RuralRon Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 A most excellent inaugural mid week show I must say. I did like the opening discussion about the workplace and employee value, especially since I found it quite difficult to assess what value I brought to my former companies' bottom line. In previous conversations of this topic I was left feeling a lot of self doubt about not trying to understand that more. In this conversation I was left with a much better perspective of my former contributions because of the role distinctions discussed, for example measuring the development staff against schedules and innovation rather than profitability or contribution to sales. I did however feel as though schedules were often set far too aggressively. I presumed that was more a reflection of working in a startup environment rather than the developers poor performance. I worked for a number of startup companies from the mid 80's on through the .com frenzy for over 20 years. Rarely did I have much direct insight into how I contributed to the the financial goals or well being of the companies. My focus was adding to my abilities (learning new skills) and getting better at my job as a software engineer. It was my boss' job to provide feedback about how well I was contributing to the company. But had I truly recognized and understood my value to the companies' success I would have probably been more successful. Perhaps I'm copping out by not taking more responsibility to at least be more curious about company financial matters, but I was not really encouraged to do that very much. And nobody has ever accused me of not being very curious. But I do see the unfortunate side affects of not having more exposure to the way companies provide value to their customers, as I've attempted a number of failed business ventures. But it was the last conversation I really took note of. I thought the listener made some really great points, and I thought it was telling that Stef became rather defensive near the end. If that were a debate I thought the caller did quite well and never got emotional as Stefan did. Stef did have "the upper hand" when the caller's childhood was discussed but that is to be expected from a detached observer perspective. I give Stefan high marks for how he pursued that line of questioning. It seemed to me that Stefan's statement that the caller was getting into semantics and splitting hairs with regard to a sick society vs. sick individuals did the caller a disservice by not thinking more deeply about what he was saying. I thought the caller's perspective had merit on that point. If society is sick it is because the individuals that collectively comprise it are. Society is a reflection of the individuals in it. Stefan's tone also sounded a bit defensive about the caller's distinction. I couldn't be more in agreement with Stefan however about the contradiction of values espoused by society and how far from perfect it is. Whether to solve that is best done though a focus on the collective vs. on individuals was the central issue being discussed. Stefan correctly cited his work with individuals as one of his primary tools, but also provided his rationale for podcasts where society is the focus. It was great to "see behind the curtains" so to speak on some of Stefan's tactics he applies to his goals with philosophy and FDR. I was glad he shared those things with us. One point I would like to make is that this conversation is another example of how Stefan's perspective can be so rigid he is not free to explore other options such as those raised by the caller. If Stefan were more relaxed and less defensive in his apronch he might have found new insights from that caller. This is similar to the impression I've had from other conversations I've heard from Stefan. I'm not sure what the cause of this behavior pattern is, but I do see it as a manifestation of Stefan's competitiveness and ego. But that's just my opinion as some guy on the internet. The point about domination made by the caller was also handled by Stefan with a defensive posture and tone. Stefan didn't see the importance of the distinction between being THE best vs. being Stef's best and how that implies an attitude of dominating others. Stef's insistence on defining who the "others" are isn't relevant to that point in my opinion. Here again the caller was clear and made his point respectfully, and I agree with it. Who is Stef dominating if he strives for THE best? Of course it is all others he is trying to be better than. If Stef wins a race he dominates the other contestants. Thats different from loosing the race but running it faster than he ever did before. If he came in last he didn't dominate anyone even if he ran his personal best time. What the caller may not be giving Stefan credit for is his motivation for being THE best. Stefan justified that by saying his attitude wasn't focused on a comparison between himself and others doing similar work. No, his metric of measurement was not his "competition" but rather his "customers" or those he is trying to help. And truly only Stefan can know what his actual motives are, so although I understand the caller's perspective regarding domination that doesn't mean it's correct in terms of Stefan's attitude.
Recommended Posts