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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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).

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

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

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.

In many scenarios, it's easy for a person to be in the "S-W" role and get a great deal of success. I've watched the career of one in a large organization. At first they stumbled a few times and were "outed" as idiots. Then this person found the right role, and is now a senior leader. The true master bullshitters are insecure & smart and surround themselves with pliable people who will work like donkeys.

The tell for these people is vanity. They seek self validation by advertising credentials, announce any promotion and are forceful about projecting whatever title or responsibility they possess. Usually they are attracted to "hot", high growth areas. (easy to hide sins in growth) Infosec is a breeding ground for these people.

Competence as perceived by your boss and boss's boss are driven by your results and perception management. And this problem gets worse because they higher you go the less control you have over your actual results. i.e. A developer has a lot more control in delivering a solid piece of performant maintainable code than a V.P. does in delivering revenue growth. And eventually you end up with CEOs who sit around and play roulette while explaining to the board how the losses were unavoidable, and the wins solely driven by his leadership.

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

The characterization is a bit overdrawn, but not by much. In my experience the more common scenario is not that of the S-W who does "no work" -- but rather the kind who basically does seem to "deliver" a lot, but, and here's the catch, with very significant hidden costs: in the form of (outrageous amounts of) technical debt, people around him burning out and/or quitting, etc. Which management usually does, ultimately, catch onto -- but not until the damage has been done, business opportunities have been lost, and his coworkers health, relationships and/or professional reputations have been damaged -- in some cases quite severely.

IMO effective managers should be doing exactly that -- surround themselves with smart people, delegate and make working conditions fulfilling and enjoyable for their teams.