My favorite trick is the Strategic Vacation. Somehow he always has a long vacation planned months in advance that allows him to dump whatever he's been tasked with onto someone else (like me, for instance).
"It's basically done, but I haven't added Y or Z yet" is always the prelude to receiving something he's been "working on" for three months and actually put in, charitably, two or three days of actual work.
But he's a good looking, personable kind of guy. Everybody likes him, particularly the managers, as a person. So while nobody wants him on their team he's managed to avoid getting a reputation that would keep him from moving to other teams.
I am familiar with this one as well.
I've worked for a small startup that got reasonably big. We started out with several really good and hard working people. The problems started when we started to get successful and got some investors on board. We were quite well known in the industry we were in and when word got around we got a bit of investment money and we were hiring it attracted a lot of management-types who mainly applied for the status we had. Lots of people with negative productivity. Took a few more years before the company went belly-up.
Reminds me of the Typical Day interview (from Office Space): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iiOEQOtBlQ
I've got a colleague who worked someplace where there was a lot of this going on by most of the tech team. He got chastised in a review because he wasn't closing as many tickets as others. What most others were doing were inflating ticket count - taking one ticket, making 3-5 smaller tasks, doing those, then closing all 5. Sometimes there was more work in making 5 tickets than just doing the original work, but their numbers were "way up". My friend was counseled to do the same so everyone's numbers were "up". As it was, he was the only 'low' number and it was bringing down other numbers, and no one was happy about that. Didn't matter that the same amount of work was being done (or... actually more 'make work' was being done vs real productive fixes)... the numbers mattered to the whole place. And... I think they were trying to get lots of positive metric numbers to beef up the sale that happened less than 18 months later.
I've been in a situation many times where I couldn't figure out what value a CB was adding, but those who worked with him/her spoke glowingly of them or thought highly of them. So, since they were held in such high regard by others, I assumed that I must have been mistaken in my initial assessment of the person -- all these people can't be wrong, can they?
What the CB is doing is taking advantage of the fact that people more distant from you in the org chart form their impression of you based on very small pieces of information. But, the perception of those distant (e.g. higher) than you can have a greater impact on your trajectory than the perception of those around you.
Bullshitters are responding rationally to a set of incentives which rewards pleasing people far removed from one's actual performance, versus pleasing those who directly depend on your performance.
This is a key point. It's not like these people get up in their morning, have coffee in their evil lair, twirl their mustache menacingly, and decide "I'm going to cheat again today, muahahahaha!" They're not cartoon villains, they are rational actors, playing the same game as us with the same rules, but those rules reward BS and self-promotion, often to a greater degree than Real Work™.
I truly don't understand why he still has his position. The sad thing is that he'll probably get promoted.
- documenting their BS claims (for your own usage, primarily)
- building trust and credibility with superiors and peers
- biding your time and eventually calling them out on BS in meetings, but only doing so when:
a) they go quite deep into the BS (as they inevitably do)
b) you have firm and credible facts/knowledge ready to use against the BS
c) you are able to pull it off in a calm manner, preferably something that could be perceived as you just asking for a clarification, but still leaves the meeting in a slightly uncomfortable state because the bullshitter's "explanation" seems so obviously fake to anyone with half a brain.
2-3 well-directed questions for "clarifications" like that can be quite lethal over time.
Anyone who is doing a good enough job of perception management is going to be better at managing perceptions from conversations better than you. They've had more practice!
You can end up looking like a person who overly cares about individual glory/not being a "team player"/trying to rain on someone else's parade.
Especially with C. People can spot disingenuous comments much easier than non-expert comments.
And easier way would be to implement something like stand-ups or demo days where each person has to own something.
Consistent underperformance should then be easily visible.
They will see you coming long before you see them. They will have previously set up their reward system with you so it's a Mutually Assured Destruction relationship.
This seems like a great idea until you realise that these bullshitters thrive together and the meeting is full of them so they are going to hang on each others claims.
The thing that's annoying about the article to me is:
1) I've worked with people who were highly competent, more competent than me but who still engaged in variety of infuriating mind-games, appearance management and so-forth, egos so big they needed to make other look small just for kicks, even if it made the work harder. Even if they deserved recognition for their actual abilities, they needed more. And this kind of bullshitter is at least as corrosive as the incompetent bullshitter.
2) It seems to express the view of a particular sort of "small chunk" thinker who imagines that people who are competent at a workers job should be the managers. That's not how any organization can or should work. Managers are competent (or not) at managing. Managers need to control appearances in various fashions. Some of that managing looks like bullshit, some of it is bullshit and some of it is "necessary shit" but the measure of the manager isn't their ability to understand your job. People aren't divided into "competent" and "incompetent" but rather people have different competencies as well as having situationally dependent competencies (and naturally, it's hard to be competent if your manager is always bullshitting you).
It has to be possible, right? After all, they are reading and replying instead of working.
For instance with the first example W-S in the article someone could very well be a W + S but you'd never know it because at their last job or through life experiences they've been beaten down constantly for their ideas even if they were great simply because of who they are or other such factors. That lead them to the self-confidence issues described in the W-S category in the article. I find people who do excellent work are rarely stupid and with guidance can even grow and excel to become great. Maybe not enough to become leaders but not everybody should be.
I get that the point is to raise awareness on the 2nd group described so the behavior is eventually adjusted or pointed out in other settings and I'm thankful for that because I've experienced it at work myself. Many people have probably experienced the same on group projects in school or otherwise. The ones who don't pull their weight but always seem to have an idea. The people here that think the article is BS might just not agree with the tone adopted for the subject at hand which is understandable as it comes off a bit condescending while getting its point across.
You're ignoring the third possibility: S-W and CB types are more likely to say negative things about this article, and upvote criticizing comments (like one by basseq).
Personally, I largely agree with the article (I relate to the W-S type). However I didn't really understand the difference between S-W and CB (highly distilled version? author didn't expand on that). To me, all S-W types look like bullshitters.
He's absolutely bang on that when a bullshitter hits a performance-based situation they're screwed (I'm an early career academic in exactly this situation, it sucks).
S-Ws who don't want to change may well be criticising the article, but there are hopefully some other self-aware ones too!
1. has never had the misfortune of working with one of these people. "poser" devs who care more about "communicating up" and making a show of their (often quite trivial) contributions
2. has worked with people like this, but doesn't perceive the behavior described in the article, for whatever reason.
A couple times in my life, not just in software, I have worked with people who are _exactly_ like the article describes. The work they do is all perception-management stuff. Shuffling around work tickets, setting up/attending meetings, etc., when they are supposed to be individual contributors. Meanwhile, they contribute nothing. I've even had a coworker -- a peer -- come to me to ask me to do a task when they were assigned to do it. Because they were busy organizing work tickets.
Don't get me wrong. You have to toot your own horn when you do something that should be noticed. Your boss won't always recognize when you've made a meaningful contribution, so saying, "Hey I did this and it's pretty good, and it adds value to our org in these ways" is not inherently bad.
It's when that autotooting is to bring attention to stuff outside what they're _supposed_ to be contributing that it should raise red flags. Or when they start trying to delegate work to their peers. I'm really glad so many of you find this article so awful because it means you've never felt the frustration of watching someone like this get praised for and advance by essentially doing nothing.
edit: I don't know how to explain it to someone who hasn't ever noticed it. The behavior pattern in the article is not something a lot of people notice. But among people who do notice -- at least those I've talked to -- it's very obvious and really bothersome.
That said, most of the time coworkers -- even really smart, kind, hard-working coworkers -- either don't notice or don't care. So it's not surprising to me that commentators here think the article is BS. You've probably sat next to people like this but you didn't notice. Good on you.