The most important lesson I ever learned as a manager, and the hardest to internalize, is this: you can't actually ever make someone who works for you do *anything*. You can fire them, of course, but that doesn't actually get the thing done, either. 1/
Under normal circumstances, you can convince someone they want to do something, or you can fire them, and that's your available spectrum of options. (If you are a totalitarian dictator, you can of course have them killed, but that still doesn't get the thing done.) 2/
This might seem like a stupid or trivial observation, but it isn't. Getting people to do what you think needs to be done requires their cooperation and good will. In the long run, if you lose that good will, if their morale turns sour, you've lost. 3/
Being a manager is ultimately not a position of high power but rather a position where the main tools you have to make things function well are diplomacy and being organized. You rely on other people to accomplish things, and if they decide they dislike you, you're toast. 4/
You don't need to be *loved* mind you. But if the people working for you view their jobs with the same elation they normally reserve for a colonoscopy, you're slowly but surely going to fail. 5/
At the very least they won't give you much if they hate their jobs, and you can only ask them to do a certain number of things they think are stupid before their productivity will drop. Having the staff on board with what's happening makes everything easier. 6/
This is an observation so mind-numbingly obvious that you would think absolutely everyone in management would understand it intuitively, but I've seen so many cases of failure because people didn't understand that the employee's feelings actually matter. 7/
People who are imperious, or who don't appreciate the work their people do, can survive for quite a while in industries where people can't get other work, and can survive for a bit because of inertia even if their people are in high demand, but they're not going to thrive. 8/
(Another little secret is it turns out to be ever so much more fun doing your job as a manager if your staff don't feel like the world would be better off if a car hit you tomorrow morning. I know, this should be obvious, but it somehow doesn't seem to be to some people.) 9/
Anyway, if you're in high tech these days, everyone working for you can probably turn around and get another job quickly if they want one. Maybe if you're in some other industry you can get away with using a cat-o-nine-tails as your main management tool, but not there. 10/
And especially in high tech, the difference between the work done by people who don't view coming to the office with existential dread and those that do is pretty large. Again, this should be obvious, and yet somehow it isn't. 11/
So to reiterate: you can never make people do _anything_. At most you can stop paying them because they didn't do what you wanted, but that's not the same thing as winning. If you want to win, you need to learn how to persuade. 12/
(And yes, there are famous cases of bullies functioning for years in various positions. Mostly they survive in spite of being bullies, not because of it. Some rare ones survive a long time. You're probably not that lucky, and even if you are, it's a shitty way to live.) 13/13
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here is my best advice for keeping your organization safe from online attacks. I've given similar advice in the past, and I suspect this advice is nearly the same that almost every security professional will give you. None of it is very deep or complicated. 1/
First, patch all vulnerabilities on all your machines as soon as possible, and never run an operating system or software version that is out of support. 2/
(Some people will tell you that your company can reasonably evaluate how important particular patches are, or that they are better able to determine if a patch is safe than Microsoft or Apple. I recommend ignoring such advice.) 3/
Apparently the government is urging businesses to take measures to stop ransomware attacks. My assumption, based on decades of observation, is that the probability of success of this campaign pretty much zero.
The issue isn't that most companies don't want secure infrastructure. The issue is also not a lack of regulation. The issue is most of them don't have the capacity to implement it.
It's not that it's impossible to do, mind you. Running up to date software, patching regularly, taking backups, using 2FA etc., are not particularly complicated. But solving an arbitrary quadratic equation is also straightforward and I bet most people can't manage that, either.
There is a distinction between what is something you ought to do and what is legal. It is legal to drink yourself to death. It is probably not a good idea. The distinction is not a small one. Let's apply it to the social norms many people suggest we adopt on silencing others.
I hear quite frequently arguments to the effect that private platforms are legally _allowed_ to silence people. And yes, they are, and yes, they should be. Is this a good idea, though? Let's have a quick look for a moment.
It's possible to imagine a society where every restaurant refuses service to people of the wrong political background, every supermarket checks to see if people arriving match a particular political affiliation before selling them groceries.
Hypothesis: Outlook and GMail are so terrible at handling complicated conversations (they encourage top posting and make it impossible to reply point by point) that they have caused meetings to multiply when many topics could instead have been disposed of in email threads.
One symptom of this that many people have noticed is "send many questions, get an answer to one of them" syndrome. You can't see the list of the counterparty's questions, so you have to remember what they were, and many people forget while replying.
The people who created the Outlook and Gmail style of email had no experience with the tools that came before; they did not understand the power of quoted replies, and ideas like automatic sorting of email were things they reinvented thinking they were new.
To some people, who were arguing with me about these ideas thirty years ago, or heard about them in the interim, this will be very old news. To others, this will be surprising, or perhaps unbelievable, and perhaps even more reason to question my sanity.
In our 200,000 years on earth, humanity has created more and more capable tools with time to augment our natural abilities. Tools have the interesting feature that they may be turned towards the creation of yet more sophisticated tools.
So where are we now in the #COVID19 crisis at the end of its fourth month. First, treatment. So far, pretty much everything is either still really equivocal or has failed. Remdesivir, kaletra, (probably) hydroxychloroquine, etc. either failed RCTs or are marginal. 1/
It’s possible that some of these aren’t actually terrible in some niche applications, or if given very early, but we can’t yet detect an effect from any of the proposed drugs in vivo reliably. This is of course problematic. 2/
There are a bunch of vaccines in development, and some of them are even in early phase trials. None is going to be ready in a few months, and it doesn’t look like anyone is planning human challenge trials so I don’t think any of them is showing up for mass use very quickly. 3/