
Fred Hates It - filament
http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2011/09/12/fred_hates_it.html
======
nhashem
I'm Fred. I've always been Fred. I wonder at times whether this has been more
helpful or harmful to my career. As Fred, I've rarely hesitated to speak my
mind, and so I've gotten ideas pushed forward that would have definitely been
DOA if I hadn't been so outspoken about them. That being said, I've been so
abrasively outspoken at times I've seen former peers with just as outspoken
but not so confrontational communication styles advance far beyond where I am
now. I suppose my gut evaluation is I'm further along than if I had kept my
mouth shut, but not as far as if I had been able to effectively communicated
my positions (or known when to withhold communication entirely) -- then again,
doesn't that apply to pretty much everyone?

Rands juxtaposes each of his points with "Why Fred Hates It," deftly
countering them with reasonable and logical arguments that make Fred seem like
an anti-team player cancer. And then he ties it all together by saying Fred is
essentially a _product_ of frustration because no matter how committed his
company seems to be to solving the big picture issues that have been painfully
obvious to him for months/years, if the company doesn't actually enable
solutions, then all the off-sites are pointless.

In recent years I've mellowed out, moving more to a "Jim from The Office"
attitude (Loser Jim, Not Sociopath Jim[1]) where I just smirk and go through
the motions for things like off-sites, and figure any actual production that
results in any long-term company improvement is a nice bonus, not an
expectation. But in the end, we all want to be startup founders because it's a
lot easier to turn dreams into action at our own small company than to figure
out how to do it at someone else's larger company.

[1] [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/)

~~~
ebiester
The question is, do you want to move up?

If someone wants to move up within the organization, this is a quick reading
list.

Getting to Yes -- If you only have a chance to read one, read this. It is
about how to effectively collaborate toward a solution, and it works in
functional work environments. It will be around in a big enough used
bookstore.

How to Win Friends and Influence People -- Another oldie but goodie. It's a
quick skim, and it's in every used bookstore. It has influenced interpersonal
communication in the corporate world for nearly a century, and most people are
taking their cues from this book.

The Personal MBA: Master the Art of Business -- It's a condensation of many of
the terms in business, and a reflection of the current corporate zeitgeist.

Then, read two top selling business books a year. They're usually quick reads,
and you want to speak the same language as the people reading these books.

How does this help? By speaking the same language as the people making
decisions, you are perceived as "one of them." This gives a common bond, and
they perceive you as more likely to "understand business." By participating in
collaborative conflict management, you are perceived to be a "team player."
You can make the same good decisions without a confrontational work
environment if all parties are speaking the same language.

And _all_ of these will help you run your own company, because you will be
talking to other businessmen who are reading these books. They will trust you
more if they perceive you as "one of them," and you will be able to describe
how your product produces a return on investment in their language.

~~~
jrockway
What's funny about these books is that none of them tell you how to act like
you didn't just read these books. Personally, I find the tells so obvious that
I can't even interact with people that are following this advice. It's like
talking to Eliza.

Anyway, if you want to win friends and influence windbags with no technical
knowledge, read these books. If you want to win friends and influence people
that know how to program, try programming more.

~~~
pnathan
_If you want to win friends and influence people that know how to program, try
programming more._

But you have to deal with & influence people that _aren't_ programmers.

~~~
jrockway
Why?

~~~
pnathan
Well. This seems kind of self-obvious to me. But I don't live in a programmer-
heavy culture.

Statistically speaking, most people are not programmers. So to have a broader
influence and communication ability beyond our particular subculture of geeks
and techies, we have to be able to ably communicate our ideas and concepts in
ways that relate to them and make sense to them. The engineering world is
_full_ of brilliant people who do not have the people skills to communicate
ideas (aka influence) to others.

People like purchasers, salespeople, teachers of your children (if you have
any), your family, your managers and executives, the plumber who fixes your
toilet, your stockbroker: the list runs on and on. People who really matter to
your existence, but don't live in the same technical space you do.

I consider it a grave strategical error in one's career to shut out non-
programmers.

But, I am (relatively) young. Time will tell if I am incorrect or not.

------
neilk
Sometimes management believes that it's important to get away not just from
the usual business context, but _any_ productive context. I guess they are
afraid it might interfere with the intangible benefits of bonding.

So what do you do when management is only interested in the trust falls,
personality tests, and outsider facilitators? How do you make the case for a
different kind of offsite?

~~~
JacobAldridge
This sort of activity needs a return on investment - a key part of the note-
taking is being able to return three months later (or whenever is appropriate)
to those notes and the actions that feel out of the meeting and document what
return you got from them.

I worked at one company where off-sites (I don't like that term either, and I
now run them fairly often!) were quarterly and basically involved drinking for
two days (with some 'activities' and the occasional strategy discussion, which
was usually two hours of the two days). Most staff were on below average
salaries because the business wasn't consistently profitable.

They really needed to examine the ROI on these retreats - I think they could
have done away with them entirely with no change to future growth, and a lot
more available cash to bump up a few salaries. Or (more importantly), invested
that cash in having someone external (ie, with experience doing them properly)
to come in and show them how to run the two days - delivering a healthy ROI
that would have made everyone happier.

------
frossie
Off-site meetings are useful to small teams too - it gets them away from the
daily firefighting and able to focus on big infrastructure problems, kick-offs
of new projects and so on, just like in the examples given.

They don't have to cost money - find one member of the team that has wifi and
doesn't live in a pigsty and go hang out in their living room/kitchen
table/back yard. I agree with the OP that the overnight is critical - people
can just couchsurf or go home at night and come back the next day. And who
needs stupid made-up icebreakers when you all have to pitch it to make dinner?

------
snorkel
Fred is sort of right. Off-sites are often feel good democratic brainstorming
exercises, but trying to design a product by democratic brainstorm seldom
works well. Some people have a talent for selling passionate ideas that just
plain suck. If Fred is a good UI designer with a clear vision than its
probably better to trust his instincts, and tell him to work on his people
skills.

------
unwind
Very annoying typo in the HN title, it should be "Fred", not "Freds".

