Hard and Soft Skills in Tech(medium.com)
medium.com
Hard and Soft Skills in Tech
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/hard-and-soft-skills-in-tech-8be00216f67f?source=linkShare-ccff18f5a169-1514394601
116 comments
Who is arguing for "soft skills only"? Haven't seen that so far.
The truth is that in our field, there's a wide distribution of skill levels, and some technical problems go from "impossible" to "routine" once your technical people pass a certain skill and quality bar. Soft skills do not get you over this quality bar. Actual technical knowledge does.
Yes, hard technical skills are absolutely necessary for "building the thing right". The necessary level of skill depends on what that thing is.
But there's also "building the right thing", and that is a completely different set of skills. Many of which get lumped into the "soft skills" bucket.
Yes, hard technical skills are absolutely necessary for "building the thing right". The necessary level of skill depends on what that thing is.
But there's also "building the right thing", and that is a completely different set of skills. Many of which get lumped into the "soft skills" bucket.
> But there's also "building the right thing", and that is a completely different set of skills. Many of which get lumped into the "soft skills" bucket.
Actually, I think Zunger makes the explicit point that they are not completely different skill sets. I'm inclined to agree with him.
Actually, I think Zunger makes the explicit point that they are not completely different skill sets. I'm inclined to agree with him.
I agree with this. The argument I have heard a million times is that technical people can't understand non-technical people's (whatever "non-technical" mean, partitioning people as either technical/hard or non-technical/soft is dumb) perspectives. Therefore, for a product to succeed, it needs to be designed by non-technical people. But the assumption is wrong and letting non-technical people design products more often than not just leads to badly designed products.
But the assumption is wrong and letting non-technical people design products more often than not just leads to badly designed products.
Yes, just like letting the technical people do the design.
Good design uses a separate set of skills, which few people have because few people realize they're important. There is very little correlation between having this set of skills and having the usual set of "hard" technical skills.
Yes, just like letting the technical people do the design.
Good design uses a separate set of skills, which few people have because few people realize they're important. There is very little correlation between having this set of skills and having the usual set of "hard" technical skills.
What's an example of a product that was badly designed because the product designer wasn't technical enough?
You have to see it from the inside to be sure that this (rather than some other pathology) is going on, so I will give an example from my own work.
I wrote a design program for [thingys] that were basically rectangles, but could have circular arcs instead of straight line edges. A user could fake a circle using two semicircles joined by zero length edges.
The PM saw this and wanted a circular [thingy] feature. He could not understand that it was only a fake circle, such that when the user started changing things, (literal!) corner cases would crop up. Over time, he kept demanding new features that implicitly relied on non-fake circles. And of course this just kept throwing up more confusing corner cases that he kept trying to paper over with new features.
This is one example of a HUGE class of problems that come down to managers just wishing away a mismatch between the way data and code actually work, and the features that they would like to have.
I wrote a design program for [thingys] that were basically rectangles, but could have circular arcs instead of straight line edges. A user could fake a circle using two semicircles joined by zero length edges.
The PM saw this and wanted a circular [thingy] feature. He could not understand that it was only a fake circle, such that when the user started changing things, (literal!) corner cases would crop up. Over time, he kept demanding new features that implicitly relied on non-fake circles. And of course this just kept throwing up more confusing corner cases that he kept trying to paper over with new features.
This is one example of a HUGE class of problems that come down to managers just wishing away a mismatch between the way data and code actually work, and the features that they would like to have.
Your example reminds me of this video [1] that (humorously) goes over a similar mismatch problem.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
Yes this is a classic, and I think I was first introduced to it when I was going through my fake-circle trauma. As ridiculous as it seems, it describes the real (mis)behaviour of people. But I feel there should be an equal and opposite video. Perhaps one where an engineer keeps producing solutions to problems nobody has. (An astroturf mower? A robot that goes to the gym for you?)
I think if you had both those videos and a convincing explanation of how they can both be truthful, the combination would great training material for everyone on a product team.
I think if you had both those videos and a convincing explanation of how they can both be truthful, the combination would great training material for everyone on a product team.
I'm sure there's more to the story but it seems like there's a missing conversation here: "why don't we replace the fake circles with real circles?"
A healthy team would have that conversation. I'm not sure the PM needs to understand so much as defer to the engineering side if they decide a change is needed.
A healthy team would have that conversation. I'm not sure the PM needs to understand so much as defer to the engineering side if they decide a change is needed.
We'd had that conversation [1]; and (we thought) the answer was that real circles were not worth the extra complexity, especially since common use-cases could be covered by fake circles. Or at least we thought we'd had that conversation, but it turns out moot if the PM can't retain in is mind, the difference between fake and real circles.
I don't think deference to engineers is useful in this sort of thing. There is a class of people (PMs) who have the hard job of aligning user expectations with the engineered reality. They do this by guiding both the customers and engineers, and to do that, they must understand the real landscape they are guiding people through.
[1] I don't want to imply here that everything was the fault of the PM, it wasn't. But there was definately a class bad things that happened due to this particular kind of non-technical thinking.
I don't think deference to engineers is useful in this sort of thing. There is a class of people (PMs) who have the hard job of aligning user expectations with the engineered reality. They do this by guiding both the customers and engineers, and to do that, they must understand the real landscape they are guiding people through.
[1] I don't want to imply here that everything was the fault of the PM, it wasn't. But there was definately a class bad things that happened due to this particular kind of non-technical thinking.
Yahoo? After Semel took over, they were explicitly organized as a media company, with a CEO who had deep experience in the media industry, managers coming from other media companies, and a sidelining of much of the original technical talent.
As a result, they completely missed that the continued growth of the Internet would make hand-curated approaches infeasible. And so they got their lunch eaten by Google. And then they started losing traffic on other properties to Google, who could leverage their massive technological infrastructure that Yahoo had largely copied and open-sourced but wasn't really integrating into their product design. Eventually they brought in an ex-Googler as CEO who tried to stem the tide and re-emphasize Yahoo's technical capabilities, but she was 10 years too late and fighting a whole culture by then.
As a result, they completely missed that the continued growth of the Internet would make hand-curated approaches infeasible. And so they got their lunch eaten by Google. And then they started losing traffic on other properties to Google, who could leverage their massive technological infrastructure that Yahoo had largely copied and open-sourced but wasn't really integrating into their product design. Eventually they brought in an ex-Googler as CEO who tried to stem the tide and re-emphasize Yahoo's technical capabilities, but she was 10 years too late and fighting a whole culture by then.
In this context, "not technical enough" means "not being able to accurately estimate technical costs." I posit that there is a correlation between being technical and being able to estimate technical costs:
One example I have seen a lot is the "exactly as I want it" design. What that means is foregoing using any standard web components (like Bootstrap, jqueryUI, ...) because they don't work exactly as the product designer wants, so you have to build something from scratch. Then you run out of time because building a complex web site without relying on any ready-made components is a lot of work, leaving the web site in a decidedly half-assed state.
As you can see, in my opinion "being technical" is not only about programming. It is also about YAGNI, being lazy and very much being a realistic pessimist.
One example I have seen a lot is the "exactly as I want it" design. What that means is foregoing using any standard web components (like Bootstrap, jqueryUI, ...) because they don't work exactly as the product designer wants, so you have to build something from scratch. Then you run out of time because building a complex web site without relying on any ready-made components is a lot of work, leaving the web site in a decidedly half-assed state.
As you can see, in my opinion "being technical" is not only about programming. It is also about YAGNI, being lazy and very much being a realistic pessimist.
I don't think we have to choose between reasons for bad design - both causes being discussed here have occurred repeatedly - but since you asked, I would suggest that there have been many products with security failures arising from designers not having sufficient skill in that area.
I also feel like this particular article fails to address the intrapersonal aspects of 'soft skills' and mostly considers the interpersonal issues.
Please cite examples of calls for "replacing" hard skills with soft. That's far more a straw man than the one you "dispense with" — conveniently distracting from your own, I might add. I'm hearing a call for recognizing their value as complementary and essential in their own, independent ways. Soft skills do not supplant hard skills, but either is worth less without the other.
If you're arguing against that, then you're part of the problem.
It's also what we call a "false dilemma" to suggest that your proffered interpretations for this "trend" are the only interpretations for it.
If you're arguing against that, then you're part of the problem.
It's also what we call a "false dilemma" to suggest that your proffered interpretations for this "trend" are the only interpretations for it.
It's not necessarily that people are calling for hard skills to be replaced with soft skills, however they are writing articles in which they imply that soft skills are more valuable than hard skills at Google [1].
It's basic self-interest. If you believe that you're unable to sell your hard skills to an employer, it's in your interest to try to convince people that what you offer (superior generosity, motivational speaking, equality and empathy) will be more likely to bring success to an employer.
People don't need to literally call for hard skills to be replaced because that's not the end-goal. The goal here is that employer's realise that soft skills are more important so that the status of these careers is higher than that of software engineers.
It's basic self-interest. If you believe that you're unable to sell your hard skills to an employer, it's in your interest to try to convince people that what you offer (superior generosity, motivational speaking, equality and empathy) will be more likely to bring success to an employer.
People don't need to literally call for hard skills to be replaced because that's not the end-goal. The goal here is that employer's realise that soft skills are more important so that the status of these careers is higher than that of software engineers.
[1] https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/945114254922825730That "soft skills are more valuable than hard" is not what I read in that article. It sounds more to me like degrees in STEM correlate less well with success at Google than people expected. Not "negatively" — "less positively", and merely less positively than people anticipated. So what was the "wrong" here? People's assumptions. This is my surprised face.
But I'm probably biased to read it more generously than someone else might be; I was a philosophy major in undergrad, and actively repudiate the ludicrous notion that a broader, more liberal education is somehow wasteful. So YMMV.
EDIT: Look at it this way: you can be the most brilliant technologist in the history of ever. If you're impossible to work with, you're a liability, not an asset. You drive away anyone who tries to work with you, and/or your bus factor is, give or take, ∞.
Once again, "if you're arguing against that, then you're part of the problem."
But I'm probably biased to read it more generously than someone else might be; I was a philosophy major in undergrad, and actively repudiate the ludicrous notion that a broader, more liberal education is somehow wasteful. So YMMV.
EDIT: Look at it this way: you can be the most brilliant technologist in the history of ever. If you're impossible to work with, you're a liability, not an asset. You drive away anyone who tries to work with you, and/or your bus factor is, give or take, ∞.
Once again, "if you're arguing against that, then you're part of the problem."
This 'brilliant technologist that is impossible to work with' mythos needs to die. The majority of us are normal people and don't deserve to be stereotyped in this way.
A broader, more liberal education isn't a waste, but I don't think that such a thing would lead anybody to call out nerds for social deficiencies while singing one's own praises. If it does, then yes, that is a shocking waste of an education.
Not being able to see this and trying to throw people under the bus with unfair stereotypes in order to get ahead is just as bad as having strong hard skills but being devoid of empathy. (It is practically a mirror image: having strong soft skills but being devoid of empathy.)
A broader, more liberal education isn't a waste, but I don't think that such a thing would lead anybody to call out nerds for social deficiencies while singing one's own praises. If it does, then yes, that is a shocking waste of an education.
Not being able to see this and trying to throw people under the bus with unfair stereotypes in order to get ahead is just as bad as having strong hard skills but being devoid of empathy. (It is practically a mirror image: having strong soft skills but being devoid of empathy.)
You're misconstruing my position. Yes, the rockstar asshole is rare, but I've worked with enough of them to know how destructive they are to the morale of the team. I was also once tasked with rewriting years of a rockstar asshole's code in months because said rockstar asshole left in a huff over not being treated the way he wanted, and no-one else had ever touched his deliberately impenetrable code. (All function and variable names were one or two letters, &c. But up until that point, he was just so productive, the employer put up with his behavior, and ignored the turnover on the rest of the team — which, miraculously, changed dramatically after he left. Go figure.)
So I'll freely own that I may have a small chip there. But at the same time, while the plural of anecdote isn't data, an existence proof is an existence proof.
So I'll freely own that I may have a small chip there. But at the same time, while the plural of anecdote isn't data, an existence proof is an existence proof.
I don't think we disagree but I do think you're absolving the sins of social assholes because of the sins of asocial assholes.
I've met rockstar asshole programmer's before, but I think it is overblown -- I do not think there are as many as everybody thinks there are. Far more often I've met great engineers that were well-rounded, kind and decent people. And yet the myth persists...
I've met rockstar asshole programmer's before, but I think it is overblown -- I do not think there are as many as everybody thinks there are. Far more often I've met great engineers that were well-rounded, kind and decent people. And yet the myth persists...
I'm not absolving anyone of anything, and I'm curious what I might have said to suggest I am. I've met far more, as you say, "social assholes", and been thrown under buses by them far more often than by technical folk, of whatever caliber socialization they had to offer.
> I'm not absolving anyone of anything,
> and I'm curious what I might have said
> to suggest I am.
This perspective is utilised by people that want to raise their own position in relation.
I'm not suggesting you're purposefully letting people off the hook -- I guess the term 'absolving' made it seem conscious. What I'm saying is that people in tech are normal, and so the whole conversation about bringing empathy and other soft skills into tech is fundamentally disrespectful and abusive, and that people are doing this for selfish reasons.
Honestly, to me, the whole conversation about people in tech feels corrupted by ridiculous caricatures: 'The Tech Bro', 'The Socially Unaware Autist', 'The Rockstar Asshole', etc. This isn't a normal state of affairs: it's an effect of the constant tech tabloid media cycles. We're basically left with a mess of unreflective stereotypes that distort everything they touch.
Absolutely right. Tech people have always been soft targets: just look at the awful nerdface of The Big Bang Theory. Most tech people are, in reality, just ordinary people doing what they love. While of course there are programmers who embody the "brilliant asshole" stereotype, there are managers who embody the Patrick Bateman and Bill Lumbergh stereotypes.
Let's agree to just treat people as people and stop with this idea, implicit the whole conversation, that we need to value people who aren't technical more because they automatically possess skills that these technical nerds lack.
Let's agree to just treat people as people and stop with this idea, implicit the whole conversation, that we need to value people who aren't technical more because they automatically possess skills that these technical nerds lack.
> The whole 'hard and soft skills in tech' conversation depends on uncritically swallowing the belief that technically-minded people are naturally less empathetic.
Well, sure. If that's a premise you bring to the discussion, your position makes sense. And to the extent it is, I reject it (as a generalization), too.
It's also, however, the first I've ever heard of its being a premise to the discussion, so I hope you'll understand why I wasn't discussing this as if it were.
Well, sure. If that's a premise you bring to the discussion, your position makes sense. And to the extent it is, I reject it (as a generalization), too.
It's also, however, the first I've ever heard of its being a premise to the discussion, so I hope you'll understand why I wasn't discussing this as if it were.
[deleted]
The problem we have is that fewer and fewer people are choosing to pursue hard engineering skills, partly because they're, well, hard and partly because soft skills seem to provide an equal or better living.
I have nothing against philosophers, musicians and poets, I spent most of today being entertained by them on the radio, but without the hard skills the comforts of civilisation like running water, electricity and internet will disappear.
It's, again, anecdotal, and no small amount of confirmation bias, but I've been a technologist for over 20 years now. In all that time, most of my favorite technical colleagues, including their "hard" skills, were film majors, sociologists, historians, &c.
You do not need a STEM degree to be an outstanding technologist, or even a competent one. Far and away, the most valuable skill for this kind of work is critical thinking, and I've never seen classes teaching that offered outside the "liberal arts".
You do not need a STEM degree to be an outstanding technologist, or even a competent one. Far and away, the most valuable skill for this kind of work is critical thinking, and I've never seen classes teaching that offered outside the "liberal arts".
The bridge designer imagining failure modes for a new bridge design isn't critical thinking, but the liberal arts autoethnography about the colonial etiology of Daft Punk, that's critical thinking?
Reality is the opposite of your assertion: critical thinking is largely dead outside STEM, and that's because only in STEM does reality punish you for indulging sweet-sounding nonsense.
I've also met good developers over the course of over 20 years writing software. Many of them had no degree or an irrelevant degree. I respect them tremendously, but they're exceptions.
The kind of thinking that today's liberal arts departments encourage is contrary to the rigor needed to solve real engineering problems, and it's rare that you find in a single individual both a knack for the cold logic of engineering and the social sensitivity needed to succeed in a world of post-modern, post-logic quicksand.
Reality is the opposite of your assertion: critical thinking is largely dead outside STEM, and that's because only in STEM does reality punish you for indulging sweet-sounding nonsense.
I've also met good developers over the course of over 20 years writing software. Many of them had no degree or an irrelevant degree. I respect them tremendously, but they're exceptions.
The kind of thinking that today's liberal arts departments encourage is contrary to the rigor needed to solve real engineering problems, and it's rare that you find in a single individual both a knack for the cold logic of engineering and the social sensitivity needed to succeed in a world of post-modern, post-logic quicksand.
No, "critical thinking" is evaluating ideas and arguments, including one's own, for flaws. That you conflate it with engineering further suggests that you don't actually know what it is, and continue to over-value the "hard" skills beyond their (admittedly incredible and irreplaceable) worth.
It also tells me we are utterly talking past one another here. I have better things to do with my afternoon than refute yet more straw-men.
It also tells me we are utterly talking past one another here. I have better things to do with my afternoon than refute yet more straw-men.
I'm sure the engineers reading your comment appreciate your suggestion that the many late nights they've spent finding flaws in their proposals and those of others were all some kind of fever dream.
It's amazing that the academic departments that talk up their critical thinking in the most produce nothing that resembles a workable theory of the world.
Maybe what you wrote was true at one time, but these days, "evaluating ideas...for flaws" in large parts of academia is the process of finding logical contortions that, in the death-of-the-author spirit, twist texts and make them say the opposite of what they say. It's essentially formalized trolling.
That mode of thought has no business getting into the same building as real engineering.
It's amazing that the academic departments that talk up their critical thinking in the most produce nothing that resembles a workable theory of the world.
Maybe what you wrote was true at one time, but these days, "evaluating ideas...for flaws" in large parts of academia is the process of finding logical contortions that, in the death-of-the-author spirit, twist texts and make them say the opposite of what they say. It's essentially formalized trolling.
That mode of thought has no business getting into the same building as real engineering.
> I'm sure the engineers reading your comment appreciate your suggestion they the many late nights they've spent finding flaws in their proposals and those of others were all some kind of fever dream.
> ...but these days, "evaluating ideas...for flaws" is the process of finding logical contortions that, in the death-of-the-author spirit, twist texts and make them say the opposite of what they say.
Wow.
> ...but these days, "evaluating ideas...for flaws" is the process of finding logical contortions that, in the death-of-the-author spirit, twist texts and make them say the opposite of what they say.
Wow.
[deleted]
[deleted]
From what I have seen critical thinking, as a natural aptitude is quite rare. You can probably encourage it, but I doubt it can really be taught, even if those in authority wanted it.
You've locked onto the exact reason here. The incentives are all wrong.
Learn how to work people like a psychopath manager? Unlimited earning potential. Learn hard skills? Pigeonholed as "too valuable" to promote while being taken advantage of by those psychopaths until you connect enough dots to expose them or are deemed no longer necessary to their evil plan.
Learn how to work people like a psychopath manager? Unlimited earning potential. Learn hard skills? Pigeonholed as "too valuable" to promote while being taken advantage of by those psychopaths until you connect enough dots to expose them or are deemed no longer necessary to their evil plan.
> if you're arguing against that, then you're part of the problem
That's in incredibly dangerous and irresponsible thing to write. We need to entertain all arguments, not enshrine some things in untouchable dogma. Calling people personally awful for stating an argument --- instead of addressing the argument --- is the reason that today's public discourse is bonkers.
The line I quoted above turns disagreement into a witch hunt.
That's in incredibly dangerous and irresponsible thing to write. We need to entertain all arguments, not enshrine some things in untouchable dogma. Calling people personally awful for stating an argument --- instead of addressing the argument --- is the reason that today's public discourse is bonkers.
The line I quoted above turns disagreement into a witch hunt.
>> if you're arguing against that, then you're part of the problem
> That's in incredibly dangerous and irresponsible thing to write.
Also quite ironic, in context of an article advising to "make sure that everyone’s voice is heard, and that important warnings don’t get lost because someone didn’t feel safe saying so". Because this is how the warnings get silenced.
> That's in incredibly dangerous and irresponsible thing to write.
Also quite ironic, in context of an article advising to "make sure that everyone’s voice is heard, and that important warnings don’t get lost because someone didn’t feel safe saying so". Because this is how the warnings get silenced.
When "the problem" is over-valuing hard skills, and under-valuing soft skills, which is TFA's thesis (and mine, for purposes of this discussion), then it's rather less a "witch hunt" — which is speciously hyperbolic language in the first place, and the use of which, I submit, is far more contributory to the state of "discourse", such as it is.
I also, you'd do well to note, never called anyone "personally awful" (more specious hyperbole, hmm?). I said, paraphrased, that certain behaviors and positions are contributory to ("part of") "the problem", which we've already established is pretty narrowly defined.
I also, you'd do well to note, never called anyone "personally awful" (more specious hyperbole, hmm?). I said, paraphrased, that certain behaviors and positions are contributory to ("part of") "the problem", which we've already established is pretty narrowly defined.
No. You don't get to do that. You don't get to call people "the problem" just for making an argument. You don't get to just declare yourself the victor by impugning the character of your opponent. If this style of argumentation is what "soft skills" in tech means, we're heading to a dark place.
Technology and technologists are to solve the problems, they're not the problem or a part of it.
I have spent more than a decade working with brilliant technologists but haven't found anyone impossible to work with. As in technology, I have found some compatibility issues among/with technologists, but that can be worked out.
Also I have seen some technologists are unable to put forth a strong defense verbal or written when accused wrongly and thus becoming aunt Sally, people find them easier to put blame on.
I have spent more than a decade working with brilliant technologists but haven't found anyone impossible to work with. As in technology, I have found some compatibility issues among/with technologists, but that can be worked out.
Also I have seen some technologists are unable to put forth a strong defense verbal or written when accused wrongly and thus becoming aunt Sally, people find them easier to put blame on.
they imply that soft skills are more valuable than hard skills at Google
I've seen 'soft' vs 'hard' skills treated as a constant-sum quantity, e.g. somebody who conclusively demonstrates hard skills must not have soft skills so they must be a bad person to work with, won't be able to teach/learn, probably works badly in a team, etc. This is in the context of hiring meetings to discuss candidates. Interestingly, the opposite isn't as strong: a candidate with soft skills is presumed capable of picking up hard skills quickly, although it doesn't actually happened in most of these hires
There's a lot of roles on a team, though, and some of them require "soft skills" more than technical skills. For instance, your scrum master is probably better served by having strong people and management skills and a more general understanding of the technical problems the team is facing on a day-to-day basis rather than a deep understanding of implementation details. The idea wouldn't be to focus on staffing a team full of "soft skills" people, but rather to fill your team with people who cover a broad range of different skill sets applicable to different situations. So maybe you've got a hard computer scientist who can pound out complex implementations in a few seconds; she's probably ultimately going to really appreciate having a teammate who's better at condensing the scatterbrain designer's ideas into a hard set of specs that won't require as many back-and-forth feedback iterations even if said teammate isn't as good of a programmer as she is.
I may agree with your general sentiment, but I think the OP actually avoids the specific mistake that you are criticizing. Let me highlight a few key quotes:
> There always remain various hard [technical problems], of course, which are critical and which can’t be solved by any number of inexperienced people except by them getting experience; that’s why we need to continue to build and grow our technical skills. But if you continue to grow your skillset, you’ll quickly discover that the amount of time that needs to be spent on these extremely difficult technical problems tends towards significantly less than a full-time job; instead, the crucial (and incredibly hard) problems that affect a system have more to do with how that system interacts with the outside world — which is, more and more, people.
> Interestingly, there’s a lot more crossover between hard and soft skills than many people realize: when you start to see your system as a component of a larger system which includes humans as elements, and you start to ask how humans interact with each other and what their behaviors are, then many of the same “hard skills” systems design approaches not only make sense, but can provide even better answers to traditionally purely “soft” questions.
Eric Raymond said something similar recently[0]:
> Whole-systems engineering, when you get good at it, goes beyond being entirely or even mostly about technical optimizations. Every artifact we make is situated in a context of human action that widens out to the economics of its use, the sociology of its users, and the entirety of what Austrian economists call “praxeology”, the science of purposeful human behavior in its widest scope.
Also see Pieter Hintjens' book _Social Architecture_[1].
This is a sensitive issue, because it comes down to the question of who is at the top of the hierarchy, and it's part of human nature to be highly sensitive to our relative position within a given hierarchy. For those of us who have technical skills and an analytical temperament, we naturally want to be in an environment where those qualities are most advantageous in moving up the hierarchy.
I think Zunger's point is that, even within such an organization, there certain skills (which are not specifically technical) which are necessary to being maximally effective at the top of the hierarchy.
[0] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7745
[1] https://www.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/social-architecture/de...
> There always remain various hard [technical problems], of course, which are critical and which can’t be solved by any number of inexperienced people except by them getting experience; that’s why we need to continue to build and grow our technical skills. But if you continue to grow your skillset, you’ll quickly discover that the amount of time that needs to be spent on these extremely difficult technical problems tends towards significantly less than a full-time job; instead, the crucial (and incredibly hard) problems that affect a system have more to do with how that system interacts with the outside world — which is, more and more, people.
> Interestingly, there’s a lot more crossover between hard and soft skills than many people realize: when you start to see your system as a component of a larger system which includes humans as elements, and you start to ask how humans interact with each other and what their behaviors are, then many of the same “hard skills” systems design approaches not only make sense, but can provide even better answers to traditionally purely “soft” questions.
Eric Raymond said something similar recently[0]:
> Whole-systems engineering, when you get good at it, goes beyond being entirely or even mostly about technical optimizations. Every artifact we make is situated in a context of human action that widens out to the economics of its use, the sociology of its users, and the entirety of what Austrian economists call “praxeology”, the science of purposeful human behavior in its widest scope.
Also see Pieter Hintjens' book _Social Architecture_[1].
This is a sensitive issue, because it comes down to the question of who is at the top of the hierarchy, and it's part of human nature to be highly sensitive to our relative position within a given hierarchy. For those of us who have technical skills and an analytical temperament, we naturally want to be in an environment where those qualities are most advantageous in moving up the hierarchy.
I think Zunger's point is that, even within such an organization, there certain skills (which are not specifically technical) which are necessary to being maximally effective at the top of the hierarchy.
[0] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7745
[1] https://www.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/social-architecture/de...
>One interpretation is that you really don't think that technical quality is important. In this case, you'll end up getting complacent on quality, ship crap, and open yourself up to competition.
I would dare say this mechanism has been in trouble for the past decade or so and that's the root of the problem. If you're a large company with a sizable share in an established market, technical quality becomes secondary. It's customers' habits, compatibility and your sales budget that run the show. Until the market turns and you go bust, of course.
If you're quickly growing startup, the budget you can spend on growth (i.e. the amount you can raise) far outweighs the technical side. Efficiency? Investors don't care about that, they care about you making enough buzz and getting acquired (or IPOing) while you're still hot. They will get a return even if you never had a single profitable quarter.
Unfortunately, as much as we technical people hate this, I don't see any reason for the "IQ -> EQ" trend to be reversed anytime soon. Not in the current market. The only way out of this circus is making your own bootstrapped business.
I would dare say this mechanism has been in trouble for the past decade or so and that's the root of the problem. If you're a large company with a sizable share in an established market, technical quality becomes secondary. It's customers' habits, compatibility and your sales budget that run the show. Until the market turns and you go bust, of course.
If you're quickly growing startup, the budget you can spend on growth (i.e. the amount you can raise) far outweighs the technical side. Efficiency? Investors don't care about that, they care about you making enough buzz and getting acquired (or IPOing) while you're still hot. They will get a return even if you never had a single profitable quarter.
Unfortunately, as much as we technical people hate this, I don't see any reason for the "IQ -> EQ" trend to be reversed anytime soon. Not in the current market. The only way out of this circus is making your own bootstrapped business.
Some of the best developers I know have bad soft skills and they have had trouble holding onto a steady job because of it. Being fired often makes them more bitter, less trusting and further damages their soft skills which turns into a vicious cycle.
Part of the problem is the increased intolerance to conflict in the workplace. Employees these days get fired for merely having self-respect and conviction.
Part of the problem is the increased intolerance to conflict in the workplace. Employees these days get fired for merely having self-respect and conviction.
Given many folks use tech to escape real-world interaction with messy, untrustworthy and corrupt people, finding their fantasy world in getting awesome things done, I doubt the hard skills will be replaced by soft ones. This is actually a symptom of sociopathic tendencies taking over tech which is a marker for "dark ages" coming, and neutralizing any progress coming from tech. The sociopaths finally figured out tech and will use it to enforce their agendas to detriment of most of us as we will be forced to spend our time on things we don't believe in and lie to each other we do meaningful things for betterment of humanity, which we won't. All large corps are becoming politically loaded places where one expression of "wrongthink" eclipses any achievements an individual did in the past, nuking future career. As sociopaths can't really compete on hard skills, they push soft-skill, touchy-feely agendas, identified as weak spots of techies that can't handle them reasonably in many cases. Oh, you achieved this awesome stuff that grew company by $100M? Well, you still don't smile at everyone, this fresh grad thinks you don't appreciate their Harvardness, please get better at this or no promotions/bonuses for you!
I think the way to look at it is soft skills can compliment the hard skills, but any engineer w/out the hard skills has nothing to compliment:
engineer w/ hard skills = solid;
engineer w/ hard + soft skills = powerful;
engineer w/only soft skills = useless;
engineer w/ hard skills = solid;
engineer w/ hard + soft skills = powerful;
engineer w/only soft skills = useless;
I disagree.
An engineer with soft skills, but no hard skills, isn't an engineer – but their soft skills may be usable elsewhere. (I find that engineering managers need to have a decent amount of engineering skill to be at all effective)
An engineer with hard skills, but no soft skills, is somewhere between unproductive and an active menace. The bare minimum soft skill is the ability to work effectively with others in a team. Someone who lacks this skill contributes more negative value, by harming the operation of the rest of the team, than any one person is able to create, no matter how good they are. And a system built by one person in angry isolation (which is where people quickly end up if they lack those skills) is a disaster from other perspectives: for example, production maintenance and operations, where ultimately only one person understands what they've built.
An engineer with enough hard skills to function in a team, but only that, is a net positive, but I'd hesitate to describe them as "solid" – rather, I'd say that gets them to be an effective journeyman, but means they'll never be able to lead anything, even something small.
Conversely, the "engineer" with lots of soft skills but minimal hard skills can be a manager – but not of anything too complex. Again, their career is permanently limited.
So there's a real law of the minimum at play here. But notably, the place you drop to at zero soft skills is way worse than the place you drop to at zero hard skills. The latter, you can find a use for; the former, you need to get out of your organization as quickly as possible, because they do active damage every day.
An engineer with soft skills, but no hard skills, isn't an engineer – but their soft skills may be usable elsewhere. (I find that engineering managers need to have a decent amount of engineering skill to be at all effective)
An engineer with hard skills, but no soft skills, is somewhere between unproductive and an active menace. The bare minimum soft skill is the ability to work effectively with others in a team. Someone who lacks this skill contributes more negative value, by harming the operation of the rest of the team, than any one person is able to create, no matter how good they are. And a system built by one person in angry isolation (which is where people quickly end up if they lack those skills) is a disaster from other perspectives: for example, production maintenance and operations, where ultimately only one person understands what they've built.
An engineer with enough hard skills to function in a team, but only that, is a net positive, but I'd hesitate to describe them as "solid" – rather, I'd say that gets them to be an effective journeyman, but means they'll never be able to lead anything, even something small.
Conversely, the "engineer" with lots of soft skills but minimal hard skills can be a manager – but not of anything too complex. Again, their career is permanently limited.
So there's a real law of the minimum at play here. But notably, the place you drop to at zero soft skills is way worse than the place you drop to at zero hard skills. The latter, you can find a use for; the former, you need to get out of your organization as quickly as possible, because they do active damage every day.
engineer w/only soft skills = management. Managers have their value too, but you can't only have managers.
I'd infinitely prefer a manager with at least some hard skills than one with none. My most frustrating managers were the ones you describe, because they just weren't at all qualified to make decisions about what we were doing. I don't think I'm alone among engineers in that opinion.
Preferring a manager with hard skills is like preferring an engineer with soft skills. It makes everything so much smoother. Similarly, I'd argue that a manager with only soft skills is as frustrating to work with as an engineer with only hard skills. They're functional, but it's not anywhere near ideal.
Completely agree, and I'd posit that if you have you never faced a manager with ONLY hard skills and no soft skills, you're lucky. They're miserable to work for. I worked for one who was promoted because he was really, really good at ServiceNow (the service du jour of our company), and he literally thought management was threatening people until he got his way....
...until he was forced out when none of the departments succeeded, that is.
...until he was forced out when none of the departments succeeded, that is.
Tech is full of messy, untrustworthy and corrupt people. There was never lack of sociopaths or bad actors in tech, no less then anywhere else. We are however, fond of telling ourselves that we are better then everyone else.
Sure, but our industry was never as corrupt as e.g. finances, doing back-channel financing of atrocities like wars/genocides, buying politicians to bypass popular sentiment, setting up drug distribution centers and prostitution rings nearby so that their employees can kill their inner humanity and have reward for corrupting themselves. My fear is that we are becoming the same and that change is happening right now.
IBM designed and maintained those machines that facilitated holocaust. Meaning, a lot of techies were on a place installing, training users and seeing wagons and facilities. Not just management. NSA spying runs on techies and backdoors don't make themselves. Blackhat is a thing too. Tech does not have as much power as finances through.
But most importantly, on the single average engineer level, which is more relevant, there are plenty of companies with backstabbing culture or individual bad actors in companies with otherwise good culture. For example, I have seen engineers badmouth other peoples work not because it would be bad, but to make themselves look good in comparison. Etc.
But most importantly, on the single average engineer level, which is more relevant, there are plenty of companies with backstabbing culture or individual bad actors in companies with otherwise good culture. For example, I have seen engineers badmouth other peoples work not because it would be bad, but to make themselves look good in comparison. Etc.
I guess most of those techies were on "need to know" basis, likely clueless about what was going really on and only the key players (bosses) were corrupt and aware. It's hard for many techies, by nature idealists, to fully grasp how the world truly works, until they are disposed of when their usefulness ends, or they have first-hand experience from war/hit or even from approaching share vesting date and their company going fully into Game-of-Thrones mode etc.
Nope, there is quite detailed book on that. They were on place, in Germany and occupied territories. Installing machines, designing punch cards with cooperation of users and training users. Some machines were directly in concentration camps and some on railways used to transport Jews. If you got there to maintain, you seen them. Some were used to sort people by race on occupied territories - and even if you not knew about holocaust you knew it is about finding and mistreating Jews. That much was clear to contemporaries.
Bosses were aware and managed operation. That is true.
> It's hard for many techies, by nature idealists, to fully grasp how the world truly works
Not all techies are idealists and it is not necessary to be idealist to have good hard skills. Also, idealists tend to be focused a bit less on those hard skills then pragmatics (being attracted to ideals). While some techies (on the spectrum) have hard time to grasp world, many many don't. Those who do were less likely to get goodies.
Bosses were aware and managed operation. That is true.
> It's hard for many techies, by nature idealists, to fully grasp how the world truly works
Not all techies are idealists and it is not necessary to be idealist to have good hard skills. Also, idealists tend to be focused a bit less on those hard skills then pragmatics (being attracted to ideals). While some techies (on the spectrum) have hard time to grasp world, many many don't. Those who do were less likely to get goodies.
Do you have any references for that? I'm quite incredulous that American IBM employees were on place, in Germany and occupied territories, during a time that America was engaged in war with Germany.
"IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation" by Edwin Black.
IBM had child company in Germany Dehomag, but transported machines and cards from outside too (including during war through not whole of it). The book however deals more with management and non-German citizens guilt which is harder to show. That people of all sorts in the Germany, including technologistics, were contributing to Nazi plans is easier to believe. It was just first example that came to my mind.
IBM had child company in Germany Dehomag, but transported machines and cards from outside too (including during war through not whole of it). The book however deals more with management and non-German citizens guilt which is harder to show. That people of all sorts in the Germany, including technologistics, were contributing to Nazi plans is easier to believe. It was just first example that came to my mind.
Oh the poor little innocent ingenues! /s
Techies aren't idiots (any more so than anyone else).
Techies aren't idiots (any more so than anyone else).
And what do you propose?
It doesn't take much to poke holes in the way things are - it's a lot harder to do something about it, other than 'raising awareness' aka complaining.
It doesn't take much to poke holes in the way things are - it's a lot harder to do something about it, other than 'raising awareness' aka complaining.
There are some things ongoing by people that realize what is happening, for example in the blockchain space. Blockchain beside attempting to solve cool tech problem of Byzantine generals was also motivated by increasing transparency, i.e. removing or disclosing corruption by money means. There is more work done right now to prevent dominant intermediaries like Amazon from increasingly abusing their position by removing the need to use their platform at all and move it to a p2p blockchain instead. There are now options to (or at least try to) put an end to millenia of horrible human behavior.
There is more work done right now to prevent dominant intermediaries like Amazon from increasingly abusing their position by removing the need to use their platform at all and move it to a p2p blockchain instead.
So, those small online stores didn't used to all be on Amazon or Ebay. Which means those platforms must be providing something that the store proprietors think is worth losing some of their independence over.
What is that "something", and what does the blockchain do to provide it that just getting an account with a payment processor doesn't do?
So, those small online stores didn't used to all be on Amazon or Ebay. Which means those platforms must be providing something that the store proprietors think is worth losing some of their independence over.
What is that "something", and what does the blockchain do to provide it that just getting an account with a payment processor doesn't do?
For example not being kicked out from a platform for no reason, because some MBA needs to fill their quarterly quota of kicked out 3rd party sellers? Not giving sales data on what is selling well to your competitor that in turn would start manufacturing their "essentials" line, copying your product, and undercutting you? Please read what is right now happening with Amazon and tell me you like what it is becoming. Amazon used to be very useful for sellers when it allowed rotating shopping cart so that everyone got some throughput on a single marketplace, paying them some 15% of revenue for this "marketing". This is no longer feasible for most 3rd party sellers; instead Amazon is becoming very restrictive, siding with big brands, more and more rejecting honest businesses and locking them out of their platform.
> This is no longer feasible for most 3rd party sellers; instead Amazon is becoming very restrictive, siding with big brands, more and more rejecting honest businesses and locking them out of their platform.
I'd be interested in reading more detailed first-hand descriptions of this, but searching for some key phrases from your description is just bringing up irrelevant product links. It's seemingly at odds with the rampant counterfeiting and listing spam (to confirm that my experience isn't outdated, I just went to the "Unlocked Cell Phones" category, sorted by lowest price, and found a listing for "Example Product Title" by "Example Product Brand", available from 3 sellers) on Amazon. I guess it's conceivable that Amazon is good at logistics/infrastructure but flagrantly awful at the "marketplace" component.
I'd be interested in reading more detailed first-hand descriptions of this, but searching for some key phrases from your description is just bringing up irrelevant product links. It's seemingly at odds with the rampant counterfeiting and listing spam (to confirm that my experience isn't outdated, I just went to the "Unlocked Cell Phones" category, sorted by lowest price, and found a listing for "Example Product Title" by "Example Product Brand", available from 3 sellers) on Amazon. I guess it's conceivable that Amazon is good at logistics/infrastructure but flagrantly awful at the "marketplace" component.
They recently opened up their marketplace to junk sellers from China and India, then adjusted their automated ML to be super restrictive to sort out the junk, and honest US businesses are now treated the same way as junk Indian ones, getting kicked out on mere suspicions of violations (i.e. presumed to be guilty by default). I guess it doesn't matter to them.
Don't most people use tech to argue with each other on the Internet?
We also use it to construct theories about sociopaths infiltrating the industry and realigning the biggest players’ cultures to better suit their sociopath interests when someone suggests people skills might not be irrelevant.
Soft skills are often used as beating sticks on techies by the rest of populace; it's the usual "socially-clueless nerd" song we hear all the time, like we couldn't take care of ourselves. Don't tell me you didn't notice people that lack skills needed for their jobs diverting their attention to their strong aspects, like being "political", and trying to hack other people to believe that their skills are what actually matters instead of hard skills coming from years of practice and suffering. It's like the oldest play in the book, divert attention from your own shortcoming and negate what is important. Due to "nerds being clueless", it actually often works, which is sad.
"diverting their attention to their strong aspects"
"instead of hard skills coming from years of practice and suffering"
Kinda like you did there? ;-)
Anyway, this is an essential soft skill to have, and one that I suspect more techies exercise than they give themselves credit for. But the response to it is pretty simple: "Alright, if this organization doesn't value the skillset I have, I'll go work for an organization that does, doing a favor for both you, me, and that new organization." After all, why waste resources on something you don't need? The whole point of a market economy is to self-organize so that everyone gets the maximum amount of value out of their skills & talents.
I've pulled this card a couple times (not even as a negotiation tool, but because I honestly wanted to know if I should be spending my time on something else) and gotten back a "No, no, this is actually really important to us, please don't leave or stop doing it."
"instead of hard skills coming from years of practice and suffering"
Kinda like you did there? ;-)
Anyway, this is an essential soft skill to have, and one that I suspect more techies exercise than they give themselves credit for. But the response to it is pretty simple: "Alright, if this organization doesn't value the skillset I have, I'll go work for an organization that does, doing a favor for both you, me, and that new organization." After all, why waste resources on something you don't need? The whole point of a market economy is to self-organize so that everyone gets the maximum amount of value out of their skills & talents.
I've pulled this card a couple times (not even as a negotiation tool, but because I honestly wanted to know if I should be spending my time on something else) and gotten back a "No, no, this is actually really important to us, please don't leave or stop doing it."
What nonsense, if anything it's techies who are themselves promoting this theory after years of working in the tech industry
Soft skills are important especially in programming. Open source projects for example, live and die by how much and how well they can engage their community, an inherently soft skill.
Soft skills are important especially in programming. Open source projects for example, live and die by how much and how well they can engage their community, an inherently soft skill.
So there's truth to this -- I've certainly seen over and over again how non-technical people often try to put people with technical skills in a box (as if we can't have other skills), and it also can be frustrating to watch people stake out some territory as where they add value when you know the activity they're engaged in isn't particularly difficult and they're not bringing outlier skills to it.
But one of the things I figured out a while back is that even jobs that aren't particularly hard sometimes still need dedicated time and attention. Division of labor can help with that. And if you try doing one of the "easy"/soft jobs for a while, you might find that it requires a certain set of subtle skills that don't all come naturally to you.
For example, I tried being an account/project manager and sometimes-front-end-dev for a startup years ago. And I found out really quick that the former is (partly) about paying attention to lots of little pieces of information and trying to push them between people quickly and managing human expectations and keeping everybody oriented around the important next step and a bunch of other things which didn't require years of study but still needed work. Development, by contrast, required a stacked set of skills in dealing with a cooperating set of abstractions and lots of time in singularly focused attention. Doing both at the same time is not something I'd recommend to most people, btw -- dev work is focus-driven, management work is interrupt driven and there's an inherent conflict. So... division of labor makes a lot of sense and you might need someone to do the things involved here to keep the enterprise going as much as you need developers. This stuff "actually matters" even when it isn't rocket science.
It also does happen that there are people who are outlier-good at "soft" tasks. Not as often as people claim, but it does happen.
> trying to hack other people to believe that their skills are what actually matters instead of hard skills ... it actually often works, which is sad.
If they're successful, isn't that more or less proof of the utility of those skills? Being able to persuade people to adopt a given point of view -- or least to be able to negotiate to an agreement -- strikes me as one of the most useful skills there could be. It's essentially hot-swapping code in someone else's brain! :)
I think what most of us technical folks get frustrated at is watching perceived value (and with it, authority and compensation) accumulate outside of our reach. But if this is a perception problem, perhaps the soft skill of persuasion is the answer.
But one of the things I figured out a while back is that even jobs that aren't particularly hard sometimes still need dedicated time and attention. Division of labor can help with that. And if you try doing one of the "easy"/soft jobs for a while, you might find that it requires a certain set of subtle skills that don't all come naturally to you.
For example, I tried being an account/project manager and sometimes-front-end-dev for a startup years ago. And I found out really quick that the former is (partly) about paying attention to lots of little pieces of information and trying to push them between people quickly and managing human expectations and keeping everybody oriented around the important next step and a bunch of other things which didn't require years of study but still needed work. Development, by contrast, required a stacked set of skills in dealing with a cooperating set of abstractions and lots of time in singularly focused attention. Doing both at the same time is not something I'd recommend to most people, btw -- dev work is focus-driven, management work is interrupt driven and there's an inherent conflict. So... division of labor makes a lot of sense and you might need someone to do the things involved here to keep the enterprise going as much as you need developers. This stuff "actually matters" even when it isn't rocket science.
It also does happen that there are people who are outlier-good at "soft" tasks. Not as often as people claim, but it does happen.
> trying to hack other people to believe that their skills are what actually matters instead of hard skills ... it actually often works, which is sad.
If they're successful, isn't that more or less proof of the utility of those skills? Being able to persuade people to adopt a given point of view -- or least to be able to negotiate to an agreement -- strikes me as one of the most useful skills there could be. It's essentially hot-swapping code in someone else's brain! :)
I think what most of us technical folks get frustrated at is watching perceived value (and with it, authority and compensation) accumulate outside of our reach. But if this is a perception problem, perhaps the soft skill of persuasion is the answer.
Don't tell me you didn't notice people that lack skills needed for their jobs diverting their attention to their strong aspects
...you mean like pretending that only the easy stuff (interacting with the machine) matters, and all the complicated hard-to-understand things about interacting usefully with other humans are completely irrelevant? :)
instead of hard skills coming from years of practice and suffering
Um, no, the "hard" skills come from playing with the machine and solving puzzles for fun. They're not "hard" as in "not easy", it's as in "not fuzzy".
Due to "nerds being clueless", it actually often works, which is sad.
I do not appreciate your insults to my status as a competent adult.
Are you sure you're as much on the side of the "nerds" as you pretend to be?
...you mean like pretending that only the easy stuff (interacting with the machine) matters, and all the complicated hard-to-understand things about interacting usefully with other humans are completely irrelevant? :)
instead of hard skills coming from years of practice and suffering
Um, no, the "hard" skills come from playing with the machine and solving puzzles for fun. They're not "hard" as in "not easy", it's as in "not fuzzy".
Due to "nerds being clueless", it actually often works, which is sad.
I do not appreciate your insults to my status as a competent adult.
Are you sure you're as much on the side of the "nerds" as you pretend to be?
You've clearly got an axe to grind. The idea that sociopaths didn't exist in tech before is pretty easy to disprove, unless you think Steve Jobs was a benevolent person. Not to mention Ellison, Kalanick, Khosla, and honestly the list is endless (venture capitalists are famous for being assholes, many would say it's an asset to doing their job).
Money attracts assholes, I don't think many people would argue with that (although I'd honestly be interested in hearing arguments against this). So if your goal is to keep them away, then just make sure to never monetize your product.
Money attracts assholes, I don't think many people would argue with that (although I'd honestly be interested in hearing arguments against this). So if your goal is to keep them away, then just make sure to never monetize your product.
I think parent poster is drawing a distinction between sociopathy toward capitalistic ends (i.e. making money, providing something of value to someone) and sociopathy toward ideological ends (e.g. social justice, trying to reform the world to be as one believes it should).
We always knew about the former, and it's in every industry. The latter is the more recent (and relevant) phenomenon.
We always knew about the former, and it's in every industry. The latter is the more recent (and relevant) phenomenon.
[deleted]
Weirdly enough, I feel like saying the blame should not be put on the people for being assholes; assholery is not something people are born with. Rather, the type of environment is at fault for self-selecting for them.
While I broadly agree with the author's characterization and summary of the importance of "real" soft skills, that seems to be a tiny slice of how the term is used. I've seen discussions of soft skills cover a ridiculously broad assortment of actual skills, cultural sensitivities, in-group identity behaviors, personality traits, and neurological aptitudes. Without being a lot clearer about the scope, I think there's a real risk of a "soft skills are real and important" position mutating into "if I don't like somebody it's just because they didn't work hard enough, not because there's anything strange about my expectations".
Mostly soft skills represent your ability to react rationally and appropriately to your own emotions and to the emotions of others--even emotions that you're anticipating and not just experiencing. The most basic soft skill in my mind is empathy, which is your ability to anticipate how others will feel in a given situation. If you're not capable of empathy I do not want you as my manager.
I choose intuition over empathy, but clearly they're both important.
Be careful with the term ‘empathy’. The contemporary use of this word (reflected in your definition) conflates a few different concepts in a potentially confusing manner. An ability to predict how others feel can be used, to put it simply, for both good and evil. A sociopath has high empathy. Do you want a sociopath as your manager?
A better set of characteristics to look for might be: sympathy, compassion, consideration, honesty.
‘Empathy’ as a term actually has a shaky and very recent etymology which reflects some of the contradictions it plays into. A loose translation of it’s origins is to express sympathy, which has a slight technical from what it means now, because it has been widely adopted as dignified form of sympathy. The difference from the classical term sympathy is that empathy is more correlated with communication than intention. Why has it gained in popularity? A socio-cultural argument might center on the fact that empathy carries less vulnerability than sympathy. There are some serious implications here.
The general problem with the focus on empathy is the loss of a bigger picture concern with being sincere. It’s analogous to short-term concerns vs. long-term concerns, where short-term concern is to provide immediate comfort and long-term concern is to provide sustainment and survival. A highly social workplace will value immediate social relations like expression of compassion while overlooking important long term values like honesty and less-empathetic forms of sympathy.
Ideally, we would maintain both, but these simplifications of the issue are unlikely to support that outcome.
A better set of characteristics to look for might be: sympathy, compassion, consideration, honesty.
‘Empathy’ as a term actually has a shaky and very recent etymology which reflects some of the contradictions it plays into. A loose translation of it’s origins is to express sympathy, which has a slight technical from what it means now, because it has been widely adopted as dignified form of sympathy. The difference from the classical term sympathy is that empathy is more correlated with communication than intention. Why has it gained in popularity? A socio-cultural argument might center on the fact that empathy carries less vulnerability than sympathy. There are some serious implications here.
The general problem with the focus on empathy is the loss of a bigger picture concern with being sincere. It’s analogous to short-term concerns vs. long-term concerns, where short-term concern is to provide immediate comfort and long-term concern is to provide sustainment and survival. A highly social workplace will value immediate social relations like expression of compassion while overlooking important long term values like honesty and less-empathetic forms of sympathy.
Ideally, we would maintain both, but these simplifications of the issue are unlikely to support that outcome.
Look, if I'm managing someone I need to understand why asking them to work weekends upsets them. Being able to do this doesn't automatically make me a sociopath. What would make me a sociopath is asking them to do it anyway and then leaving early to go play golf. In other words not caring about them makes me a sociopath.
Sympathy requires you to feel the emotions of others which is often done to an unhealthy degree. Understanding how someone feels and feeling how they feel are different and should be treated with different words. It's good to work to understand others, but that doesn't mean you have to become them. And just because I don't share your feelings it doesn't mean I don't think they're valid. It just means I'm not you and I'm free to make my own choices.
I will often still choose to help you, but I'm not taking ownership of your problem.
Sympathy requires you to feel the emotions of others which is often done to an unhealthy degree. Understanding how someone feels and feeling how they feel are different and should be treated with different words. It's good to work to understand others, but that doesn't mean you have to become them. And just because I don't share your feelings it doesn't mean I don't think they're valid. It just means I'm not you and I'm free to make my own choices.
I will often still choose to help you, but I'm not taking ownership of your problem.
feeling sympathy for another != feeling first-person experience
feeling sympathy != taking responsibility
The difference between the terms’ meanings is beyond mere emphasis, but it still falls short of occupying the subject’s bodily consciousness.
Look at the spectrum of bonds between family members for reference. Caring for one another to varying degrees is not so strange for most people. It is just becoming less common in public and business relationships.
feeling sympathy != taking responsibility
The difference between the terms’ meanings is beyond mere emphasis, but it still falls short of occupying the subject’s bodily consciousness.
Look at the spectrum of bonds between family members for reference. Caring for one another to varying degrees is not so strange for most people. It is just becoming less common in public and business relationships.
Yes, it's unfortunate that sympathy has gone out of favour and empathy has changed in meaning.
Perhaps 'simpatico' is closer in meaning to the desired emotion.
Perhaps 'simpatico' is closer in meaning to the desired emotion.
> A sociopath has high empathy. Do you want a sociopath as your manager?
You appear to be falling into some logical fallacy here.
You appear to be falling into some logical fallacy here.
What logical fallacy would that be?
https://www.google.de/search?q=ceo+sociopath+study
https://www.google.de/search?q=ceo+sociopath+study
jschwartzi said "If you're not capable of empathy I do not want you as my manager" and gt_ responded as though jschwartzi had said "If you're capable of empathy I want you as my manager". It's the fallacy called "Denying the antecedent".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
As it stands I think "soft skills" is one of those buzzwords like "critical thinking." Everybody thinks its good, but it hasn't been established as a scientifically-valid / measurable concept.
Thus the phrase "Soft skills" gives a veneer of objectivity to something to personal dynamics that are incredibly subjective and unscientific. The term is potentially a weapon for the politically-savvy to punish those who oppose them with an unfalsifiable attack.
Thus the phrase "Soft skills" gives a veneer of objectivity to something to personal dynamics that are incredibly subjective and unscientific. The term is potentially a weapon for the politically-savvy to punish those who oppose them with an unfalsifiable attack.
tl; dr:
1. Author observes that he's witnessed a lot of emotional backlash to the suggestion that soft skills may outweigh hard skills in tech; suggests the emotionality of the reaction is indicative that engineers worry it just may be true.
2. Justifies the importance of soft skills by citing personal experience of teams of 100s+ people needing to be coordinated
3. Proposes that a [software] system's interaction with the outside world is a larger problem than the system itself [i.e. UX tougher than code]
4. Offers a metric to assess management by: if people dislike managers then those managers must have very low soft-skills. Proposes the traditional approach to management is a large failure in tech.
5. Describes soft-skills but gives no hard examples
6. Proposes creating vocabulary to represent soft skills such as requirement-gathering so that people can care more about these skills
---
My aside: I think 1/2 largely depend on the product, some products are almost entirely technical (alpha go, bitcoin), we'll only ever reach agreement by not oversimplifying the question.
I agree on 4, but I really think 5 is crucial. I think everybody has a very different idea of what "Soft skills" are and how well other people think they do at those skills. For example, I think somebody who creates laughter at work is a huge asset, others may not.
1. Author observes that he's witnessed a lot of emotional backlash to the suggestion that soft skills may outweigh hard skills in tech; suggests the emotionality of the reaction is indicative that engineers worry it just may be true.
2. Justifies the importance of soft skills by citing personal experience of teams of 100s+ people needing to be coordinated
3. Proposes that a [software] system's interaction with the outside world is a larger problem than the system itself [i.e. UX tougher than code]
4. Offers a metric to assess management by: if people dislike managers then those managers must have very low soft-skills. Proposes the traditional approach to management is a large failure in tech.
5. Describes soft-skills but gives no hard examples
6. Proposes creating vocabulary to represent soft skills such as requirement-gathering so that people can care more about these skills
---
My aside: I think 1/2 largely depend on the product, some products are almost entirely technical (alpha go, bitcoin), we'll only ever reach agreement by not oversimplifying the question.
I agree on 4, but I really think 5 is crucial. I think everybody has a very different idea of what "Soft skills" are and how well other people think they do at those skills. For example, I think somebody who creates laughter at work is a huge asset, others may not.
On (2) -- I picked a personal anecdote, but I've seen this be very true on much smaller teams, as well. (Including, as it happens, AlphaGo! Think about what went in to creating the circumstances where it could be tested... they did some heroic labor)
On (3) -- not just UX! Interaction with the outside world is a feature of every aspect of how people will use (or misuse) the system.
(5) Totally agree that this is crucial. I did give a few examples (later in the article) but I think that coming up with a good taxonomy of these skills, and patterns for learning and teaching them, is a huge challenge going forward.
Many intuitions are useful: for example, you note that some people want more laughter at work, others don't. A good leader should be able to make that meta-analysis, figure out what the team needs, and create that. But needs to do what? How do we describe the (positive) effects of laughter that you're trying to capture?
On (3) -- not just UX! Interaction with the outside world is a feature of every aspect of how people will use (or misuse) the system.
(5) Totally agree that this is crucial. I did give a few examples (later in the article) but I think that coming up with a good taxonomy of these skills, and patterns for learning and teaching them, is a huge challenge going forward.
Many intuitions are useful: for example, you note that some people want more laughter at work, others don't. A good leader should be able to make that meta-analysis, figure out what the team needs, and create that. But needs to do what? How do we describe the (positive) effects of laughter that you're trying to capture?
Thanks for the tldr!
> 3. Proposes that a [software] system's interaction with the outside world is a larger problem than the system itself [i.e. UX tougher than code]
I hate this mindset that tries to divorce UX and code. If you're making a CRUD app, don't think of it as a tiny pure nugget of reusable API goodness surrounded by an unfortunate layer of messy UI that has to deal with the real world. The app IS that messy UI code. The rest is just a database schema. Don't try to abstract away your job.
Of course UX and code are different, but I think they're inseparable and anyone doing either should have a firm grasp of the other.
> 3. Proposes that a [software] system's interaction with the outside world is a larger problem than the system itself [i.e. UX tougher than code]
I hate this mindset that tries to divorce UX and code. If you're making a CRUD app, don't think of it as a tiny pure nugget of reusable API goodness surrounded by an unfortunate layer of messy UI that has to deal with the real world. The app IS that messy UI code. The rest is just a database schema. Don't try to abstract away your job.
Of course UX and code are different, but I think they're inseparable and anyone doing either should have a firm grasp of the other.
I appreciate the content of the article but I can't help picking up a dose of disrespect from the author towards exactly the collection of people he is trying to persuade.
Who do you think the author is trying to persuade and where did you detect disrespect?
I suspect the author is trying to persuade those who make 'very anxious responses from people in tech at anything which suggests that their “core skills” may be devalued' and the reason I feel the tone is disrespectful is because he shows very little empathy for them. On the other hand, perhaps instead the point of the article is to reassure those with the soft skills that they will soon be more valuable than they currently are.
I wish the piece had been better edited to lead with a definitions of soft/hard skills, then a topic sentence for the thesis, then supporting arguments. There may be some good nuggets here, but it just feels like there's just rambling on and on.
> The fact is that the kinds of “soft skills” we’re talking about aren’t the ones that come for free to anybody
I wish that a certain ex-Googler could have been educated in these skills rather than being shown the door.
I wish that a certain ex-Googler could have been educated in these skills rather than being shown the door.
I imagine that the people who fired him are congratulating themselves on having great soft skills and making everyone feel safe.
I think it is time to post a link to The Night Watch again.... [0]
0. http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mickens/files/thenightwatch...
0. http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mickens/files/thenightwatch...
Is sound engineering judgement a technical skill or a soft skill? How about the ability to articulate that judgement, so as to explain to others that one set of choices is better than the alternatives, and persuade them to agree?
Yes. :)
Sound engineering judgment typically implies a good understanding of the full context of the problem ("is this a good tradeoff?"), which often involves things beyond the merely technical. And without all of the other things you mention, which are definitely in the category normally called "soft skills," the best engineering judgment in the world will go to waste.
Sound engineering judgment typically implies a good understanding of the full context of the problem ("is this a good tradeoff?"), which often involves things beyond the merely technical. And without all of the other things you mention, which are definitely in the category normally called "soft skills," the best engineering judgment in the world will go to waste.
I’ve stopped calling these “soft” skills, especially when hiring in the last year.
They’re anything but soft, and no less important to a team.
They’re anything but soft, and no less important to a team.
I've seen that argument before and I don't think it is helpful.
You're associating the word soft with easy and hard with difficult -- which is part of the problem.
Soft skills are difficult for many.
You're associating the word soft with easy and hard with difficult -- which is part of the problem.
Soft skills are difficult for many.
I don’t associate hard/soft with difficult like that (I personally find soft skills difficult), but this is a good example of how the terms are ripe for misunderstanding.
I try to use communication or personal or interpersonal skills, etc.
I try to use communication or personal or interpersonal skills, etc.
[deleted]
I don't understand what are these soft skills the author is talking about. To me, it seems like he's talking about manipulating and deceiving people. Why is it good for a manager to be skilled at creating the impression that he/she respects his reports?
It's certainly vague but that's an uncharitable interpretation. I'd say it's more like not inadvertently offending or demoralizing people, not accidentally starting arguments, and so on.
Mistakes in communication happen easily, so it's good to be skilled enough to avoid them or recover quickly.
Mistakes in communication happen easily, so it's good to be skilled enough to avoid them or recover quickly.
No no, not at all! One of the key things a manager needs to do is create a culture of mutual respect within the team, between everyone and everyone else. If the manager doesn't actually respect people, that's going to be a disaster.
This is tied to one of the core categories of soft skills: getting a group of people to work together as a team and trust each other.
This is tied to one of the core categories of soft skills: getting a group of people to work together as a team and trust each other.
I think this is a fair question because you sincerely are asking.
I think you have to admit that a manager who can make the team care about work, enjoy it, feel like a team, feel like they're working on an important problem together (even though none of this emotional stuff is objectively true/false or valid/invalid) is an asset to the company.
I think you have to admit that a manager who can make the team care about work, enjoy it, feel like a team, feel like they're working on an important problem together (even though none of this emotional stuff is objectively true/false or valid/invalid) is an asset to the company.
Let's dispense with a strawman: of course interacting with other people is necessary. But there are lots of people out there who said the "tech stuff" is easy and it's the coordination and empathy and stuff that's the real challenge. That's a dangerous perspective no matter which of the two ways you interpret it.
One interpretation is that you really don't think that technical quality is important. In this case, you'll end up getting complacent on quality, ship crap, and open yourself up to competition. You'll be in good company if you go this route: it's part of the reason big companies inevitably decay and get outcompeted by smaller, newer ones. (Notice how a lot of this "soft skills only" crap comes from big companies with products having enough inertia to last a while at a low quality level?)
The other interpretation is most insidious: you do recognize that technical excellence matters, but want to redirect credit to non-technical managers. This phenomenon is a huge problem outside tech; it goes back at least as far as Edison. We shouldn't be in a hurry to import this problem into our own field.
The truth is that in our field, there's a wide distribution of skill levels, and some technical problems go from "impossible" to "routine" once your technical people pass a certain skill and quality bar. Soft skills do not get you over this quality bar. Actual technical knowledge does.