Twots use respect as a way of circumventing argument; i.e. "if you argue with me then you are disrespecting me". Generally it's not the Twot himself who demands respect as that is far too crass, it's the little group of hanger-on support Twots who do it on his behalf.

Part of this comes down to the sort of sychophantic behaviour typical of what we all know as "office politics". However, whether respect is being coerced by the Twot himself or by his support group, it is worth touching base on what Respect actually is (IMVHO, of course).

Respect is not universal - it relates to a particular area, discipline or activity. For example, I respect David Beckham's opinions about football, but I'm not the least bit interested in his opinions on anything else. Similarly I respect the financial opinions of a Chief Financial Officer of a company that has clearly being managed well financially. I don't respect his opinions on anything else either. Too many people, I'm afraid, seem to imagine that if they get to some elevated position because of "activity A", then they should be respected with regards to their opinions relating to "activity B". Celebrities do this in the public eye. Managers and executives of all kinds do this in firms and institutions.

Respect is never automatic. It doesn't come with age or position. It doesn't come with anything, actually, as it is also subjective. Respect is generally earned when someone does something which impresses you. An achievement of some sort, over and above what an average person might manage. Something that indicates exatraordinary ability or expertise.

Not respecting does not mean disrespecting. Neither respecting or disrespecting is the norm. 99.9% of people fall into that category for me, at least.

Respect produces guidelines, not requisites. I can still disagree with people I respect even on the subjects for which I respect them. I can disagree with them greatly even if I respect them greatly. This is neither arrogance nor disrespect. It is simply the right we all have to freedom of opinion.

If someone I respect ventures an opinion within the area that I respect them then I will, generally, give that opinion due consideration. That is all I am prepared to do, and even that is not guaranteed. If I choose to do so, it will be simply because I deemed it prudent and sensible at the time.

And that's it.

Most of the time I will consider an opinion entirely on its own merit rather than on the merit or otherwise of the person who says it. Respect wont come into it. Any non-Twot shouldn't be bothered by this.

Richard

TWOTS: start previous

Ok, you've finally managed to get rid of that Twot that's been wrecking your organisation (and, let's face it, they do - they don't just sit there doing nothing, they try very hard to show that they're not Twots by *doing* things (need I say more) ).

But you (a) want him to go quietly and (b) don't really want to advertise to the world that you've had a major league Twot in charge of some vital part of your organisation. So what do you do? You give him a nice reference!

And we can all guess what happens next.

And now you (another you) have recruited that Twot because, well, hand in hand with that nice reference he made all sorts of outrageous claims on his CV about how his previous organisation simply couldn't have managed without him, especially if it succeeded. Of course, it succeeded despite his efforts rather than because of them, or maybe it (or he) just got lucky (it's amazing how much luck plays a part in commercial success). If the organisation failed you can bet your bottom dollar that the Twot made a hasty exit before the blame could be placed on him. Either way you will struggle to find this out before you employ him.

So now you have got on your payroll an expensive Twot whose last employer is still celebrating having got rid of. If you agree that your people are your most valuable asset, try to stop this happening again by making sure your recruiting procedure is the most polished part of your organisation. For example:

1. Don't palm off recruitment to junior members of staff.
2. Look for ways of measuring ability in an objective manner.
3. Make sure your employees aren't rejecting recruits because the recruits are better at the job than they are.
4. Treat references with suspicion.

And if you are one of those unfortunate people who is about to recruit someone senior, and you have no one in your organisation who can tell you whether he knows what he's talking about or not, so that you are forced to rely entirely on his references and trust to luck (maybe if he associated himself with success last time, that success will magically transfer itself to your organisation this time), then I hope you receive some of that luck because you're going to need it. I dare say you will stick your Twot on a throne somewhere and give him lots of power and responsibility in the hope that by treating him like the hero you want he'll become the hero you need.

They very rarely do, but it's a nice fantasy - glug, glug, glug.

Richard

TWOTS: start previous next

Man is cursed with the wrong sized brain. On the one hand we're clever enough to understand the complexity of most issues, on the other hand we're not clever enough to figure out the solutions. This puts us in the unenviable position of not being properly equipped, mentally, to deal with the problems of the world, which can be quite frightening when we subsequently find ourselves in jobs or discussions where we are expected to come up with all the answers. This is what makes us vulnerable to a particular form of swindle: False Confidence.

Confidence is extremely attractive to us in others because we naturally assume it is a reflection of carefully considered experience and wisdom. When someone comes along who seems to know what they're talking about it gets us out of the fix we might be in when we're not particulary sure that we do. It's a very charismatic quality.

Unfortunately it is also very easy to fake.

Confidence can be communicated to great effect and with great conviction, unfortunately, solely with body language, choice of words and tone of voice. In other words it is very easy for someone to portray certainty of opinion using techniques that have absolutely nothing to do with the abilities or knowledge which they should have in order to have that relevant confidence realistically. As such, it is the Twots principal technique, and frequently used to bulldoze into the ground people who might otherwise be heard were they less honest in communicating their own confidence.

It is also one of the principal ways in which bad decisions are made.

In order to combat this you have to do two things: (1) focus on the substance of what people are saying rather than the way they are saying it, (2) make sure that you get to hear everyone's opinion, as there will probably be some people who will be intimidated by this twottery into not speaking up when they should. You must actively help people who are not good at speaking up. This is not a battle of personalities, it's an attempt to get to the right decision.

Consider also that if you do let someone swindle you in this way you will never be able to prove it. Like all other forms of non-written communication there is never a "paper-trail" to follow back.

You say: "Well, I only made that decision because of the convincing way that you put it"

They say: "What do you mean? Is it in the minutes?"

Richard

TWOTS: start previous next

This is the technical version of the more general "Nothing's Perfect" which, as a general TWOT, is similar enough to the previous TWOT "Everything's Possible" not to merit its own little chapter, but which in this specific case does deserve its own treatment.

Apart from the one notorious (in certain circles) example (see here in Wikipedia), it is generally accepted that all software has bugs.

However you cannot paint all software with the same "brush of imperfection". It's not the quantity of bugs that matters either, it's the type.

Type 1: Unknown Bugs

Shipping software, to customers, with known bugs, is like restaurants serving food with known infections. Anyone who starts talking about "ideal worlds", "commercial realities" or "acceptable defect levels" is sticking their head (or yours) in the sand. If nothing else you have to establish the type of the bug (which basically comes down to your understanding of it) and then take some sort of corrective action (which may not necessarily be fixing it).

Unknown Bugs happen because it is generally not possible to fully test software before shipping it. Of course, a company is (I believe) morally obliged to look for bugs as much as possible, much as the aforementioned restaurant should take every reasonable step to ensure food hygiene. However, bugs will slip through the net, and these are the only ones which should be referred to by the platitude "All Software has Bugs".

Type 2: Trivial Bugs

All those kind of numerous things like spelling mistakes and what have you, bugs which shouldn't take very long to sort out. And since they don't take long to sort out, they should be sorted out. If they're taking ages to sort out there's a problem either with your testing or your test-resolution processes (you're writing out two essays and meeting with 20 "stakeholders" every time you fix a typo).

Type 3: Conceptual Bugs

You're asking your software to do something it turns out it was never programmed to do. It's like the Skoda advert where a car is built out of cake, and then someone wants to get in and drive it away. You either change the spec ("this isn't the sort of car you can drive") or you re-write some or all of it.

Type 4: "What on Earth?" Bugs

You have absolutely no idea what is going on or why it is failing. You have tried pinning it down but the bug runs around like a thing possessed. You have tried various fixes, but they've either done nothing, introduced other bugs elsewhere or simply made this bug worse. It is out of control - a woeful situation indicating that you really need to get your engineering act together. Nothing for it now but to evaluate the risk to your business and live with it, and live with the fact that your Unknown Bugs could well be of this kind and have more serious consequences.

So, when someone in a meeting comes up with that little line "All Software has Bugs" just answer that this is only true in the case of Unknown Bugs in the face of extensive testing. Well-written well-tested software does not have any others.

Richard

TWOTS: start previous next

Of course, everything isn't, and whoever comes up with this particuar little platitude doesn't mean that. And we all know that. And that's not the point, is it? So what is?

How about: "Everything which is possible can be done".

After all, if we can put a man on the moon ...

And I dare say that NASA could do so again if it wanted to. But I doubt it could do it next Tuesday. Or using parts bought only from Toys-R-Us.

This piece of twottery illustrates the principle that you can gain a lot of confidence and hide a lot of unwelcome details by coming up with phrases which are obviously true, in the general, even if they are not necessarily true in the particular.

A phrase like this is great for bringing everybody together in a meeting, as everyone nods in tacit agreement, over nothing, and make the person using it seem like the great diplomat.

It can also be used to fend away dissention as no one wants to be the spoilsport who points out:

"What, exactly, are you saying is possible, and under what circumstances?"

"Honestly! We were all getting along so well there for a minute

All the best

Richard

TWOTS: start previous next