I’ve started running more and more into what one could call “Hype” programmers.
It’s these folks (actually, it’s men, it’s always men) who have read all of hacker news, know all the greatest buzzwords and why you should use tech X over tech Y but have never actually shipped real things.
I should use this deployment strategy or this container orchestration software, but when you dig below the surface, they can’t tell you why.
I think the biggest indicator of someone’s degree of knowledge relating to technology is how many buzzwords they throw at you. The higher the number, the less they actually know.
A friend made a really good comment and observation and it highlighted that my post wasn’t as clear as it could of been.
Sometimes mediocrity happens when greatness isn’t given the conditions it needs to thrive.
While I mentioned in passing of sense of reflection on why this happened and taking responsibility for it. I don’t think it was clear that just because someone is not performing as expected or is not a right fit for the organization at this current point in time it implies they are not a great person and that in a different set of circumstances they would be great.
I’ve been that person that was not at the right place at the right time, just as others have. It’s tough in the moment, but it’s better for you in the long run.
I think one of the reasons I mention radical candour is not to tell others I’m doing it. But to remind myself that I’m trying to get better at it. In all honesty, I think I’m pretty mediocre at it. I’ll often say things that are sub-optimal and will often shy away from tough conversations. This article reminded me of the rewards having those conversation has, especially in the long term.
One of the things people seem to miss most when implementing something like radical candour is to first listen and to try to understand the other person. How can you expect someone to listen to you, if you haven’t listened to them?
Maybe it’s just me, but that’s a question I’ve been asked quite a few times. It’s a loaded question really, the implication is that if you don’t change your mind, you’ll “die”. That it would be foolish not to change your mind.
For me, it’s often a matter of principle. It’s about doing what I think is right, it’s about not compromising on ethics or values, or just not going along with ideas or plans I don’t believe in. It’s about being authentic.
It’s never as if you really die, the consequence really if often something the lines of not being part of a group, ending a friendship or relationship, leaving an organization, or leaving a job.
Maybe it’s idealistic or optimistic, but I think perhaps we should choose to “die” on hills more often.
I often used to assign malice to folks in leadership positions I strongly disagreed with. I then slowly moved to assigning ignorance. It made being compassionate to these folks much easier. Now, I often assign fear.
Fear of being found out a fraud, fear of being in over your head, fear of failure. – Elizabeth Shassere
I recommend reading the whole article here. Not everyone will tick off all the checkboxes but perhaps being aware of them can help you build compassion for others and maybe even become aware of some things you are afraid of.