Life and its rewards aren't perfect. Work with honest, intelligent people; genuinely do your best; your days will be much better and the odds will be with you.
On the same note, it's so discouraging when someone who is not/neither takes over, those people leave (one way or another), and you have to start the search again.
Or when someone is intelligent enough you don't figure out they're not honest until it's too late. <shiver>
Anyone who's been around the block a time or two will accumulate those experiences. I hope I've not been jaded by mine.
(Otherwise known as pathological lies). To do as the saying says, and "know thyself" is difficult. People are prone to be overly harsh or generous when evaluating themselves.
This is good advice that’s well intentioned, but (sorry), it can be interpreted as elitist, and in a way that’s detrimental to the reader.
I am no way suggesting that this is the intention or belief of the parent, but while I’ve got more miles on my odometer than I’d prefer, they’ve informed me that “reasonable” is better than “intelligent.”
My god how I’ve found that working with reasonable people is so much healthier, more productive and rewarding than working with the unreasonable* intelligent folks.
*I fully grant to my current and former colleagues, friends and associates that I have been irredeemably unreasonable any number of times. Consider this a small thanks :).
Totally get where you're coming from, but it's also kinda splitting hairs.
Being reasonable is part of being intelligent. Surrounding yourself with intelligent people doesn't necessarily mean "surround yourself with the highest IQ individuals you can find." (not saying you're saying that explicitly, just that i think you're just using a definition of intelligence that's narrower than the parent) Working well with others, understanding when one has made mistakes and being able to admit to it, understanding both the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns of a problem...these are a better mark of intelligence than a mensa membership.
Well the parent made sort of a case for why being reasonable is part of being intelligent, and your response was to claim there was no correlation without an argument.
I happen to believe that reasonableness is part of being intelligent, by the following criteria:
1. when you are reasonable you do not make unreasonable demands that will just be troublesome and cause workflow issues because in the end they are unachievable.
2. a reasonable person will be able to determine what other people are capable of in given situations, and be able to structure things in such a way that other people can perform to best meet expectations.
3. the root of reasonable is reason, a reasonable person can be reasoned with because they possess the quality of reason, in most of the history of philosophy if you do not possess the ability to reason you are an idiot.
Having worked closely with some dramatically different intelligent people, I really think intelligence and reasonableness are very different.
Being reasonable, is being someone with a strong genuine value for collaboration. They actively advocate for and work with others to optimize situations taking everyone's needs into account. Encourage give and take, constructive debates, and appreciate feedback. Etc.
An intelligent person can be all those things. Or none of them - but manifest them enough that, with some spin, they seem reasonable, while actually optimizing the environment primarily for their own long term benefit.
Very intelligent unreasonable people are disasters to work with.
Alright, my argument is that parent needed to redefine what those words mean. Intelligent means having high intelligences, high IQ. That does not imply being reasonable or having emotional control. It does not imply ability to shut up when you do not know what you are talking about either.
Moreover, being able to admit mistakes (specific thing mentioned by parent) is oftentimes detrimental for you. People who do not admit them are typically rewarded, people who easily admit them punished. So, what you are looking at is "ethics even if it does not benefits me".
> This is good advice that’s well intentioned, but (sorry), it can be interpreted as elitist, and in a way that’s detrimental to the reader.
There's nothing wrong with elitism as long as it leads to initiation rather than gatekeeping.
> My god how I’ve found that working with reasonable people is so much healthier.
Could not agree more. Most people can be trained well to do any job required of them. What cannot be trained, and certainly at the behest of the employer is interpersonal skills.
The one situation where I would prefer someone who is intelligent at the expense of being personable is if I intended to hire 2-3 absolute weapons to be the core of a startup.
> Most people can be trained well to do any job required of them.
I really wish this were true, but especially in programming I don’t think this is the case.
I’ve spent years as a programming teacher. Some of my students have been among the most wonderful, enthusiastic, hard working students you can find. And yet, despite both of us working hard for a year or more, some never develop any talent whatsoever for programming. Statements like “everyone can code” can easily turn into a rod for their backs. - “Therefore if I’m not succeeding like many of the other students, it must be because I’m not trying hard enough, or there’s something wrong with me”. I don’t think this is anyone’s fault. Perpetuating the lie that all our brains have an equal capacity to program is a terribly cruel injustice. Some students would be much better served by finding another career that they can excel at. The faster they figure this out, the better.
Programming isn’t for everyone. It’s hard. Not everyone has the same capacity for it. I believe accepting that is an act of kindness.
> I really wish this were true, but especially in programming I don’t think this is the case.
I should have made my prior assumptions clear. The "most people" I'm referring to are CS graduates or people with IT diplomas and the percentage among those who are trainable to a capacity of competence in most companies are roughly 70%.
> Perpetuating the lie that all our brains have an equal capacity to program is a terribly cruel injustice. Some students would be much better served by finding another career that they can excel at.
When I was still a uni student I used to be a CS tutor in a help desk setting and I especially remember one guy who used to come in a lot. He had a really great attitude despite being humbled by the fundamentals. He used to repeat to me: "Sometimes you have to ask for help when you need it." After that semester I didn't see him again. I also remember a particularly annoying guy who used to come in and waste my time and the other tutor's by bringing in a problem and then solving it himself within seconds of sitting down just so he could talk about how he solved it and how much he knew. The world is not a fair place.
Yep. Those two stories are in some amount of conflict. I agree that anyone who has passed a decent hiring bar can be trained to some baseline level of competence. But the difference in capacity between that baseline level and someone brilliant can be huge. And it matters. This is the difference between something being an ongoing issue for the team for months, and it just quietly never seeming like it was ever a problem in the first place. As you say, it’s totally unfair.
> What cannot be trained, and certainly at the behest of the employer is interpersonal skills.
I think that those can be trained as well. The fact is that just acknowledging the issue requires a level of self-awareness that not everyone has, and training THAT as well requires being aware of it. External input and help from a specialist or a dear friend can get the ball rolling.
I know OP already responded but people who are smart, kind, and are down to earth are special. You have to keep them close, and it’s pure bliss if you find a company filled with them.
It’s life goals to be smart, kind, and down to earth. It really
comes from a LOT of experience though.
People known for being purely highly reasonable people know that they don't know everything and aren't afraid to learn and be humble and are often a net positive.
People known for being purely highly intelligent people often think they know it all and are often a net drain.
I think [reasonable] falls under the heading of [honest].
Both honesty/reasonableness and intelligence are required. A family memebr is tearing her hair out about having to work with some assistants who are honest, well-intentioned, and pleasant, but who are just mentally incapable of keeping things straight — they literally screw things up and make more disorganization than they fix (fortunately, better help is supposedly on the way).
Overall, in hiring and working with people, most of the time, a warm body is definitely NOT better than nobody.
As the GP, yes good point about reasonableness. I didn't word it well: I meant people who act intelligently; intelligence by itself certainly doesn't yield that!
> it can be interpreted as elitist
If "intelligent" is taken as 'naturally superior intelligence', then I can see what you mean (and I think that idea is a egomaniacal delusion). What I mean is people who choose to act intelligently; that's quite democratic.
Great approach!
For the past 2 years I keep experimenting with different ways to track day to day productivity. It has helped me tremendously in assessing how I should feel at the end of the day about my work day and the amount of time I put towards work. (I tend to overwork myself significantly). It is of course a lot harder to apply this approach to individual productivity tracking across my teams. But I do now believe, based on self experiments and within smaller teams, that there is generally a lack of visibility of knowledge worker productivity. Especially within larger companies. WFH and hybrid makes this more crucial to have for both management and self assessments on the IC level.
Not everyone has that option, as you say. My career was in a similar dead-end situation at one point; there was no immediate solution - nothing was going to make tomorrow or next month better than today.
Finally, I accepted the solution was long-term. I made a long-term plan - to do what I really loved - and focused my attention on that, and slowly built up the resources, skills, etc. for that plan. One wonderful side effect was that the dead-end part diminished in my mind; sure, I still had to do it, it still sucked and there were some awful days, but it would pass. I didn't matter so much; those people didn't matter; it was like one of those movies where the kid knows that someday they will leave the depressing, dead-end town they are stuck in today.
I hope that helps a little in your situation! Good luck!
Sorry to hear this! At the risk of repeating what others in your life may have told you, have you considered working for a new team/company? I find it of utmost importance to find a job/career that is intrinsically fulfilling and rewarding to you. Extrinsic rewards like money are great, but you can only slog for so long for only money before you burn out.
I've personally been fortunate to have been able to form a network of a bunch of different well-connected folks so I can always choose who I get to work with in the event that companies shut down or get acquired or such and such. I feel the value of such a network does not get touted often enough.
This is a great answer. The only thing I would add is that you can take mental note when you accomplish something that anticipates and preempts future needs and challenges. It is ok to make brief mention of these things from time to time when appropriate. If nothing more it helps coworkers and bosses realize that you are putting in some thought and effort for the needs of others and to make things go more smoothly behind the scenes.
Doing this effectively requires tact. Try to mostly bring up your silent efforts casually, and be judicious about how often and in what situation you mention it. If it gets interpreted as an "I told you so," an excuse, self-importance, etc, then it will probably do more harm than good in terms of your standing with others.
Might be helpful to some degree. But won't save you if your organization's culture simply doesn't value your work or more generally doesn't care about proactive, methodical improvements that have no flash or immediate payoff.
Maybe. But still it is in the spirit of the parent post "Life and its rewards aren't perfect".
If you start micro-optimizing - especially on other people, whose behaviour you can rarely change. It may leave you with lots of frustration and completely missing the grand picture.
I'm going to add: in a place where they have the bandwidth to be honest and intelligent. Sometimes good people are in bad situations. It's important to recognize this.
Another perspective: if you are not in a position to change the rules of the game, understand the rules of the game and play that game, not another one that you would like to play or that you think is more fair to play. Alternatively, if it is not the game you want to play, find a place where that game, or a similar one, is played.
This kind jaded, reductive answer reeks of sour grapes. I've seen so many adopt a transactional mentality as a sort of defense mechanism against the indifference of the universe, and in the process they unintentionally blind themselves to numerous daily examples of people just trying to do the right thing. Sure the world has problems, but if we can't see both the good and the bad then we become embittered and small, hateful to ourselves and those around us.
It also really depends on your organization and how they quantify and reward impact. There are ways to get credit for preventing issues. Establish the baseline level of quality, broadly create classes of issue, define a plan to solve that class of issue and measure your impact relative to your goals at the end.
At a big company you should be able to turn that into a number - 'this kind of issue was costing us $X/quarter, and thanks to my work, it is now costing us $(X-N)/quarter, in line with my estimates.'
It's performance season so I've been giving a lot of thought to how you quantify and attribute impact especially for folks in lower-visibility roles.
Not every company is going to see it this way but that's kind of a truism. Not every company sees any one kind of impact the same way, and you have to think about that relative to your career goals. I think aligning with your manager at the start, quantifying your impact and showing your results is going to get you the recognition you deserve at any company worth working at.
Intelligent people are in larger orgs too. They learn very quickly that promotions aren't tied to effort and anticipating problems or resolving future problems.
The intelligent, optimistic and genuinely good, helpful people who don't learn this (or refuse to compromise their good nature) end up burning out, getting performance managed or with PTSD
Right, don't work in that org. Find the org with more of the intelligent, optimistic and genuinely good, helpful people.
Some people don't want to give up the job at High Status High Pay Corp. That's the trade-off they are choosing. (Not every HSHP Corp. has to be a bad place to work, however.)
You can have intelligent people in the largest orgs, if they are good at hiring.
You can have inexperienced people in small teams or companies, and it happens often.
