it's called "office politics" in a nutshell, and its constantly hovering around all workplaces.
i don't think it's possible to eliminate these sort of biases from group interactions...i personally think there will always be a bell curve of dislikes/likes among managers who see over a large group of individuals.
that's why it often pays, esp. in this day and age, to keep your employment options open.
It can be eliminated, and it's extremely simple to lay out exactly how to do so. Getting there is not so simple, but the analysis is.
This type of office politics are a direct result of a specific set of ingrained beliefs about people, and a lack of scientific understanding of three areas: psychology and behavioral theory, statistics, and systems theory. In sum, they produce Quality. Lacking, you get the problems we see in the original article.
Knowledge of these three areas, and fundamentally the recognition that the solution lies in this knowledge, is pivotal.
1. Psychology. Knowledge of human behavior and motivation. The article does a good job of identifying the individual breakdown of motivation, but it doesn't go further. The now-famous Dan Pink TED talk is a good start: Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose.
2. Statistics. Knowledge that in a complex production line, whether it be software or widget making, all performance is fundamentally a statistical process highly influenced by a myriad of confounding variables. Even individuals are bound to this model, and strings of good performance or a string of bad performance are probabilistically likely. This brings a new level of understanding to employee performance and an attitude that's wholly beneficial to all employees. http://blog.deming.org/2013/08/is-the-results-due-to-mathema...
3. Systems Theory. Knowledge that most of the performance deficit able to be optimized in any production is within the systems surrounding it, not the individuals themselves. Even the best individuals are often doing their best in the context of extremely poor conditions. The best company improves the process of production continuously, focusing on the system and not the individuals. This type of thinking is also supported by the knowledge of statistics and psychology above.
“A bad system, will defeat a good person, every time.” -- Deming
If everyone has even a basic knowledge of these three concepts, then the entire organization improves.
And more importantly, the beliefs about people that stem from a lack of knowledge of these important concepts begin to dissipate. The belief that individuals are fully responsible for their own success and performance, the idea that bad performers can't be improved or utilized effectively, the belief that individuals are best motivated by carrots and sticks; all of this flies out the window in the face of solid scientific fact.
The challenge is getting everyone in the company to adopt this new philosophy. For that reason, it must come in the vessel of leadership from the top.
then take the cash, move on, and don't look back...in 6 months you will barely remember this whole event.
startups are risky...high risk high reward...it didn't work out but man, if you were good enough to be hired like that you can find 100's of opportunities.
your not fucked...there is basically an unlimited amount of opportunity out there for what we do.
trust me...i KNOW fucked...i got caught with some recreational substances a few years back and am probation for three felony possession charges. 25y+ of software development and it's impossible..IMPOSSIBLE..for me to get past any HR for ANY decent job.
so chill out...enjoy a week off...and get hired next.
> in theory, you just need time, shelter, and access to a cheap computer to become genuinely prosperous
AND the desire...i think that's what a lot of evangelists seem to leave out of the equation.
personally, I think learning code is almost identical to learning to play a musical instrument. It is a very solitary development and THAT'S what is the biggest barrier to entry.
a lot of people just don't like working alone on things...imo
Well, that is changing because technology now allows us to communicate with each other from distant locations. There are websites like HackHands where you can code with a mentor simultaneously. So even the "loneliness" barrier to coding is also dissolving.
I disagree. Although that technology is wonderful, you will still always need the kind the drive and determination to do figure things out for yourself.
It's one thing being shown how to do something, it's another thing to work it out for yourself, in much the same way as studying maths or physic etc.
No doubt, but that is then true about nearly anything - art, music, film, photography. At the end of the day, we are all alone, but that isn't an excuse to dissuade you from doing anything, especially not coding.
"All the evidence suggests that communication between people by whatever means, far from simply accomplishing its purpose, invariably breeds the need for more.)"
> the obvious strategy is just offer $1 until you reach the price floor.
Fair enough, but...
> dumb...pointless...
Really? Did you read the question "how likely are you to remember this shop?" below the experiment? Because I totally would remember this and am much more likely to return at a later time.
