Attitude scales. It adapts to what others actually want. Knowledge is leverage, which is decisively valuable, but only appropriate when you are solving a problem using leverage, and less often when you are responding to desire.
I asked someone the other day if he met a lot of people who he seemed a lot smarter than, and if he had to spend a lot of time explaining his ideas to others. When he answered, "yes," I asked whether he had considered that he had to spend so much effort explaining his concepts was because he was an objectively terrible communicator? If explaining my ideas is hard, it's possible that's because I just suck at explaining them, and not that they are so amazing nobody can understand them. If I thought people who didn't understand me were clearly just more evidence of my superior intellect, you'd think I was insane.
I've had a punk-ass attitude for most of my career, and at the root of it was feelings of being an impostor because I relied almost exclusively on my knowledge (security) and intensity (consulting). What's changed is I have developed what I call a "fearless ignorance," which is that I share what I know as openly and efficiently as possible, while treating points where I have gaps as an opportunity to create openness on the teams I work with by asking the questions that reveal my often humbling ignorance.
Nobody owes me an explanation of anything, but I don't worry about who it bothers because I'm merely ignorant, not stupid. Knowledge is valuable and I respect competence above everything else, but it's also just temporary leverage. So I'd bet on attitude every single time.
fearless ignorance is the only way i can be comfortable in a tech role. being open and honest about things you don't know lowers the pressure for everyone around me. i truly think it helps my team work together to all improve their knowledge, not staying quiet when a "smart" person is talking through complex things. part of my leadership skills, lower the bar so we all move forward together.
I asked someone the other day if he met a lot of people who he seemed a lot smarter than, and if he had to spend a lot of time explaining his ideas to others. When he answered, "yes," I asked whether he had considered that he had to spend so much effort explaining his concepts was because he was an objectively terrible communicator? If explaining my ideas is hard, it's possible that's because I just suck at explaining them, and not that they are so amazing nobody can understand them. If I thought people who didn't understand me were clearly just more evidence of my superior intellect, you'd think I was insane.
I've had a punk-ass attitude for most of my career, and at the root of it was feelings of being an impostor because I relied almost exclusively on my knowledge (security) and intensity (consulting). What's changed is I have developed what I call a "fearless ignorance," which is that I share what I know as openly and efficiently as possible, while treating points where I have gaps as an opportunity to create openness on the teams I work with by asking the questions that reveal my often humbling ignorance.
Nobody owes me an explanation of anything, but I don't worry about who it bothers because I'm merely ignorant, not stupid. Knowledge is valuable and I respect competence above everything else, but it's also just temporary leverage. So I'd bet on attitude every single time.