that could improve production. We barely needed management, leavjng them to focus on administrative crap nobody else wanted to do. It was quite wonderful and remarkably effective. I miss that job, actually. Company B(CB) did the opposite. All departments, and I mean all had walls between them, both metaphorical and physical. Department heads were the only conduits and they were unreliable at moving info between depts, not to mention reluctant to work with each other. Things constantly had to be reworked, tons of money wasted on parts nobody could use, quality assurance was always an after-thought, etc. The company suffered and the customers suffered more, but under all that was embitterment between the engineers and the production team. Everyone felt miserable and micromanaged to death. It was nonsense, and even resulted in a short alternation just before I left the company. So, guess who is still in business? CA or CB? Both shops are the same size and offered very similar products and services. Those are just two of my examples, too. I've been with a handful of shops for a long time, and the latter is always a hellscape to work in.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    > Company A(CA) [...] was quite wonderful and remarkably effective. I miss that job, actually. > Company B(CB) did the opposite. [...] The company suffered and the customers suffered more, but under all that was embitterment between the engineers and the production team. Everyone felt miserable and micromanaged to death. > So, guess who is still in business? CA or CB? Murphy's law says Company B. :-( (Please, please tell us different!) > It was nonsense, and even resulted in a short alternation just before I left the company. YM AlterCation?
relwin 2y ago
In many Japanese companies entry level engineers were required to work on a factory line for a few months before being assigned their engineering job. This gave them perspective on how their company makes money by manufacturing, and what that activity entails. (this concept, and my knowledge of Japanese companies may be outdated now...)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
graemep 2y ago
There are people who find jobs that require very little work, and its probably easier to find these jobs in offices. It works very well with technical work that management do not understand, and where output is difficult measure. its possible that people on HN might know of some jobs that fit this… There are extreme cases, such as people dying and no one realising that their work is not being done, and that is rare, but a certain amount of slacking off, spending time of social media, etc. is not at all uncommon.
- portpecos 2y ago
  >but a certain amount of slacking off, spending time of social media, etc. is not at all uncommon. I mean, the statistics support the extraordinary amount of time spent on social media all throughout the day across all generations.
munificent 2y ago
You're exactly right about the seed of ignorance. I wish there was a good term for it like we have "fundamental attribution error" for that other pernicious cognitive fallacy. The core mistake is that believing that all we know about something is equivalent to all there is to know about something. So if you don't know anything about welding, you assume it must be brain-dead simple because your knowledge of it is so tiny. If you don't know anything about engineering, you assume it's just pushing buttons. It's not just about people's jobs, either. It shows up everywhere once you start looking for it.
- 0xEF 2y ago
  Dunning-Kruger Effect might be a good term to use.
  - munificent 2y ago
    That's close but a little diffferent. D-K is about assuming your own competence at something you're ignorant in. I think it's caused by the effect I'm talking about, but the root effect is a little broader in that it applies also to how much you assume there is to be known at all by anyone for some field that you're ignorant in.
    - 0xEF 2y ago
      I'm with ya, yeah, it's almost there. Hmm. I'm not versed enough in cognitive psychology to even guess at what word parts we might throw together to make a new term.
Hikikomori 2y ago
This explains managers perfectly.

by 0xEF 2y ago

diggan 2y ago

> It's a weed that grows easily and is difficult to kill in the manufacturing sector. In my experience, it seems to apply to every sector out there. I got started in a different industry than what I'm active in now, and what you describe I have seen across any type of job I've held.

jumping_frog 2y ago

Then there are Excel collar workers who decide what gets build in the first place or what needs to be downsized. People in private equity decide which resource is worthy of keeping or which needs to be let go.

kxrm 2y ago

I wonder if there would be any benefit to allowing each to take a peek into the other's world? I am not sure how it could be done, but some way to allow them to try on the other's role for a day so they can see a full picture of what their co-workers do.

Der_Einzige 2y ago
[flagged]
- TuringTourist 2y ago
  Somewhat ironically you are underestimating the amount of effort it takes to be as universally reviled as that person. Presumably because you, like most people, have never been in that field.
- 0xEF 2y ago
  This is a pretty ignorant attempt at a spicy take. Before you can even have this conversation, you need to define what "work" is and take into account the stressors of that work, the abilities of the workers, etc. This mentality of "us vs them" when someone wants to ask "who works harder" accomplishes nothing aside from pointing out disgruntled laborers who got suckered into punishing jobs for laughable compensation. It stems from this a twisted pride, typically from the laborer side of things, that I have seen so many times I've come to just expect it from them. The problem with that stance is that it falls apart with any scrutiny, after the laborer who wants to call someone else out for "not working as hard as they do" realizes that they are being exploited, which is nothing to be prideful about. It's silly, as was your contribution to this conversation. I recommend reframing it as each position being important to the team, but requiring different demands and skill sets to which different people can contribute. It's not a competition and nobody wins by trying to diminish the contribution of others.
- gopalv 2y ago
  > If most factory workers saw how little some office workers worked The only morally acceptable form of bigotry in society is against the lazy & stupid. So if you want to hate, you need to turn everything into one of those two things.
  - bumby 2y ago
    There’s plenty of psychologists that think those are immutable traits (e.g., how disciplined someone is may be related to their genetic disposition for conscientiousness), so I’m not sure about it being a wholly moral argument.
mianosm 2y ago
This is a hard business decision to make as it doesn't directly increase revenues and directly reduces productivity. Might be smart in many instances to do cross training, and on the job perspective expanding, but at the end of the day: it's usually better to let the animous live...and the spice flow.
0xEF 2y ago
I've worked at companies on both ends of this spectrum, so I can speak to this with some authority. Company A(CA) had tons of open channels between sales, engineering and machining. Sakes reps had to spend time with the service dept every few months, helping with repairs and what not. One sales guy opted to do it more often because it helped him understand the products better, which helped him sell. Engineering and machining were constantly showing each other different things that could improve production. We barely needed management, leavjng them to focus on administrative crap nobody else wanted to do. It was quite wonderful and remarkably effective. I miss that job, actually. Company B(CB) did the opposite. All departments, and I mean all had walls between them, both metaphorical and physical. Department heads were the only conduits and they were unreliable at moving info between depts, not to mention reluctant to work with each other. Things constantly had to be reworked, tons of money wasted on parts nobody could use, quality assurance was always an after-thought, etc. The company suffered and the customers suffered more, but under all that was embitterment between the engineers and the production team. Everyone felt miserable and micromanaged to death. It was nonsense, and even resulted in a short alternation just before I left the company. So, guess who is still in business? CA or CB? Both shops are the same size and offered very similar products and services. Those are just two of my examples, too. I've been with a handful of shops for a long time, and the latter is always a hellscape to work in.
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > Company A(CA) [...] was quite wonderful and remarkably effective. I miss that job, actually. > Company B(CB) did the opposite. [...] The company suffered and the customers suffered more, but under all that was embitterment between the engineers and the production team. Everyone felt miserable and micromanaged to death. > So, guess who is still in business? CA or CB? Murphy's law says Company B. :-( (Please, please tell us different!) > It was nonsense, and even resulted in a short alternation just before I left the company. YM AlterCation?

relwin 2y ago

In many Japanese companies entry level engineers were required to work on a factory line for a few months before being assigned their engineering job. This gave them perspective on how their company makes money by manufacturing, and what that activity entails. (this concept, and my knowledge of Japanese companies may be outdated now...)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

graemep 2y ago

There are people who find jobs that require very little work, and its probably easier to find these jobs in offices. It works very well with technical work that management do not understand, and where output is difficult measure. its possible that people on HN might know of some jobs that fit this… There are extreme cases, such as people dying and no one realising that their work is not being done, and that is rare, but a certain amount of slacking off, spending time of social media, etc. is not at all uncommon.

portpecos 2y ago
>but a certain amount of slacking off, spending time of social media, etc. is not at all uncommon. I mean, the statistics support the extraordinary amount of time spent on social media all throughout the day across all generations.

munificent 2y ago

You're exactly right about the seed of ignorance. I wish there was a good term for it like we have "fundamental attribution error" for that other pernicious cognitive fallacy. The core mistake is that believing that all we know about something is equivalent to all there is to know about something. So if you don't know anything about welding, you assume it must be brain-dead simple because your knowledge of it is so tiny. If you don't know anything about engineering, you assume it's just pushing buttons. It's not just about people's jobs, either. It shows up everywhere once you start looking for it.

0xEF 2y ago
Dunning-Kruger Effect might be a good term to use.
- munificent 2y ago
  That's close but a little diffferent. D-K is about assuming your own competence at something you're ignorant in. I think it's caused by the effect I'm talking about, but the root effect is a little broader in that it applies also to how much you assume there is to be known at all by anyone for some field that you're ignorant in.
  - 0xEF 2y ago
    I'm with ya, yeah, it's almost there. Hmm. I'm not versed enough in cognitive psychology to even guess at what word parts we might throw together to make a new term.

Hikikomori 2y ago

This explains managers perfectly.