Hacker News Reader

Comment by forkandwait | Hacker News Reader

"Clevers"? Plural, as a noun? Give me a break.

Maybe I missed something in my 3 second skim, but this guy sounds like he just wants to ride some asinine gimmick like "Seven Habits.." or "The Southbeach Diet".

Here is my take on managing people, "clevers" and "non-clevers" (stupids? muggles? non-college?...) Remember that the people you hire are, in fact, people, rather than cranky forklifts. People need challenge, creativity, and growth to thrive, though they are often willing trade some time doing monotonous bullshit if there is a decent tradeoff; if you do have do monotonous bullshit, make sure they get to some cool stuff that follows from that. Figure out their "will-to-power" and how they view themselves, and align your goals with their own.

Remember that even though you went to an Ivy League school and they graduated from the local junior college, they need the same stuff as you.

"Clevers"?? really? he should be embarassed.

View on HN

It is natural to feel challenged and threatened by obviously more intelligent co-workers and subordinates. Most people probably don't want to work with someone who thinks they are a superstar, and would prefer just to go home at a regular time. Those of us who wish to work in an intellectually challenging environment are probably a minority.

It is unfortunate that the article uses the term 'clever' to make a slightly unclear differentiation from 'knowledge worker.' Maybe if the term 'innovator' were selected then the article would be clearer. It would also help to explain why frequent feedback may be disadvantageous. Managing or harnessing innovative people is extremely difficult and it is an important subject to discuss and study.

I disagree that "those of us who wish to work in an intellectually challenging environment are ... a minority".

I think what is true is that most people don't have the opportunity to be truly human at work (challenged, interested, etc) because the current system doesn't hire human beings, but just "function-fulfillers". Then we get disappointed when the human beings we hired don't act like simple robots... go figure ...

(I don't know how true to life the books are, but the Toyota Way series makes a big point about how important it is to allow -- demand, in fact -- people to grow and challenge themselves, from the engineers to the production workers. It is the US unions insistence on highly constrained work rules and job functions that made Deming hate them, rather than anything to do with wages.)

Also -- nobody wants to work with an arrogant asshole who "thinks they are a superstar", whether they are "a clever" or "a stupid". But it is only folks with low self esteem or power trips who willingly surround themselves with people of less talent themselves.

Knowledge worker? Innovator? -- that could be anyone, including a fry cook at McDonalds, if it was allowed to them. I have worked some shit, shit jobs, and I was always struck by how the spread in raw intelligence was about the same as in my elite private high school (now study skills and entitlement, however, is something the "non-clevers" just don't have at the moment, but that is a cultural thing that could be changed, if we cared.)

It is not sensible to hire people who will become rapidly frustrated at the function they are delegated to perform unless you have another position to promote them into. Often you need someone to perform a dull role.

There are plenty of people, even knowledge workers, who are satisfied with a steady paycheck and a low level of workplace stimulation. Should one force them to improve? If you do, then they often move on (in my experience). That is why the distinction brought up between innovators and knowledge workers is important.

"Often you need someone to perform a dull role."

If you see your company as a machine in which you and a few select managers are the controllers, and everyone else is, somewhat literally, just a tool. This is the subconcious model that permeates our society, for better or for worse.

"There are plenty of people, even knowledge workers, who are satisfied with a steady paycheck and a low level of workplace stimulation."

Really? That sounds a lot like somebody in power justifying to themselves why the other people are not in power -- because they are "satisfied" with their lot. This is a very, very old trope, including the whole White Man's Burden thing, etc.

7 Habits gets a lot of flak - I really really enjoyed it and got a lot from it.

Remember that even though you went to an Ivy League school and they graduated from the local junior college, they need the same stuff as you.

Not just that, Colleges are for learning and studying among bright people. From where does this idea that being from a Ivy league automatically makes you deserving of rewards irrespective of work come from? This sort of attitude comes because people generally go these colleges for brand-on-the-resume factor.

In the real world, getting stuff done is all that matters. Whether a guy from Ivy league does it or some one who has never attended any school. Rewards must be aligned with work and nothing else.

I agree that rewards should be aligned with work, but in reality they are very often not. Thus, ivy league education really does equate with higher salaries. We all know what should happen. But reality is not fair not does it follow our collective moral framework.

Echo that. It's not just clevers (as the author has coined the word), but everyone wants to be with smarter people. Have u heard anyone say - I'll hang out with this good for nothing dude. This article is a joke.

I disagree.

Some people just want to be with attractive people. Or rich people. Or funny people. Or people of high social standing.

It's whatever their definition of "good for something" is... and that definition isn't always "smart".

Yep, that's what exactly I meant by smarter. Perhaps I should have been rather explicit. Smart doesn't necessarily mean intellectual. For a rich guy, it might mean someone who's richer (here the fact that the other person is richer implies he is smarter). Hope you get the drift.

It is whatever gives us a challenge to be more than we are -- richer, smarter, funnier, cuter, etc. Nietszche would call the drive to "overcome ourselves" just as instinctual (and fun) as the desire for soft, warm pleasure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com