|
Mind you seeing what goes on youtube, like that 6 year old Koren kid, who vlogs herself eating, and mage millions (and has just bought a block of flats) you could be onto something!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read/studied the fascinating responses, reactions, cathartic recapitulations of trauma, etc., on the thread. I appreciate the opportunity to hear your voices.
It made me realize how atypical my experience was: I started programming at age 42, after dropping out of a doctoral program in social science after time in academia, and practicing psychotherapy. My path was from SAS/SPSS on mainframes, to 6909 assembly language to BASIC, to LISP, to PostScript.
By the time I was being interviewed, I had a rare specialty, PostScript, and thanks to a book I wrote most of for Addison-Wesley, and my work on Cricket Draw 1.1, I was quite well known in the "desktop publishing" arena.
When I participated in interviews as interviewer (at Adobe), the candidates were already pre-selected for excellence. Personality didn't matter that much unless the candidate really blew it.
Your responses tell me that the modal experience these days, in which personality is more of a factor, is in a context very different from my weird zig-zag through pre-internet days.
I hear, in many of your comments, a reflection of the current zeitgeist of political correctness in the workplace, that emphasis on protecting people from being "triggered" by whatever.
If I were hiring today, for a major desktop app project, I would try to achieve a mix of styles/personalities, and I would not base this on everybody "getting along." In fact, I'd like at least one a'hole on the team. Autistic: no problem if you write great code ! Painfully introverted: ditto. Obsessive-compulsives: you're hired. Caution for hysterics, and temperamental geniuses, however.
What this mix requires, of course, is careful planning and allocation for who works on what. And, yes, that's easy to say, and really hard to do ... well.
Meetings: most are a total waste of time. Formal code-reviews: yes. Hiring testing specialists who delight in finding bugs: yes, when budget and development allow.
Conflict/confrontation is not always a bad thing, and, imho, it's a program manager's task to channel conflict into "fair-fights" rather than sabotage, and inhibited productivity.
Say, I'm a manager, and, a relatively new hire comes to see me, someone still trying to getup to speed, but whose performance is adequate in terms of their role and length on the job:
Me: Hi, I want to reassure you you are doing okay, and meeting our expectations,
NH: Thanks, but, I'm worried ... I feel like the other programmers think I am stupid.
Me: What have you observed the other programmers doing that makes you react by having thoughts like 'I am stupid,' and feeling bad ?
'
NH: Little things, like the way Jane rolls her eyes when she looks at my code ... the way James kind of grins when I ask him a question that demonstrates I don't fully understand the question.
Me: What if your code is stupid ? Where "stupid" means not yet reflecting the mastery of the complex codebase you are busy learning ?
NH: I hadn't thought of it quite like that ...
Me: What if rolling eyes and a sly grin are really a kind of superficial teasing that says: we know what you are struggling with ... we've been through it.
NH: It's hard to see it that way !
Me: It is hard for anyone to see it that way ! It takes effort to become aware of the trigger for the internal negative self-appraisal and develop the habit of confronting it before it takes root in the emotions.
NH: okay, that's interesting.
Me: Remember you might need to change how you react, and how you behave, but, you don't have to change who you are !
NH: okay
Me: Gotta go, the VP for Sales and I are going to go smoke enough crack that we can see how to fudge the sales for the quarter to keep the VC's off our back. Well, I told you I came from the past 
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
modified 8-Sep-19 3:48am.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Well, I told you I came from the past
Me too, wasn't everything so sensible then?
|
|
|
|
|
You're making a huge mistake, thinking that people are logical and reasonable 
Here's how such a conversation could work out as well:
NH: *I can't really say the others make me feel stupid, because that would give off the signal that I might be stupid or insecure and I don't want to be a snitch.*
You: "Hi, I want to reassure you you are doing okay, and meeting our expectations."
NH: "Yeah, I'm fine, I really like it here and I'm learning a lot." *I don't know how much of this sh*t I can take.*
You: "So you have no worries at all?"
NH: "Well... It's all pretty complex, but I think I'm managing quite well." *Phew, almost blew it there.*
You: "How are your coworkers?"
NH: "They really help me out." *They're all assholes for making me feel stupid.*
And then two things can happen, either the new hire stays long enough to become the a**hole he think the others are, or he quits and finds a new job because there are plenty of them.
I've had a discussion with a coworker about logging.
He thought my code had to few logging and couldn't find a bug because of it.
I found the bug in five minutes and it was actually HIS code that was faulty.
He was like "NO SANDER! YOUR CODE NEEDS MORE LOGGING!"
Me: "But I could find it in five minutes, the logging literally says which function threw the exception and it's only a couple of lines. So how much logging do you need, after every statement?"
Him: "I want logging at the beginning and at the end of the function!"
Me: "But that wouldn't help as we already know the code entered the function, but didn't finish correctly..."
Him: "IT WOULD HELP ME!"
Me: "Fine."
He then went to our manager because "fine" wasn't the correct answer, he wanted a sincere apology and that I'd add the logging because I saw his point rather then making him shut up.
We got along pretty well, but I don't think he ever liked me anymore after that.
I wasn't the only one who had troubles with that guy.
He was pretty resentful and took everything personally.
So tell me how people like that are an asset to any team, even if they are brilliant?
Unfortunately, a lot of people are like that (this guy wasn't even the most toxic of the team, go figure).
I agree that "getting along" is probably a bad measure, but some form of social skills and ability to work in a team are at least as important as programming skills.
And nothing kills teamwork more than a bloated ego.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad you got that off your chest ! cheers, Bill
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
I got that off my chest long ago.
I was just responding to your "I'd get at least one a'hole on the team."
Because I really think that's not the way to go.
And especially with the current economy, the good employees will leave for better companies leaving you behind with the people who (think they) can't do any better.
I wonder why anyone would want an a'hole on any team?
My mind literally goes at a blank searching for reasons.
It has nothing to do with political correctness or protecting people from being triggered, it has to do with a healthy environment in which people enjoy working together and which makes them want to share ideas and contribute.
You know, waking up in the morning and not dreading to go to work.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I wonder why anyone would want an a'hole on any team?
Perhaps because I do not assume (to use your own words):Quote: ... that people are logical and reasonable
Sander Rossel wrote: My mind literally goes at a blank searching for reasons.
The virtue of a blank mind cannot be underestimated in terms of both difficulty in attainment ... and value !
Using the light of reason with the major tools western culture has developed, the syllogism, Ockham's Razor, the scientific method, to discern the truth does not imply that what is discerned cannot be illogical, absurd, even contradictory, paradoxical, hallucinatory.
But, I'm not sure about all that 
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
"Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no spoon."
|
|
|
|
|
"You know, waking up in the morning and not dreading to go to work."
Jeez, can't remember the last time I didn't do that...
|
|
|
|
|
Time to find a new job?
I mean, it's only like a third of your adult life... 
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, with the commute, more like half.... 
Also, at 63  I'm not exactly best placed for moving jobs.
Oh well, two years to retirement, then I can spend more time on my main hobby - programming... 
|
|
|
|
|
Ouch, good luck those two years 
My retirement age is currently 67 and a bit 
Of course I plan on making lots of money and quitting A LOT sooner 
|
|
|
|
|
Leo56 wrote: Oh well, two years to retirement, then I can spend more time on my main hobby - programming...
Bravo !
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
lol imagine: Not getting paid to do what you love!!
|
|
|
|
|
In order to have a mixed match of personalities work together you need a respectable and authoritative leader. If, as in 90% of teams, such a leader is not present, it's much better to avoid the alpha-at-all-costs personalities because they will start fragmenting the group and clashing instead of collaborating.
Anedocte: I found out that engineers will cooperate much more than not formally trained porogrammers or non engineer programmers, at least in Europe. I believe it has to do with the absurd difficulty of our engineering programs, which make collaboration a felt necessity from the get go.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: In order to have a mixed match of personalities work together you need a respectable and authoritative leader. If, as in 90% of teams, such a leader is not present, it's much better to avoid the alpha-at-all-costs personalities because they will start fragmenting the group and clashing instead of collaborating.
Impressive combination of vague generalities; what Sherlock said:Quote: It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. (Sherlock Holmes - A Scandal in Bohemia, Arthur Conan Doyle)
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
I respectfully disagree with conflict sometimes being a good thing.
I don't like having arguments or lengthy discussions at work. I do like dividing the work up, and completing it like a team, with people cheering eachother on and helping out when they can. And friday night we all go for drinks.
Idk, you can call me silly I guess. 
|
|
|
|
|
there's arguments, and there are fair fights.
there's argumentative style, and there is argumentative substance.
from my pov, a disagreement turns into an argument when the engaged parties take rigid stances, start to act from negative intention.
a leader who allows a meeting to turn into a melee of arguments is a poor leader. a leader who can recognize a focal conflict, make a decision as to whether exploring it furthers the work and group cohesion ... before allowing it to "take center stage:" that's a good leader.
i never want to be a leader !
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
Two key things, one, it was the occasional conflict, and two, the point of the management part is to keep it from being lengthy or argumentative. Setting clear expectations. If you've ever had a team building exercise they teach that conflict is part of creating an effective team. Changing a culture is even harder.
|
|
|
|
|
A voice of reason here !
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Conflict/confrontation is not always a bad thing, and, imho, it's a program manager's task to channel conflict into "fair-fights" rather than sabotage, and inhibited productivity.
This should be any managers job and is a lost art. I've always said, chaos is energy. The trick is to control that energy.
|
|
|
|
|
I've sent several recent Dilberts to our HR director because they touch on this same exact issue. People are simply too easily offended.
|
|
|
|
|
If someone rolled their eyes at my code I'd ...
<insert nasty="" here="">
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I'd like at least one a'hole on the team. Autistic: no problem if you write great code ! Painfully introverted: ditto. Obsessive-compulsives: you're hired. Caution for hysterics, and temperamental geniuses, however.
In my experience, such fringe personalities, especially when they're extreme, can become distractions or roadblocks to the team getting it's work done. The way you state your case makes it sound like you don't care how extreme those personalities traits are. Don't you worry about whether or not the team's productivity is affected by that?
What this mix requires, of course, is careful planning and allocation for who works on what. Do you ever run into cases where you can't get work done as quickly as possible because you don't have the full freedom to assign any available person to work on something? Sure, some people are better suited to a particular task, but oftentimes, task assignment just can't be optimal (or shouldn't be).
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
