From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10261c,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: 10c950,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10c950,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public From: billg@jk.pst.com Subject: Re: Your english sucks, mine is better. Date: 1997/12/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 294315696 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <65iclc$cms$5@darla.visi.com> <65p7v8$f0j@netra.montana.edu> <65s24n$8mn@netra.montana.edu> Organization: IDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso,comp.lang.pascal.misc Date: 1997-12-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <65s24n$8mn@netra.montana.edu>, ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net says... > billg@jk.pst.com wrote in message ... > >ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net says... > >Are you making the assumption that "a good team member" is necessarily a > >requirement? > > Only if you're going to be working as part of a team... > > >Being good at the details is not really the overriding > >requirement for being a manager. > > I never said that it was... > > >> I wonder just how > >> much real-world experience you have? > > > >I've made you defensive, sorry. Give me someone who "knows" vs. someone > >with "experience" any day BTW. The "experience" argument is usually used > >by those who would like to have control over another by some kind of > >mystical virtue and without having to prove themselves. > > Oops, sorry for having made _you_ defensive. What the hell do you think > "experience" _is_ if it isn't having proved oneself? Experience (when used as an argument for qualification) = just hanging around with the right crowd for awhile and learning how to be a politician. Experience (when used as an argument for qualification) = overpriced labor. Give me someone who has learned the right things in the minimal amount of time any day. It reminds me of the DBA that asked why I was the PM when she had 12 years of experience as a DBA. Duh? > _You're_ the one > arguing for some mystical virtue on the part of employees ("inherent worth") > and that there is no need for them to have proven themselves in a previous > job! If they know what they're talking about, they know what they're talking about. The other 10% will be acquired in doing. You over emphasize employment-based experience vs. learning based experience. Employment- based experience takes too long (too narrow, specific), the example above about the DBA applies. If the employee isn't doing some learning on the job, my theory says that you over-hired and that there is a higher potential for conflict (since you are no longer providing the leadership). > If that isn't mystical, what is? It's kind of hard to have good, solid > experience without knowing what one is doing. Of course one has to have the > requisite knowledge, but _one_ good indicator of that is past job > experience. Another example... Employee with "experience" is phenominal with RAD tool X, unfortunately he's not too useful anywhere else. Employee who has "learned" knows where certain tasks fit in the project, has a big picture view, is capable of producing results beyond the task level, is a top- down thinker... If you need a temporary to do RAD-tool-X work, contract the "experienced" person. If you need a long term alliance or partner, hire the one who knows something. I know.. I'm being facetious. But having seen so many "experienced" people less capable than well focused self-learners, I hesitate to generalize that "experience" is worth anything. It may be, but usually someone is just trying to use years as an indicator instead of knowledge or capability gained. Especially in IT where knowledge of yesterday's technology only has minimal usage today is experience "questionable". billg ;)