
How Bullshitters Not Just Survive But Thrive (2016) - TerminalJunkie
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-bullshitters-just-survive-thrive-until-atul-mathur
======
mattdeboard
I mean, I feel like everyone hating on this article either:

1\. has never had the misfortune of working with one of these people. "poser"
devs who care more about "communicating up" and making a show of their (often
quite trivial) contributions

2\. has worked with people like this, but doesn't perceive the behavior
described in the article, for whatever reason.

A couple times in my life, not just in software, I have worked with people who
are _exactly_ like the article describes. The work they do is all perception-
management stuff. Shuffling around work tickets, setting up/attending
meetings, etc., when they are supposed to be individual contributors.
Meanwhile, they contribute nothing. I've even had a coworker -- a peer -- come
to me to ask me to do a task when they were assigned to do it. Because they
were busy organizing work tickets.

Don't get me wrong. You have to toot your own horn when you do something that
should be noticed. Your boss won't always recognize when you've made a
meaningful contribution, so saying, "Hey I did this and it's pretty good, and
it adds value to our org in these ways" is not inherently bad.

It's when that autotooting is to bring attention to stuff outside what they're
_supposed_ to be contributing that it should raise red flags. Or when they
start trying to delegate work to their peers. I'm really glad so many of you
find this article so awful because it means you've never felt the frustration
of watching someone like this get praised for and advance by essentially doing
nothing.

edit: I don't know how to explain it to someone who hasn't ever noticed it.
The behavior pattern in the article is not something a lot of people notice.
But among people who do notice -- at least those I've talked to -- it's very
obvious and really bothersome.

That said, most of the time coworkers -- even really smart, kind, hard-working
coworkers -- either don't notice or don't care. So it's not surprising to me
that commentators here think the article is BS. You've probably sat next to
people like this but you didn't notice. Good on you.

~~~
ryandrake
I remember the first time in my career I encountered someone like this. I
thought I was mistaken or crazy, or just naive since I was new to corporate
work. This person MUST do something or he'd have been fired! But after
watching for weeks, then months, as he literally accomplished nothing, instead
spending all his time self-promoting, taking credit for other people's
accomplishments, and "managing upward", I was convinced I wasn't crazy. His
official job was to write code, but his real job was shaping the perceived
reality of his boss and his boss's boss, and he was very very good at it. This
person has, since, gone on to be rather successful (at least a successful
sounding title at a well-known software company).

~~~
gozur88
In my experience small companies, which can't afford to carry dead weight, are
pretty intolerant of these kinds of people. But at a large company someone who
does this well will be there as long as he wants. I work with one who's been
at our company for at least fifteen years.

My favorite trick is the Strategic Vacation. Somehow he always has a long
vacation planned months in advance that allows him to dump whatever he's been
tasked with onto someone else (like me, for instance).

"It's basically done, but I haven't added Y or Z yet" is always the prelude to
receiving something he's been "working on" for three months and actually put
in, charitably, two or three days of actual work.

But he's a good looking, personable kind of guy. Everybody likes him,
particularly the managers, as a person. So while nobody wants him on their
team he's managed to avoid getting a reputation that would keep him from
moving to other teams.

~~~
mattdeboard
> "It's basically done, but I haven't added Y or Z yet" is always the prelude
> to receiving something he's been "working on" for three months and actually
> put in, charitably, two or three days of actual work.

I am familiar with this one as well.

------
basseq
Ironically, this article also reeks of bullshit.

The massive characterization: the sloppy nerd (W-S), the consummate
bullshitter (S-W), and the "rare" real talent (W+S). Which sets up the
classic, "you're successful, so you must be a bullshitter" (because those S+Ws
are _sooo rare_ ).

The "CB's" he's describing are so incredibly transparent, they might as well
be strawmen.

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
> The "CB's" he's describing are so incredibly transparent, they might as well
> be strawmen.

Strawmen or not, I've worked for two. Those aren't fond memories.

~~~
IsaacL
Yup. It takes a while to see the abstract pattern underlying their behaviour.
Once you see it, its very clear. But for a long time you're distracted by the
details of day-to-day events and you think they're just another co-worker with
some annoying habits.

I'm confused why so many commenters are quick to shout "B.S" on this article
(are they BSers in hiding?) but maybe he is oversimplifying too much. True S-W
types are pretty rare and are probably evidence of some extreme psychological
disorder. (E.g., malignant narcissism or sociopathy. Robert Hare is a
researcher in criminal psychology and wrote a book on such people:
[https://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-
Work/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-
Work/dp/0061147893)).

~~~
basseq

      maybe he is oversimplifying too much
    

I think that's it. Even distilled down to two variables ("smart" and "work"),
you're talking about three "extremes": [1.0S,1.0W], [1.0S,0.0W], and
[0.0S,1.0W]. Most people are probably in the 0.25-0.75 range on both
variables.

There are almost certainly more variables, and "smart" and "work" are
_terribly_ named.

~~~
mturmon
I agree, and add that sometimes people who have a tendency to BS can surround
themselves with more grounded people, so that the whole package works. Their
confidence and superficial knowledge can even make them seem more relatable to
customers than a deeply knowledgable specialist would.

In other words, an individual's value is context-dependent. It's really hard
to make such crisp distinctions as in the article.

------
zellyn
A better article if you're interested in this type of analysis, done well:
[http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-
principle-o...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-
the-office-according-to-the-office/)

~~~
verbify
I went to a meetup and ran into the author of that piece. I asked him a
question (I forgot what) about it, and he groaned, because it's pretty much
the thing everyone always asks him about.

I then spoke to him about this piece -
[http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2015/03/19/the-art-of-
gig/-](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2015/03/19/the-art-of-gig/-) which I think is
hilarious.

------
Apfel
As an S-W character myself currently struggling to transform into the mythical
W-S in academia, is there any simple ways to just focus and get work done? I
find it almost impossible to focus on one thing for more than a few minutes.

~~~
dhimes
The pomodoro technique is quite popular. Also, goals, systems, etc. There are
a few subreddits that focus on things like this.

~~~
Apfel
I've tried the pomodoro technique. It's very good for deadlines. Academia
doesn't tend to have genuine deadlines at the junior researcher level so it's
basically just a matter of finishing the work whenever you can.

What would be nice, is if there was a way to somehow gain intrinsic motivation
to do stuff that interests you? I get extremely excited about projects at
first and then tail off.

I'm not a "finisher", and I would give a large chunk of my salary to someone
who enabled me to become one.

~~~
twic
I had this problem when i was a PhD student. Towards the end of my time, i
started doing something which fixed it, and which i could have been doing all
along: make a list of the figures for my paper, and do whatever bit of work
moves the next most important one towards being finished.

I should mention that i was working in cell biology; in cell biology, you earn
career points by publishing papers telling a new story, where papers comprise
a series of figures, each one showing results which demonstrate some point of
your story. Papers also have an introduction, description of the results, and
discussion, but those are pretty much filler. The smart scientists i know read
the title, the figures, and the materials and methods section. Perhaps not
every field is like this.

So, to make a good paper, you have to come up with a series of good figures,
which means (a) finding a story you want to tell, (b) working out what points
you want to make, and (c) getting results which make those points. Having done
that, there's the technical work of making up the figures (learn to love
Illustrator), and some writing, and you're done.

Finding the story is usually the easy bit. Your supervisor usually has some
untold ideas for stories floating about, or there will be some variation on an
existing story that people will enjoy hearing. Or you might just need to spend
a year or two trying stuff, which can be fun until it suddenly isn't.

Working out what points you need to make takes time, but once you know the
story, is usually not too hard. Crucially, you don't need to know up front
that these points are all true. As you work towards them, if you find any that
aren't true, you just throw them away, and either replace them, do without
them, or change the story a bit.

It's getting the results which is hard. That is the actual work in scientific
research. Designing, performing, interpreting, and refining experiments.
Finding, preparing, and characterising materials. Learning or inventing
techniques. Spotting weaknesses and plugging them with control experiments.
Endless, seemingly incessant, tea breaks.

Having a concrete list of the figures you need helps you keep going at getting
results, and helps you do the right ones. Before i had a list of figures, i
did all sorts of experiments because they seemed interesting, and connected to
what i was doing, but which could never have contributed to my paper.

~~~
Apfel
This is such a wonderful reply. Thank you so, so much for this. It's so
clearly actionable in my day-to-day life, too.

Hopefully you've saved my career before it implodes!

------
gregpilling
I am the company owner. I had the bizarre experience of net productivity going
UP by firing the warehouse manager. Apparently he had the habit of telling the
same long-winded story to each of his 8 co-workers, individually.

Once he got done telling them all about the strawberries that were 50 cents a
pound underpriced at Safeway, `15 minutes later they could get back to work.
He not only wasted his time, but also his co-workers.

Productivity noticeably went up after his departure. Nobody had complained
about his time wasting stories until AFTER he left. Somehow they assumed I
knew everything but didn't care (bizarre, since I am fairly frugal) .

So as the Boss in this scenario, sometimes it is hard to tell what the truth
really is. My staff was trying to be nice, and not cause problems in the
workplace. Thus causing a problem in the workplace.

Occasionally I do the Toyota 'stand in a circle' exercise in the factory to
get a real sense of how people move around, how they spend their time. It is
always surprising how my assumptions are often wrong.

[http://theleanthinker.com/2007/07/09/the-chalk-
circle/](http://theleanthinker.com/2007/07/09/the-chalk-circle/)

I also watch for the "delegate to peers" routine. If I assigned it to you, I
wanted YOU to do it. If I wanted your co-worker to do it, I would have
assigned it to THEM.

------
startupdiscuss
There are four reactions to this article that I can see right now:

1\. It is incorrect, and the author misunderstands the nature of management

2\. It is neither correct, not incorrect, but is vapid and superficial

3\. It is basically correct, but poorly written and reasoned

4\. It is correct

Let me respond to category #1 and #3, and try to unpack the claim made in the
article.

I assume that there is no debate that some people do not add value.

Most people may also agree that there are some people who do not add value _on
purpose_. That is, they are not interested in adding value. What might be more
controversial is that there are many such people, and they are successful.

If you believe that there are people who purposefully don't add value but
exist and thrive, then who are they, how do they thrive and why aren't they
caught?

I think you will end up with some version of the argument presented here.

------
AdeptusAquinas
In my experience the S-W/CB are very rare, rarer than the W+S type. I've
worked with one or two over the course of ten years, but they tend to
gravitate into project management or BA positions in a short amount of time.

The most common type of developer is the fourth category, missing from the
article: the -S-W type. Not really all that good, and with little to no
political acumen. They fill most roles at medium-to-large IT companies.

And having known many (a lot of them are nice people otherwise), I can tell
you that each and everyone of them thinks they personally are a W-S type. They
think their uninspiring, slow, painful expertise (if its hard for them its
because it must be a hard problem, right?) makes them top of their field, and
that when other developers are the 'superstars' its just because they are
better at politics.

The biggest truth, the most important truth that the article seems biased
against, is that unless you live in a cave working on software with two other
like-minded hardcore devs, 50% of your job is communication! Not being good at
communication makes you a bad developer, regardless of your technical
abilities.

------
gloverkcn
The lens the author is looking through is missing the other side of the coin.

Communication:

Regardless of how smart you are, if you can't communicate it to others, then
then value of your intelligence is limited to an individual role. People who
can't/won't communicate make terrible managers. The people above them have no
idea what's going on in their team. Poor coordination with other teams creates
issues outside of their team. Their own team members will fail to understand
what role they are playing in a larger effort. The non-communicating manger
will know (because he's in the meetings), but will fail to pass that
information to their team. As you move up the chain of command, communication
becomes more important than what you as an individual can produce.

Confidence:

Your car breaks down. It's critical you have it working tomorrow. Two
mechanics show up.

\- The first mechanic says: "This is really tricky. I don't know if we can get
this fixed tomorrow. It may take a week. I'm not sure"

\- The second mechanic says: "This is no problem. I'll have it fixed by
tomorrow".

Which one are you going to hire?

Perception:

The hardest pill to swallow is that upper management is very aware of what's
going on in a team, especially when the manager is a problem.

    
    
      - upper management has usually seen it all before.  So any behavioral issues are easily spotted.  
      - Team members complain to people on other teams, and word gets around.
      - Team members will request re-assignement or discuss quitting.
    

There are a lot of ways to handle a bad manager, some good, many bad. The more
professional you are, the easier they are to handle (i.e. be honest, don't
participate in rumors, don't complain about others, own your responsibilities,
be transparent, and communicate with facts)

Performance over Perception:

Performance is always more important than perception. The issue is a lot of
employees don't understand what the priorities are for their organization.

The priority is almost always. How efficiently and predictably does the job
get done. Efficiency also includes how much hand holding someone higher up has
to do.

------
loup-vaillant
> _Can you see a cow?_

Looks like a blurred Japanese painting. I see 2 samurai, one standing on the
left, one dead on the right (face down, you can see his hair). I can't explain
the horn helmet the standing samurai is wearing, though.

> _If you still can 't see the cow, please search "visual intelligence cow" in
> Google images_

Oh. A cow indeed. (It's head, facing the camera.)

~~~
XaspR8d
Is this a notable photograph for visual elicitation? I saw a cow immediately
so I thought the references were some weird sarcastic humor...

(Not bragging about recognition by any means. Grew up in dairy country so I
probably see _too many_ cows in things overall!)

~~~
dTal
Yes, it's famous. I remember seeing it as a child and taking ages to see the
cow, and feeling a "hidden picture" sensation when it finally popped out. Now,
decades later as an adult, it immediately and unambiguously looks like a cow.
I wonder if that's due to 1) learning the picture, 2) learning more about
cows, or 3) learning more about high-contrast images.

I do remember hearing that it's one of those things you can't ever "unsee".

------
CodeSheikh
I am happy to work at a tech company where your BS can be easily surfaced
using pure logic. If you can't code and don't do good coding or designing then
it does not give you enough leeway to BS.

~~~
match
Yes, perhaps more than some other fields. However don't underestimate the
number of decisions which must be made with less than adequate information and
sometimes multiple outcomes can be chosen which are supported by available
data. Also there are times when someone's experience can help them understand
how a stream of data will change over time and they can use that to get ahead
of the change rather than being purely reactive.

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, just proposing that it isn't usually so
black and white in our industry.

------
thegayngler
I comfortably and certainly fall into the first category. I'm not ever more
than 90% confident...if you ask me directly what my confidence level is. I
tend to be one who is labeled as not "smart".

~~~
cesarbs
You're not alone.

To make it worse I tend to start stuttering when asked things on the spot,
even though I know the answers or could easily look up whatever info was asked
for. I'm painfully aware this makes me look like I don't know what I'm doing.
People generally don't have the patience to let me gather my thoughts and give
a coherent explanation/answer.

~~~
thegayngler
Exactly. I think that is actually their own failure and not mine. About 50% of
the time thinking fast just gets you a rushed answer which is likely not to be
the correct answer. My manager literally said he can't trust me with on the
spot questions. I'm like well duh. You shouldn't trust the off the cuff for
certain types of questions. I try to actively limit the amount of company
specific information that goes into semi/long-term memory.

------
fuzzfactor
Not a link to an article, just the linkedin signup page.

Too bad linkedin has declined in usefulness, it was almost getting good.

Anyway, pure political posers are nothing new.

Not everybody has it in them to actually make worthwhile efforts, or make
efforts worthwhile to anyone but themselves.

Plus most BS proponents are not in the pure category, with significant to
considerable raw ability but who still draw from the BS deck when threatened
or with opportunities that might fall to truly higher quality operators
instead.

Often motivated most strongly by greed, and without real value-creating talent
or productive performance to fall back on, there's not much else they can do
to survive.

A great many have been this way for life, and know it well, therefore have a
lifetime honing their survival skill. Some get especially good at inserting
themselves into the background BS of particulary vulnerable or susceptible
bureaucracies, where they can often thrive (exclusively to their own
advantage). They sometimes accomplish this without becoming a destructive
enough parasite to be well recognized by those who should care. And sometimes
those who should care, actually don't care to begin with, or have had their
doubts diverted by carefully crafted BS fields.

For technical or scientific concepts to thrive instead, there must be none of
these BS operators between the technical creators and the resources the
creators rely on (such as funding resources from capitalists, income from
clients, or customers).

------
rplst8
I think people should stop trying to put others into categories to feel
superior about themselves. People have a range of talents and shortcomings. No
one is perfect.

~~~
woodandsteel
So you are saying there are two sorts of people, those who put people in
categories and those who don't, and you are the latter type. Ok.

------
rebootthesystem
The sad reality is that all too often these people end-up in management
position. I've worked for at least a couple of such folks. They were
technically incompetent yet could say enough in meetings to appear like
geniuses to upper management and non-technical folks. Master manipulators at
all levels. It is interesting to note this is the very thing politics is
about.

------
makerleader
To say this article misses a bit of nuance is a major understatement. The
descriptions (w+s, s-w, etc.) are limited, and where people fall on the
spectrum (even on this limited black/white list of personality types), ebb and
flow on a daily/weekly basis.

------
lobster_johnson
I kept waiting for a resolution to his anecdote about waiting for his boss. It
sounds like his boss was doing work. How was that an example of a bullshitter?

------
laughfactory
I know a EVP who is #2. He is worthless as they come, knows far less than he
claims, and soaks up mad resources. He's hated by everyone below that level,
but very popular with his peers because he hires very competent people and
rides on their accomplishments. And he has a great managerial presentation and
personality. Ugh.

------
EekSnakePond
Fake it 'til you make it!

The problem becomes more pronounced the further we abstract away from Assembly
and memory management.

------
bjornlouser
Ayn Rand wrote about the W+S crowd leaving this world behind because they
couldn't tolerate the evil bullshitters.

I guess that's a more interesting story than W-Ss that 'disappear' after they
get burned by the corporate environment.

------
omouse
_Not only that, we also sometimes worked on public holidays when everyone else
was enjoying with their families_

This part is illegal as hell and pretty much sums up why a union is absolutely
needed in some workplaces; to curb this kind of crap.

~~~
cthalupa
If it's in the US, it is by no means illegal to have employees work on public
holidays.

------
ilaksh
How come Elon Musk never says the names of any of the engineers working on
products when he makes announcements on stage? The answer is because he
doesn't want to share credit.

------
woodandsteel
I wonder why the higher-up managers aren't able to spot bullshitters, and if
they could be trained to do so. It would certainly benefit their
organizations.

~~~
rsyntax
IMO, they don't care enough to spot this. As long as deliverables are met,
there is no incentive for them to dig around the roots. But I think once the
"ponzi scheme" is exposed by having good talent refusing work in that toxic
environment. shit gets really real, fast.

------
rvdm
This is all just delightfully postmodern.

------
ishanr
sheer bullshit.. this article..

~~~
bsn54
I disagree with you.. the article is 100% relevant and it happens

------
Apocryphon
How is the Gervais Principle from Ribbonfarm any less BS than this article?

------
HeavenBanned
Is this backed by research or is it just anecdotal evidence?

~~~
devopsproject
Management Theory\Organizational Behavior are taught in university but this is
a terrible article.

