Do Nice Engineers Finish Last In Tough Times?

jammag writes "As the wave of pink slips is starting to resemble Robespierre and his guillotine, the maneuvering among tech professionals to hang on to their job is getting ugly. IT Management describes the inter-office competition between the manager of a server farm and the supervisor of networks and security. One was nice, giving his team members credit, taking responsibility when something went wrong. The other was a backstabber who spent plenty of time sucking up to the management. As the inevitable cuts came, who do you think hung on to their job?"

Comments

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hot tip: not every tech professional is an "engineer," the least of which being IT professionals and "network engineers." What a diluted title.

Re:What?

[gearloos]

I agree. If a "network engineer" passes his P. E. , I may change my mind.

Re:What?

[Captain Centropyge]

THIS.

I'm a mechanical engineer by degree, and this has nothing to do with "engineers". Nor is this crap limited to just "engineers". This type of favoritism from brown-nosing happens in just about every line of work.

Re:What?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I prefer the title "Godlike Super Entity".

Re:What?

[Aceticon]

Basic rule #1 when receiving an impossible deadline:

Send an e-mail to your manager and a bunch of people saying "In my professional opinion this deadline is impossible to achieve. The ensuing late delivery will make us look bad in the eyes of the client/business/division for whom we are doing this job and we're better getting them an appropriately revised deadline now than looking bad by delivering late"

Then at any opportunity you have let people know (especially the above mentioned client/business/division) that the deadline is impossible and it was set/accepted by that manager without taking into account the professional opinion of the development team.

When the impossible dully fails to materialize, observe your manager trying and failing to deflect the blame.

Re:What?

[Meorah]

"If you can't do the job, I'll find somebody else who can"

Response:
"I just worked 80 hours this week covering your idiotic timeline, and you have have the audacity to come to me and threaten me?!?!? You are one really stupid twit of a manager. I'll be at my house until you grow a brain. When you call me to ask for help completing your clusterfuck project, you should know that from now on I will only work as an independent contractor and my hourly rate just multiplied by ten.

And just in case you still don't understand what I'm telling you, just do me one little tiny favor please... ... ... go fuck yourself."

Bosses who try the "if u can't x, I'll find y who can" on me might as well say, "Hi, verbally abuse me for the next 5 minutes please."

You might want to think about something here

[zappepcs]

If the management above is unable to see which of the two in the example is worth keeping, perhaps it's not the best place to work anyway, as it looks like politics makes up more of the workload than engineering. I'm reasonably sure that engineers are engineers because they DO NOT want to be politicians.

Of course, there is always the fix the coolant leakage rate solution, mix that with the faked IP and filesharing solution and things get entertaining while you are passing out your resume.

Re:You might want to think about something here

[Mishotaki]

I agree with parent, if the management is good enough, they should follow well enough to know who really deserve a promotion and who is just doing enough to have enough time to ask for a promotion 10 times a week...

Sadly, there is very few employers who can do that... so the good guy will probably lose his job, and the asshole will get a promotion for stealing someone else's hard work...

Re:You might want to think about something here

[PeanutButterBreath]

If the management above is unable to see which of the two in the example is worth keeping, perhaps it's not the best place to work anyway, as it looks like politics makes up more of the workload than engineering. I'm reasonably sure that engineers are engineers because they DO NOT want to be politicians.

Define "worth keeping". I don't recall the article saying that Doug was inept, just that he was a ruthless jerk. His "backstabbing" was pretty insightful, IMO, and for Kelly, keeping him around was probably the right choice given the economic climate.

Granted, that doesn't make the company the best place if you value touchy-feely more than breaking even -- especially if you are the type to infect the company network with viruses you introduce via your thumb drives and want a manager who will wipe your backside.

There is being "nice" and there is being an ineffective pushover. Hard to be Worlds Best Boss when you are out on your ass.

Re:You might want to think about something here

[Anonymous Coward]

The jackass may have won that round and the promotion, but in a lot of cases, as soon as the ass gets to a position where he can't set others up for failure or take credit, that's when payback happens... that, or they end up a manager and nobody in a company notices.

Thing is, people remember the jerks in life, and there are times when the naiive office boy that a person stole an idea from and got fired may end up a VP of a company for another idea... and will remember the dagger in the back.

Re:You might want to think about something here

[PCM2]

The jackass may have won that round and the promotion, but in a lot of cases, as soon as the ass gets to a position where he can't set others up for failure or take credit, that's when payback happens... that, or they end up a manager and nobody in a company notices.

Your assessment sounds optimistic to me. In my experience, the higher up the org chart that bottom-feeders rise, the easier it is for them to do the blame-and-credit game. Because the higher up you are, the less hands-on you're expected to be, right? You are all but mandated to delegate responsibility, and that automatically puts someone in line to take the hits for you. And unfortunately these situations often take a long time to get sorted out, because the real problem is usually someone even higher up that has enough conniving/nepotistic/irrational faith in the bottom-feeder to be blind to the problem.

Re:You might want to think about something here

[dbIII]

When you have people that go right from graduation to very high level management these sort of things happen, sudden decisions based on very little. Sorry to break it to most US style management - the feudal system did not work once the people in charge were clueless after generations of idleness and better managed companies are going to bury you. Better management makes the quick decisions only because they have seen something like it before or because they can see how it will work out. New managers just think you can get another universal work unit from HR and that we all have the same abilities.

Re:You might want to think about something here

[JumpDrive]

I'm having to deal with it already and I agree with the parent post here.
I already have executives coming to my office insinuating that they are going to get me laid off because I don't do such and such for them. A lot of it involving security.
I just ignore them, if the company is going to be swayed by a couple of executive whiners, then I just as soon they let me go.

I sometimes just want to kick them in the balls and ask them whether their balls are more of a concern or the fact that they can't access all of the confidential files from home.

The last time I asked for more money for a secure implementation which would allow this to happen, I was asked "Can't you just download the software and borrow it for now".

Re:You might want to think about something here

[0xABADC0DA]

What you guys are missing is that Kelly is the one that should have been fired. She chose to keep the guy who in a month will be trying to get her job, and fired the guy that had underlings who followed him out the door even in a bad economy (ie actually liked coming to work). On top of that, her decision was based on emotions ('too nice') instead of results.

That's pretty much a terrible decision any way you look at it.

Re:You might want to think about something here

[Idiomatick]

Thats like saying in times of war you need big bombs that randomly explode, who cares which side they damage. They are dangerous and thats good for war right? ... Backstabbing people on your side is NOT good.

Re:You might want to think about something here

[rmerry72]

I know for me at least, 'current job' would have to be really REALLY bad before it beat no job.

Then plan to be able to live for 6 months without a job and without losing your house if needed. Then you will have the option to leave if 'current job' only gets 'pretty bad'. If not, then plan to die working your arse off for somebody else without hope and fear every bump in the stock market.

Unfortunately this is a real predicament for a lot of people in the industry, neh the world. Demonstrates how capitalism is not that far removed from slavery for a large proportion of people. Indeed this ruthless efficiency of working every "cog" in the machine to death is considered an end goal of a successful pure capitalist society.

Cheer up. At least suicide is a way to get out of the machine.

Re:You might want to think about something here

[TheMCP]

I'm sorry, but what you say is naive. Unless the origanization is a technical one for which the chairman of the board and CEO are both technical people, there will always be some level where a technical person is managed by a non-technical person who has a limited at best understanding of what the techies do. If there isn't someone at the technical group who performs the task of ensuring that the non-techie overlords understand what is going on and who is doing a good job, then the non-techies eventually tend to start to think the techies aren't doing anything and hate them.

When the techies are infighting, things are bad. If it happens once, you need to have your finger on the pulse of the organization and know when someone is backstabbing you (This isn't so hard if you have a good relationship with management, usually they'll tell you) and go to management to demonstrate why what they're saying is false and get *them* fired. If it's happening regularly, you're in a dysfunctional organization and you should be looking for a new job.

I have been an IT manager, and I speak from experience when I say that this sort of problem is particularly bad for IT organizations. People tend to hate IT because when things are going right they don't perceive that IT is doing anything (even if IT is working their behinds off to keep things going right) so usually they only notice IT when things go wrong, so of course they blame the problem (whatever it is) on IT, regardless of what caused it. This gives IT the image of being a bunch of lazy do-nothings who aren't doing their job of making everything work. So, IT has to work extra-hard to make it very clear to management on a regular basis that they are working hard and being responsive to company needs and being successful at solving problems.

As annoying as it is, good help desk software or CRM software can go a long way for this, by being able to provide statistics and documentation to show non-techie overlords that IT is working hard and being responsive.

A decent IT manager is a current or former techie with excellent language skills who is able to mediate between business people with needs and technical people who can fulfill needs. They should be able to listen to business people describe business requirements and translate those into technical requirements for technical solutions. They should also be able to direct or monitor technical work performed by technical workers and describe it in business terms to business people so they understand that progress is being made and their needs are being taken seriously. They should also be able to recognize when mediation is needed so they can perform these services to help facilitate interaction between technical and non-technical staff.

A bad IT manager doesn't understand anything about technology and probably thinks that such understanding is not required to manage technical people. They don't understand that IT work is a creative profession which isn't always strictly quantifiable, and believe that the IT staff can be managed entirely based on statistical metrics of performance. If your IT manager's previous experience is in retail, or they use the phrase "I have a degree in management", run screaming. (A decent manager of any type will never find it necessary to mention their MBA, because they know that attempting to intimidate employees is the worst possible way to get them to do anything.)

Re:You might want to think about something here

[PeanutButterBreath]

For one, it's common knowledge that when someone does that, it is to hide their lower ability.

Most "common knowledge" is BS. This is exactly the kind of soothing mumbo-jumbo that losers use to keep themselves warm at night while their secret crushes are screwing assholes of "lower ability" on giant piles of sweaty $100 bills.

You don't need a people-pleasing guru when there is a surplus of unemployed talent.

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer it if the world worked the way it does in your wistful daydreams, but if very clearly does not.

Re:You might want to think about something here

[electrons_are_brave]

Yup - Kelly needs to go. The fact that the company jerk was uncontrolled shows that something was very wrong. And, inevitably, subordinates find a way to pay jerks back - there is no way that productivity will lift under that type of management, except temporarily.

Re:You might want to think about something here

[Arterion]

The idea is that no one else is hiring. So if you lose your job, you are fucked over until the "storm" passes over. In this case, the storm is the recession.

Granted, people are still hiring, but let's be realistic: the unemployment rate is rising and layoffs are common. It's a lot harder to find another job in this environment, and even if you do find one, employers are wise to the situation and can probably get away with paying you less than they would in a healthy economy.

Re:You might want to think about something here

[epine]

And unfortunately these situations often take a long time to get sorted out, because the real problem is usually someone even higher up that has enough conniving/nepotistic/irrational faith in the bottom-feeder to be blind to the problem.

This is the great fiction of human hierarchies: that it's nothing but Machiavellian insight and back-stabbing all the way up, then nothing but irrationality and blindness once you arrive. As quaint as it is, it doesn't wash.

The military values discipline and aggression more than competence and fair play. If you look at ape society, the silver back has only two job responsibilities: copulating and snarling at potential mutineers.

Once you get to a level where you have no direct input into the competence of the organization, hierarchy is all you have left. It's not surprising that those who excel at this transition look and act like baboons. It's in the genes.

How many who campaign on "off with their heads" end up wearing the crown? It's a common story that the loudest murmuring about fair play from below ultimately proves disingenuous.

I wish the psychologists would study this more. Unfortunately, in a world where we're still discriminating on race after sequencing the chimp genome, we're not quite ready for what we would learn.

Re:You might want to think about something here

[dfenstrate]

Unfortunately this is a real predicament for a lot of people in the industry, neh the world. Demonstrates how capitalism is not that far removed from slavery for a large proportion of people. Indeed this ruthless efficiency of working every "cog" in the machine to death is considered an end goal of a successful pure capitalist society.

If you want bare subsistenance living, then find a tiny apartment somewhere, drive a beater, shop at goodwill/ salvation army, and eat mac and cheese all the time.
You'll find that it takes very little money to sustain this style of life and you can more or less 'opt out' of the capitalist rat race.

You want more than that? Then you need the wealth the capitalist society generates, and you need the wealth you generate as a part of it.

Now quit bitching about society and go make the company you want to work for if you can't find it in a job search.

I'm guessing you find the relative comfort you find in working for someone else and the creature comforts you have around you to be far more important to you than your sophomoric ideals about 'slavery in a capitalistic society.'

You can choose your level of participation in this horrible, nasty society of ours. Your trouble is you think you should be able to make that choice- how much to participate in what you lament- without giving ANYTHING up.

Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. You don't have to play, but you don't get any 'points' if you don't play.

You go to work, you generate wealth for someone else, they give you a portion of that back as compensation, and you use that money to buy luxuries unavailable to kings 100 years ago. There are four parts to that process, and you can substantially change any one of those.

But you won't, because you like to bitch about how unjust life is more than you actually want to live up to your ideals.

*Aside from that, I second your call for six month's savings.

Jobs Aren't About Education, Skill, or Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

They're about networking, social skills, and shameless self-promotion.

People like me, and I suspect most geeks on slashdot, want to be judged on our merits, but the fact is in most cases we won't be. So yes, nice engineers do finish last.

Work is overrated

[Ethanol-fueled]

Why not make lemonade from lemons and accept a layoff? If you're financially stable with few or no obligations such as family, mortgage, etc. and you've had a reasonable work history why not just collect unemployment until you can find a decent-paying gig?

You won't make as much money, true, but if you satisfy the above conditions you'll probably make enough to afford food and a roof. You'll be able to sleep in every day, go to the gym, work on personal projects, go out on dates, and much more! It's not like you're being lazy or anything -- "the economy" is a very acceptable excuse for not having a job, at least until the economy goes back into full swing.

Re:Work is overrated

[cerberusss]

It doesn't work that way. It's easier to find a job when you already have one. So don't accept a layoff unless you found yourself a new one.

I have no reason to change my ethics

[gearloos]

As an Engineer I believe my ethics are just as important as any other skill I may have. You should too. If a company I worked for didn't see that in me I would probably be working somewhere else anyway. You do have the ability to look for other employment while at your current job. If you have been at your job for any length of time, they will know you, both personally and professionally. If there is anything to worry about, they already knew it BEFORE anyone stabbed your back. A wise man told me once, "If a company wants you, they will do anything in their power to keep you. If they don't like you, they will do anything to get rid of you. This includes "bending the rules"".

Ummm....

[Otter]

Is this even a supposedly true story? I'm not sure what we're supposed to conclude from n=1 cases of what appears to be a parable.

Re:Nice guys finish last (often)

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately that works.

Re:Garbage rises

[halivar]

With bureaucracy garbage rises regardless of whether or not times are tough...

Fixed that for you...

Tough times or not...

[Dusty00]

Some managers value competence, some mangers don't. Doesn't really change with the times.

Short sighted

[UnknowingFool]

As the inevitable cuts came, who do you think hung on to their job?

There will always be companies and individuals that favor short term gains instead of focusing on long-term goals. Letting the good manager go for a bad one can only lead to revolt. While they may not necessarily all follow the good manager when he leaves, his team will all certainly be looking for another opportunity even in this economy because they all know they will be next to go if something goes wrong regardless if it was their fault.

False Premise and question

[Faizdog]

I think that the whole premise of the question is false. The question being asked is whether nice guys who share credit and accept responsibility will get axed in favor of mean guys who steal credit and ID scapegoats.

I actually RTFA (I know, a /. blasphemy) and I don't think that is a valid question. According to the article, the reason "Doug" got the job and "Staurt" the nice guy got fired is that Doug went to their boss and made a case for why it would be better for the boss and the company to retain him instead of Stuart. Now his reasoning was flawed, but Stuart never made such a case. He just assumed that he got fired because he was the nice guy.

Being a nice guy (sharing credit, accepting responsibility) and valuable employee (recognizing your manager's needs and supporting them, being politically aware and astute) are not mutually exclusive.

What Stuart should have done is said "that I am well respected by my team, I keep a mature and professional attitude when mistakes are made (not like Doug who yells at his team). In this uncertain time after layoffs are announced, the remaining people will be nervous and perhaps looking to leave on their own terms. Kelly, I'll make sure that the remaining team stays on target, and achieves all goals, so you look good. Doug said that I cannot make the tough decisions, but look, I've come to you with cogent and well reasoned reasons to layoff the required people in my team, as you requested. I can make the tough decisions, but in a way that keeps the remaining team morale up and productive."

Now Stuart may have actually said that, but TFA doesn't say so. Instead we're left to assume that he just figured as a nice guy he lost his job.

Nice or mean doesn't have much to do with it, being politically aware and understanding office dynamics is everything.

Re:False Premise and question

[Anonymous Coward]

the whole point is that "nice guy" stuart would never go into kelly's office and pitch for himself. its the kind of thing assholes do.

Re:False Premise and question

[Anonymous Coward]

youre suggesting he sell himself by pitching his importance over the other person. thats salesmanship and a kind of thing assholes do. by definition a nice guy would not pitch himself over anyone else. he's nice. he's not a salesman. in fact the opposite is true - the nice guy is likely to pitch for the other person if he thinks the other guy is more competent.
youre surrounded by assholes. thats why you dont recognize nice guys when you meet them. they dont pitch themselves over anyone. while theyre not pushovers they dont do back room meetings and dealings. its not in their nature.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:In the words of Malcolm Forbes...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Forbes was an idiot then, in a world of 6.5 billion people, there are at leas 6500 one-in-a-million geniuses out there, and ever since the banks fucked up and gave us a deflationary economy, demand for the products of people with ability has gone down 90%.

So no, ability has not only caught up with the demand, but has in fact passed it by at the speed of light.

In the Long Run

[PineHall]

I have over the years read several articles about who the most successful CEO's are, those that are humble. When things go well, they give credit to the "team". When things go bad they take the blame. I think in the long run nice guys finish first. You can not trust someone who is a backstabber.

Assertive, Confident, & Ambitious Folks Finish

[darkmeridian]

Nice guys finish last in all times. The "nice guy" who finishes last is very likely diffident, afraid to take risks, refuses to stand up for himself, shies from taking credit for their work, and avoids confrontation. These guys finish last. The "jerks" and "assholes" who succeed stand up for themselves, take credit for themselves, and are not shy about confronting those in their paths. The nice guys get run over by these assholes and then post on the Internet how how unfair life is.

I got this insight from my female roommate. Men would complain about how they are nice guys but girls always go for assholes. But these nice guys either never asked girls out, or even worse, wanted to be bad guys but just did not have the guts to do it. She related the story about a self-professed nice guy who got drunk, and started to feel her up even though she made it clear she was not interested.

So you can try to get everyone to like you or you can try to get what you think you deserve. It is very rare to be able to get what you want without stepping on any toes. You can be nice and polite, but if you are competing with someone for a job, the loser is not going to like you at all.

Hope this helps.

Re:When do nice engineers finish last?

[berend botje]

Do you know why the management of engineers seems stupid even if those managers might be fairly capable? It's because the level above them is the real problem.

Lower management might contain a few ex-engineers that actually do have a clue. The levels above that generally consist of business types that wouldn't know a hammer from a saw if their lives depended on it. However, those guys make the targets, the rules and the policy. And lower management has to carry them out, without question. They are spat on from above and spat on from below, they really can't win.

Don't blame lower management, blame the real culprits: MBA types.

Stupid summary

[cerberusss]

The summary makes it out to be a choice between the evil, cold-blooded manager (Doug) and the warm, fatherly teamleader (Steve). As much as we all like to see the black-white picture, I'm frankly sick with it -- do we need to have Slashdot become the Cosmo Girl for Nerds?

With a clear suppressor and an underdog, this can also be painted another way.

Kelly is the manager of the above two here. She was in a very tight spot and felt very alone, with noone to rely on. When asked for employee ratings, Steve unresponsively turned his back to her, just following orders. However, when Doug came along, he offered a listening ear and offered suggestions of his own. He showed that he could think along, offer support as well as make tough decisions -- just the person she needed.

*yawn* See how boring this black-and-white stuff gets?

Re:Stupid summary

[keeboo]

Let's add some color then:

Kelly is the manager. The thinks that by being so, all she has to do is to blindly believe what is reported to her by her immediate subordinates and act accordingly.
She probably thinks like "Well, if the guy is doing something wrong he will tell me for sure. I mean, people are honest, right? Doing differently would be micromanagement, and that is a bad thing, not synergic at all!".

She was shit-scared of the situation, then the Doug guy came and said this and that. She didn't question herself "Hey, this guy is afraid of losing his job, and some people say what it takes to survive. How can I be sure it was not BS?".

But she was a just a passive manager, and Doug offered her the comfort of a complete solution. He delivered that solution to her, wrapped in cute box with a card.

And she got the bait, because no one else offered to do the very work she was supposed to do.

Unspecified definition of "nice"

[causality]

Whether "nice" finishes last depends on your understanding of "nice". The more common usage is a people-pleaser who means well but cannot help operating out of a position of weakness because he thinks that happiness and fulfillment and completion come from other people (i.e. their approval and acceptance). To take on this nature is to be a leaf in the wind, always at the mercy of other people who themselves do not (yet) see their beliefs and full actions (with no exceptions) as choices. This is actually a form of slavery and it works because ignorance of the higher way prevents people from seeing that it is bondage. This idea taken to its full expression is unfortunately what most people think love is, when in reality its most healthy expression (which is still enslaving) is nothing more than a mutually agreed trade like those found in any market ("you're nice to me so I am nice to you").

The less common usage is well beyond mere courtesy and is more like an act of love. This is a person who has kindness and compassion for its own sake because cultivating these is pure joy. When you have this, there is no concern for outcomes or results because you realize that all of us are equal and must come to our own understanding at our own pace and in the fullness of our own time. There is no need to control and there is no need for this type of loving-kindness to be reciprocated. Reciprocated or not, the mere expression of it is pure joy and it is complete in and of itself. Everything is filled to the brim with nothing missing and there is no need to get upset (and thus cause suffering over) the non-ideal. It is the truly pure motive, in that even the exquisite joy of it is not done for the sake of experiencing joy. This is the type of person who finds possibilities and opportunities where there are none; the one for whom all actions and all speech are expressions of an ultimately simple and self-evident Truth. With this understanding, you feel that you yourself are not doing or saying anything. It is more like you find or observe yourself saying or doing this-and-that and it happens to be the best thing you could have said or done at the time, certainly far better than the result of any kind of deductive process. An engineer or anyone else who has this need not worry about things like tough times because he or she is free of the slavery that makes someone a victim of circumstance.

The only thing that is regrettable, or something like regrettable, is that most people live their entire lives without ever knowing the difference. It is not so complicated that most people cannot understand it. It is so incredibly utterly simple that most people overlook it out of a belief that they themselves should be doing something or seeking something or becoming something.

Re:Unspecified definition of "nice"

[plasmacutter]

let me know when joy and fulfillment pay for food, shelter, water, and medical care.

The idea that someone in the second camp won't suffer because of this behavior is beyond naive in the context of a world in which money is required to live.

While Stuart sounds cool...

[gatkinso]

...telling his boss that mistakes that his employees made were his mistakes was not very smart.

Atleast that is how I read his actions.

Stuart should have been 100% honest. Lying to his bosses about who screwed up didn't help anyone in the end.

Well, it helped Doug.

Not saying throw the employee under the bus. Be cool, be honest, and tell it like it is.

Re:While Stuart sounds cool...

[Larryish]

Wrong.

Stuart was totally correct for assuming the burden of his underlings' mistakes.

You can delegate responsibility, but not accountability.

His underlings were responsible for getting the job done.

The manager is accountable for the results of the employee's efforts.

Mr. "ruthless" was actually a real pussy who tried to blame his own shortcomings on his employees. He is lacking in managerial skill, which is evidenced in his inability to effectively delegate and his reluctance to acknowledge his own shortcomings.

The thing that worked out in Doug's favor is that his boss is the same low quality of manager as Doug. Birds afeather.

Re:Garbage rises

[rho]

With capitalism, the liar rises regardless of whether or not times are tough.

I would say the ruthless rather than the liar tends to rise in capitalism. Which doesn't mean that a decent, competent company can't do well, but they can be threatened by the ruthless company. Usually the demise of a good company at the hands of a ruthless company comes about through government collusion. For example, Ruthless Inc. spends the time and money to bribe lawmakers to legislate that Ruthless Inc's software is the new standard for official government widgets. Now DecentCorp's DiscoWidget app has no buyers. Ruthless Inc. buys the dregs of DecentCorp and sends the former employees to the salt mines.

Capitalism gets a bad rap, but sometimes that bad rap is more the direct result of centralized government's intervention rather than lack thereof. Sometimes not--witness Madoff's hedge fund.

Re:Nice guys finish last (often)

[painehope]

Bullshit on all of this. You can be ruthless and honorable at the same time. Actually, there are times when being honorable (aka nice) demands that one be ruthless.

Just don't be selfless. There's no shame in taking credit where it's due, the same as there's no shame in exercising and going out to meet "pretty girls". There's also no shame in calling someone out on their bullshit. Don't play politics, go to war.

"Nice guy" is just a euphemism for "gutless", the same as "bad guy" is the same for "self-centered". A lot can be said for taking the middle ground.

p.s. - those of us who understand this not only get to kiss the hot chicks, we get to fuck them as well. And occasionally have a meaningful relationship to boot.

You'll always end up a CONSULTANT.

[khasim]

SOMEONE has to fix the problems that those other people create. And the best way for them to handle it is to bring you in as a consultant/contractor.

Particularly in the company featured in TFA. Why didn't Kelly know that Doug was taking credit for things he wasn't responsible for?

In an economic downturn, I'd stick with the nice people because they ARE nice. You cannot afford to have them leave and take the business knowledge that is locked in their heads with them.

The employees will know that their boss is a backstabbing bastard and they will react accordingly. The talented ones will look for other jobs. The people-not-in-the-talented-ones-group will remain behind. The company will suffer.

Re:Jobs Aren't About Education, Skill, or Experien

[cowscows]

Actually, in most jobs, they're both important. There's two lessons that the "smart kids" generally have to learn later in their lives (some have to figure it out in college, some get by a little longer). One is that unlike in grade school, smarts along won't put you in the upper echelon. You have to work hard, and you have to network. It's a big world, and no matter how smart you are, there's a guy out there who's at least as is talented as you and harder working. And there's a guy out there who's at least as smart as you and better at networking.

The point is that(especially in rough economic times) there's often more than enough smarts available to fill the demand. Being technically competent is certainly important, but unless you're in some very rare position where no one else is equally competent (or convincingly close), you've got some equally competent competition out there. Taking the time to develop some social and political business skills is not a wasteful investment in yourself.

Re:Jobs Aren't About Education, Skill, or Experien

[DerekLyons]

They're about networking, social skills, and shameless self-promotion. People like me, and I suspect most geeks on slashdot, want to be judged on our merits

And who says you aren't being judged on your merits? Or did never occur to you that the real world might value things differently than your insular little self absorbed haven?

Not really...

[bkr1_2k]

It's not a matter of nice or not nice, whether you're a network "engineer" or a degreed PE. The people who finish last are the people who will accept being put in last place.

Those that can, do. Those that can't but speak up, still do. Those that don't speak up, whether they can or can't do, are the ones who get the shaft.

Toot your own horn when it's necessary but don't overdo it. Toot other people's horns when it's necessary, but don't overdo it. Do your job and make sure at least one skip above you understand that you're a valuable member of the team and you'll be fine in most cases.

Re:Garbage rises

[plasmacutter]

With capitalism, the liar rises regardless of whether or not times are tough.

I would say the ruthless rather than the liar tends to rise in capitalism. Which doesn't mean that a decent, competent company can't do well, but they can be threatened by the ruthless company. Usually the demise of a good company at the hands of a ruthless company comes about through government collusion. For example, Ruthless Inc. spends the time and money to bribe other firms and standards bodies to require Ruthless Inc's software as the new standard for given widgets. Now DecentCorp's DiscoWidget app has no buyers unless DecentCorp licences from Ruthless In.. Ruthless Inc. buys the dregs of DecentCorp and sends the former employees to the salt mines.

Capitalism gets a bad rap, but sometimes that bad rap is more the direct result of centralized government's intervention rather than lack thereof.

Of course, government intervention is only incidental, and is not required for this sort of maneuvering at all. (thus some fixes I made to your original scenario)

For every government intervention which leads to problems like this, There are equal or greater evils to be had from lack of government intervention.

Smart regulation is the proper answer.

Until they want babies

[EmbeddedJanitor]

As one female friend told me: "You're the marrying kind, not the fucking kind" so I didn't score too well at college, but did better afterwards.

Same deal with employment. If your company/IT department think like a singles bar looking for one night stands and will screw over each other and customers for a quick buck then being nice means nothing and you need to out-asshole the others to get ahead.

If, instead, your company/IT department are there to build long-term relationships, satisfying service and repeat business, then being nice is very important.

Re:It's a fact of life...

[CraftyJack]

You might want to look into some of the game theory behind all this. Basically, nice guys (cooperators) hang together and get a lot more done because they can trust each other. This behavior is vulnerable to exploitation by manipulative assholes (defectors). Nice guys can defend themselves against this by being picky about who they cooperate with, and seeking out others with a reputation as nice guys.

In essence, nice guys win if they ostracize assholes and learn to hold a grudge. If you're an asshole, you better be really good at it, because you're going to run out of suckers really quick. It's nice to know that ethical behavior is actually a sound strategy.

Re:Assertive, Confident, & Ambitious Folks Fin

[Subgenius]

Not all 'nice guys' are wimpy. You can be a nice guy AND be assertive, stand up for yourself, take risks, and take credit for your own work. Heck, you can even be part of a confrontation and still be nice. This IS being nice and perhaps even honest. A person who can't do any of the above is a wimp. wimp!=nice guy.

Now, a 'douchebag' would be a guy that takes credit for others' work, is confrontational, puts everyone else down, and takes risks that put others in jeopardy. Some people like being douchebags, and some people just like douchebags.

go figure.

You CAN win and be an honest, stand-up guy. You won't if you are a wimp, and douchebags never win, even if it looks like they do.

I've hired wimps, douchehbags, and stand-up people. When the time came to let them go, the douchebags and wimps went first. Stand-up people went last, but they got great references and any assistance I could give them. That, in the end, is winning.

Re:Jobs Aren't About Education, Skill, or Experien

[Lord Ender]

Networking is not the same as being polite. Being polite is good.

Networking is the deliberate act of socializing with a large number of people in the off chance that one day one of them will offer you a sweet deal/job just because you talked about sports with him at a bar one night.

I have never had any particular trouble getting job interviews just by sending my resume to someone who was looking to fill a position (found online). Bullshitting about politics after hours had zero to do with getting those interviews.

Re:Jobs Aren't About Education, Skill, or Experien

[ebuck]

There's more insight in this person's post than is first apparent.

That is probably the problem. In the higher-ups eyes at one time something went wrong and that guy did it.

The fast and easy promotions through a company are usually grabbed up by people who have nearly no history. In many companies, you are golden until tarnished: once tarnished, you are never golden again.

If you're an old-timer, you probably have too many years to have never stumbled. Whether the fall was your own, a product of blame diversion, or inherited from predecessors is probably not even considered in the eyes of the decision makers.

Incredible

[SoulRider]

"Nice Guy", "Asshole" those are all relative terms depending on which side of the layoff you are on.

You are hired by a business to advance that business (either save more money or make more money), not to play feel good with your fellow employees. It is best to be honest and do your job with integrity, in other words do what is best for the business without compromising your ideals. Never cover up or take the blame for others, if your fellow employees are having difficulties then teach them how do to better within the context of the business. If they still have problems it could possibly mean that employee is not cut out for the position that they got or they are not a good fit for the company. It benefits no one to keep someone in a position they are not qualified to do, in fact in most cases things eventually get ugly as everyone gets more and more frustrated. Business is business, you go to work every day to do business not to socialize. That does not mean that you cannot be fair, honest and open with the people you work with though. When the cuts come I guarantee your boss is going to be looking at who in the department helped to promote the business the most, not who was the nicest or who was the biggest asshole.

Re:This is just bad management.

[damburger]

If bad management is so prevalent, to the point of being near universal, maybe its time to revisit the concept of management itself.

Are systems that (despite superficial changes) originated in the mills of the 19th century and the simple production lines really suitable for modern, rapidly changing, information-heavy companies?

Its fine enough reading Dilbert and mocking the PHBs, but what are you going to do about it?

Re:Garbage rises

[Narpak]

Capitalism (and Socialism for that matter) are more general ideas than fully fledged systems. Compare countries that call themselves capitalistic and you'll find massive deviations in how their laws and regulations work in practice.

Any economic, social and/or political structure that do not prohibit the ruthless from profiting at the expense of the decent will create long term consequences that could impact their society negatively. Perhaps the multinational corporation is better at generating profit for their shareholders over a relatively short span of years; but does that in the end provide a greater value for the society as a whole than your local store. Is it really of benefit to purchase cheap goods if those goods turn out to me made from vastly inferior, or toxic, materials. Of course the ruthless will lie, cheat, bribe and blackmail to ensure their products continue to sell; even if they know said product is a health risk. As long as they manage to keep a sliver of denyability they'll rather sell toxic shit than risk cutting into their profit. Hell some corporations rather spend millions each year denying the problems with their products than to spend even a penny more to developing something that is actually safe.

Oh and by the way lead isn't poisonous; that is just propaganda. Come down to Friendly Freds Lead Retailer for everything from Lead Toothpaste to Lead Bread. If it is Lead; It's Fred. If it ain't Fred is probably a communist hippy that want to sell you anti-freedom vares.

Re:Nice guys finish last (often)

[scum-e-bag]

It's been working for me for years...

I also find that it helps to think of simple harmonic motion and differential equations when doing the dance of romance:

1) You can't be an asshole all the time.
2) You need to work out how to sync your nice/nasty streaks with her moods and harmoniously move from one to the other.

Not true

[br00tus]

I have been in IT for over eleven years, and I have seen over and over that "networking" is a more important attribute than "knowing your shit". I went on a job interview recently where I was given an interview on the phone which was half technical and half non-technical, and then I was brought in and talked to about six people, only one of whom asked one directly technical question. So it was about ten minutes of showing I had a basic grasp of the technical stuff, and several hours of talking about how I handle problems and people. I've had interviews where I've been asked no direct technical questions. My resume is long enough that it's obvious I had to know something to be employed by some of these well-known companies for so many years, and for most positions there's really no reason why they would have to spend more than 10-15 minutes on my technical knowledge. We had a position which we interviewed dozens of people over a period of many months, and it was educational to me about interviewing - I discovered that within about three technical questions I could gauge 100% - not 99% - 100% of the time what their level of technical expertise was. I would go on to ask more than three questions, but anyone who hit a home run on the first three would do well on the rest, anyone who struggled with the first three would struggle with the rest.

There is no such thing as a non-management position. Unless you have a better than normal manager, most managers want you to not only do your technical job, but want you to do their job as well. At that recent interview I mentioned, the person who would be my manager complained so many IT people just sit at their desk and do their job instead of interacting with the business units, managing their own projects etc. He said he was overburdened, and without saying so he was obviously implying he was looking for the people under him to take a lot of that burden from him. Years ago when there were layoffs at a large company I was at, one of the managers also said people who just sat at their desks and did their job as opposed to schmoozing and all of that were at risk.

That you need some base level of technical knowledge goes without saying. But the people who brown-nose managers, who inquire what the business units want and who are held in high regard by the managers and leads of the other prominent business units etc. are who stays when there are layoffs. Within every company there is a coterie of managers, leads and top IT people who may as well be a lead or manager, and you are either in it or you are not. If you are not, you are susceptible to the ax.

I have seen a lot of self-delusion on Slashdot and among IT people as to there being a gap between hard-working people who know their shit (which the person considering this always thinking they're part of this group) and slackers who are incompetent. Which is standard. But you are going beyond even this and saying technical knowledge is everything, and brown-nosing managers and schmoozing other managers and leads means little or nothing. You may find this is not the case the hard way. I have seen two tough times in this field - from about 2002-2003, and another one which started last year and will end in who knows. Finding out that you are wrong may be a very painful lesson.

In some other post someone was mentioning how things work under capitalism etc. And so they were right. Someone who thinks their technical skill is all-important, and who doesn't see how those who brown-nose managers and schmooze with other managers and leads get ahead, is certainly going to be blind to the workings of the overall economic system. Because such things are intertwined with the economic system to some extent. But if someone can't see the obvious about who people who brown-nose managers get ahead of more technically competent personnel, than going into any of the broader stuff is pointless.

Re:Nice guys finish last (often)

[indiechild]

It doesn't. If you go back to being a "nice guy", she will give you the cold shoulder soon enough.

Not that that means it would be better to be an asshole.

Be a real man with integrity and backbone instead. The best of all worlds. Women will love you.

You have to be consistently excellent -- you can't just put on an act, then fall back to some wussy, wimpy old self.

Nice Guys Finish first in the end

[Prien715]

So in the example, the nice guy gets fired and that back stabber gets promoted.

Well, 5 years down the road, the backstabber is also fired, while the "nice guy" found a job through one of his former coworkers who thought he was amazing and good to work with (the guy was good but also made him look better!) The backstabber, can't find work, and has no references.

Being nice or moral isn't generally filled with short term benefits (which is why it's contrasted with greedy!), but in the long term can yield very good results.

Re:Jobs Aren't About Education, Skill, or Experien

[Jedi Alec]

Networking is the deliberate act of socializing with a large number of people in the off chance that one day one of them will offer you a sweet deal/job just because you talked about sports with him at a bar one night.

God, no. Networking involves a huge spectrum of social contacts, both work-related and not. Knowing that that guy you once worked on a project with knows everything there is to know about subject X will allow you to place a quick call to get something sorted, instead of having to go through "official channels", making you look incredibly efficient(and getting credit for what's inside his head, even if you're completely honest about how and where you got the info). Sticking around for a 5 minute casual chat with some colleagues and saying hi in the hallways does wonders if you later have to work with them on something again. Remember what people tell you about their lives, and enquire at a later point in time how they're doing on whatever subject they happened to bring up.

That shit is important to a lot of people. Enquiring about things that people really care about makes them feel good about themselves. Nothing wrong with that. I don't give a hoot about my or anyone else's birthday either, but then my opinions aren't always the most important, and on some subjects you have to compromise.

Besides, it's a lot harder to really dislike people you regularly have face to face contact with, and that goes both ways. Much easier to blame department Y for all the wrongs in the world if you've never met Joe, Jack and Jane that works their asses off down there.

The MBA

[wabbit3.0]

The rise of the MBA over the past fifty years has burdened this country with whole class of parasites. Look to that when you try to explain the fall of a once great nation.

Only at failing companies.

[mosb1000]

"Do Nice Engineers Finish Last In Tough Times?"

Only at companies that are failing because they are poorly managed. If you find yourself working at one of these companies, don't wait to be laid off, start looking for new employment now!

Re:Assertive, Confident, & Ambitious Folks Fin

[darkmeridian]

Career advancement, especially in this right-sizing economy, is zero sum. There can only be one promotion. There are layoffs so only one person can keep their job. Only one person can be assigned a great project. If one person gets the prize, the other contenders will not. And the failed contenders will be bitter regardless of how nice the winner is.

In this environment, the atmosphere will always be unpleasant. You can try to be nice but you have to stand up for yourself and therefore piss other people off. A co-worker is the sole breadwinner of his family. You are a single guy who has tons of savings. Are you an asshole for fighting to keep your job even if he gets fired?

That is the reason why psychopaths get ahead. They do not care about others; they only care about advancing themselves. I do not think this is the best outcome but it makes sense that those who would do anything to get ahead end up getting ahead. Those who make "moral" sacrifices do not.

Re:Only the Meanest Engineers Survive Out There!

[lysergic.acid]

that doesn't seem very wise.

i mean, why would you hire someone who puts their own self-interests ahead of the good of the company? if the guy had sabotaged a competitor in order to land a large order or contract for the company, then maybe you could justify hiring them on the basis that their ruthless actions actually served the organization. but this guy sabotaged a co-worker to make him miss an important meeting with a customer. he has basically just hurt the company to make himself look good. how would such an employee benefit the company other than to undermine the company's meritocracy and drive away other honest & hard-working employees.

being a douchebag or a sociopath is hardly a virtue. usually such scumbags sleaze their way to the top of an organization by way of deception & manipulation. but only a really incompetent manager would deliberately seek out employees with such qualities. generally, people who actually have talent & ability don't need to stab their co-workers in the back or be manipulative to secure their own position or rise through the ranks in a healthy organization.

Re:Only the Meanest Engineers Survive Out There!

[quanticle]

but only a really incompetent manager would deliberately seek out employees with such qualities. generally, people who actually have talent & ability don't need to stab their co-workers in the back or be manipulative to secure their own position or rise through the ranks in a healthy organization.

Well of course, no sane manager would hire someone who backstabs coworkers. The entire point of backstabbing your coworkers is that you don't get caught. Is it virtuous? Of course not. Is it effective? Well, according to this article, perhaps it is.

Re:Nice guys finish last (often)

[Draek]

Funny? should be Insightful. Women aren't attracted to nice guys, but they don't want jerks either. What they're looking for is the "thief with the heart of gold", the kind that's a jerk to everyone *but* her, 'cause she's so special he can't help but reform his evil ways just to be with her.

That's exactly why so many women go out with cheating men, then act all surprised when he sleeps with their best friend: "but, but I thought with me it would be *different*!".

And yes, this comes from actual, personal experience, and no, not as the "nice guy who got rejected".

Not just engineers

[dcavanaugh]

Speaking hypothetically of course, if I had to become a self-promoting back-stabber to keep my job, I would rather behave properly and let nature take its course (even if it meant getting canned). And if the company is rewarding the self-promoting back-stabbers at the expense of team players, it's better to get out and try again somewhere else.

Not much sense in playing the game. If you decide to join the legion of self-promoting back stabbers, it's only a matter of time before someone plays the game more effectively than you do and then out you go.

You should only work with trustworthy people. If for some reason you cannot trust the people you work with, find people you CAN trust and go work with them instead.

Re:Only the Meanest Engineers Survive Out There!

[rachit]

After you quit, this is something you can let the board know what happened.

As a matter of principle, people like that should never manage other people.

Re:Only the Meanest Engineers Survive Out There!

[lpq]

In the real world, Machiavelli's are the one's who get remembered in history.

Re:Only the Meanest Engineers Survive Out There!

[dpilot]

Yeah, but Machiavelli is in the same club with Nero, Caligula, etc. Maybe not in the same circle of that club, but the same club nonetheless. Not a good way to be remembered.

Of course these days it appears that Putin is trying to move Stalin from that same club into a more respectable one.