December 14, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item We Are Not a Meritocracy
December 14, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Choosing the best person (in terms of skills, knowledge) is not always a good idea anyway, even if they do have a suitable personality. If there are a number of people who meet a satisfactory standard it may make sense to choose the one with the most to learn because they wont be getting bored as quickly, will feel more appreciative of the opportunity.
December 14, 2010 at 11:39 pm
I'll take both, please. You've got to know your stuff and be able to work with people to get the job done. Well... unless you're flippin' your own burgers. 😛
Thanks for the great editorial, Steve.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 15, 2010 at 2:08 am
In the past few years my organisation has hired 2 SQL contractors. In terms of skills they were comparable. In terms of personality and attitude they were opposite ends of the spectrum. In that situation it's a no brainer who'd you want.
However, if it came down to a choice between skills and personality, then I'd take the personality every time. An obvious caveat is that they'd have to have some skills, but they wouldn't need to be a SQL Rockstar.
You can get more done with a person of lesser skill but a great attitude than you can with a Rockstar whose attitude stinks.
December 15, 2010 at 2:25 am
everyone should "hire the best person for the job."
Well, ... yes, of course, but the "best" person for the job is defined as?
The appalling proponents of linearity in the technology business could do with mandatory isolation from from all forms of communication for a week with only a copy of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus to occupy their time. Maybe some water, food and shelter as well.
but the thing that's most important to me is that we get along
Well, ... yes, of course, if you're trying to do yourself out of a job as a manager.
unless you're flippin' your own burgers
"What do you do then?"
"I'm a corporate whore."
"But, ... your collegue said you were a consultant?"
"Yep"
"?"
"I charge you a ridiculous amount of money to tell you what you want to hear, make you feel really good about yourself and leave you smiling and thinking, 'Yes, I'll definitely be getting you back again.' "
There are a few of us out here prepared to pay the enormous cost of freedom that comes with being self employed instead of selling our [insert a wage slave incompatible trait] and even some of us prepared to try to raise children who think the same way.
Peter Edmunds ex-Geek
December 15, 2010 at 2:35 am
The appalling proponents of linearity in the technology business could do with mandatory isolation from from all forms of communication for a week with only a copy of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus to occupy their time.
Hey, what's that in English? You're clearly saying something profound here.
Hopeful Kiwi
December 15, 2010 at 2:59 am
You can get more done with a person of lesser skill but a great attitude than you can with a Rockstar whose attitude stinks.
Absolutely. There are some people out there with great tech skills and a great attitude but in general when someone goes through life being told they are a "guru" in anything they start getting a big head.
Anyone who claims to know everything about about any aspect of IT (or most other things) is lying - its that simple.
I'd rather have a colleague willing to work hard and learn that a guru who refuses to discuss alternatives to their sacred pronouncements.
December 15, 2010 at 3:52 am
Well, technically, people are rewarded for there skills and merit. Just not the ones you are thinking of 😀 I have always been a firm believer in "its not what you know, its who you know"....
A lot also depends on the company and what they want. One of my previous companies told me that I needed to be a B*****D!! Purely because they were expanding VERY quickly and the IT manager knew that if it was done badly in the beginning it would all come back to haunt him.
generally speaking though, attitude wins out over skills......
December 15, 2010 at 4:51 am
It seems that most people really want their employees, or co-workers, to meet some minimum level of competency, continue to improve their skills, and do their share of the work. That's reasonable and I can appreciate those qualities in people, but the thing that's most important to me is that we get along.
I have worked with lots of incompetent people that can "get along" and have great personalities. Too bad business isn't high school.
Oh, he's very popular Ed. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads - they all adore him. They think he's a righteous dude.
-Ferris Bueller's Day Off
December 15, 2010 at 5:47 am
I could write a program (SQL naturally;-) to evaluate all the pertinent points and always select the "right" person to hire. Would you run it? How about if YOU wrote the program - do you think I would run it?
Certification and proof of knowledge or competence are great things. Attitude is subjective. Roll the dice, take your chances, and may the best applicant and wise manager on occasion win.
These points aside, we are a meritocracy up to a point due to raises, promotions, and awards for extraordinary performance. And for another five bucks you get a cup of coffee.
December 15, 2010 at 6:39 am
Meritocracy is something that sounds great in theory, but as the history of Civil Service exams (US) shows, it can create enormous amounts of inertia, and people quickly develop ways to game the system.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
December 15, 2010 at 6:41 am
Get along? Are you kidding me Steve? Did we just take a trip to namby-pamby land? (to quote a recent U.S. commercial) I don't need to be best buds with my co-workers. We only need to be adults and act professionally. That gets work done. Maybe you would define that as getting along.
The worst job I had was for a company where they all acted like they were in a college dorm. It was horrible. Nothing got done and they were eaten up by the dot com bust.
I would rather work with people whose personality I don't like but can get the work done. We don't have to be friends.
Sorry for being a tad harsh there, Steve.
December 15, 2010 at 7:08 am
OCTom (12/15/2010)
Get along? Are you kidding me Steve? Did we just take a trip to namby-pamby land? (to quote a recent U.S. commercial) I don't need to be best buds with my co-workers. We only need to be adults and act professionally. That gets work done. Maybe you would define that as getting along....
In the business world I would that is 'getting along': When the team digs in cooperatively to handle a problem together, when people do what they say, doesn't say 'that's not my job' and don't hang each other out to dry.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
December 15, 2010 at 7:30 am
I agree that a mix of technical skills and people skills the best choice in staffing. I have interviewed people that can pass certification exams easily but falter when faced with practical application of that knowledge. People skills are invaluable in meeting situations with end users as well as team communications. A DBA team that gets along with each other is more likely to share knowledge and help build the collective skill of the team.
December 15, 2010 at 7:46 am
Wow.... Let me start with this.
The company I currently work for has an 18 person IT Department consisting of 4 phone techs, 5 executives (including the CIO ), 1 admin assistant, 3 .NET developers, 1 DBA/SQL developer, 1 sysadmin, and 1 network tech, 1 application support manager. That team supports 500+ internal users and 2000+ external users, plus the unknown users we support from the parent company through help desk. In this team two of the persons where given jobs in IT base solely on politics. Nobody else in the company wanted them because of there performance and skills. Because of politics, the executive team did not want to lay them off.
One of them has actually tried to learn his job and how things work. The other one has been counseled several times for arguing with his manager instead of doing his work. He has even made statements that he does not need to do or learn anything because he is on good terms with a board member an they will believe him over us.
I am sure you can imagine what an effect this argumentative, unknowledgable, untrained, unskilled, and unwilling employee is to our small group and large workload. I have heard two directors state that we just have to deal because they made promises to keep this dead weight around.
I have to admit that it would be nice to see people in the professional world get rewards according to there skill and/or accomplishments.
It would also be nice to see world peace, the end of hunger, and poverty also.
Unfortunately, those with power only seek things that will reinforce there feelings of power and reduce there feelings of inadequacy. Being able to place whoever wherever they want does reinforce these feelings positively, but affects actual productivity negatively.
I would love to live in a world that societies most reverent figures were not martyr's.
A place that groups or individuals received great rewards and great power for there knowledge and skill.
Unfortunately we live in a world where someone that has never done a days worth of productive work will get hired into an executive position at a Global Bank and use politics and personal greed to hire anyone they like regardless of merit or skill. These people will never accomplish a thing except drain resources, fail projects, and use influence to hire like minded souls. Eventually they are rewarded with bonuses coming from another countries tax payers. Because the Bank they worked for failed they get a reward because they are the "Cool Kids" and "Beautiful People".
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 44 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply