This is an US-ism. In northern Europe it is often the opposite: constant talking heads are regarded as empty and being concise is a valued skill. We're just nice to the talking heads and let them fill the air with words, but we don't regard them as better than the quiet ones.
I've often experienced that the longer the quiet persons don't say anything, the more nervous the talking heads get, until they can't restrain themselves and demands that the silent ones say what they think.
This is a northern Europe-ism.
My guess is that the key here is empaty. Engineers discuss ideas, where managers usually evaluate people. Of course, ideas belong to people (at least when they're conceived), but that quickly dilutes.
In order to evaluate people, you need a lot of empaty and some time. My manager is an excellent evaluator, and his tactic is quite simple: he lets people talk. They talk, talk and talk, until they have to shut up because they said something stupid and realize that themselves. He has the ability to make people self-conscious about their own mistakes with the least effort, as he does nothing but listen.
However, when it's time for him to talk, he talks little and observes the reactions. This gives him an aura of being very, very wise, which is absolutely correct (I work in research and he's a big fish)
Sorry, I'm moving away from the article's point, let's get back to the track. Splurting and dismissing ideas is good for brainstorms, but not for regular meetings. As an engineer, this is hard to percieve, but it's true. About a year ago I started copying my manager's tactics and it has worked very well; people percieve me less of an asshole and more of a smart guy who thinks before talking.
It all comes down to the Family Guy conversation between Brian and Peter: "Peter, do you think before you talk?"
Ideas, seem to rather exist within people, but saying they belong to people, isn't quite as obvious. This of course, strengthens the rest of your point.
Every worthwhile thing requires a substantial time investment.
Of course, many would assume I was more likely to be wrong, disagreeing with so many people. I worked in a very stale industry however, no where near as pioneering or cutting edge as some dream jobs in the valley: some would say legacy, enterprise software. So I beg to differ the opposite is possible also. Also, I worked there for years, knowing most colleagues would do anything just to coast, I had far more than 5 minutes to give the processes consideration.
Regardless, what I learned is, if everything in the conversation sounds wrong, and the appropriate "5 minutes" have been given, perhaps you are participating in bad conversations / keeping bad company. Switching jobs is the best thing that could have happened to me in order to improve my expertise.
Yup.
I (think I) have four buckets:
1) Awesome! I'm stealing it!
2) Worse than wrong (h/t Murray Gell-Mann) aka not good enough to criticize.
3) Hmmm, worth chewing over.
4) I have absolutely no idea (please talk more).
I'm more like Jason F, where I felt I had a moral obligation to fix things, and have had to learn to keep my mouth shut.
The most insightful advice I ever got was "Sometimes you just have to let people fail. It's quicker than opposing them."
Now I try to save my breathe for people who are worth my time and effort (investment).
This can be incredibly annoying if you're on the other side, though. One of the most effective ways of killing a project can be to support it publicly but then do nothing at all to move it forward. Anything at all to avoid having a difficult conversation.
It all depends on the situation, I s'pose.
Yes, that seems to be the case more often than not… As a consultant I see it almost as a guarantee for success in projects that come after/are replacing failed ones. I think it’s all about ego at the end of the day… people have to have their say and pursue it even if they’re not experts in the field (while they certainly think they are experts - hence the ego thing). I wonder - how can this thinking be undone?
Sometimes when you take risks, you will lose.
This is bad for two reasons: 1, if you don't say anything, the default assumption is you don't know anything, unless you have well known achievement in the field. Now your peers will eventually learn what you know, maybe even more than they do, but it takes time, and modern life is fast;
2, you don't have to be wise/correct/knowledgeable in all conversations, especially casual ones where people are just shooting the stars and will forget what was talked the next day.
The real tricky thing, the thing that distinguishes a <i>wise</i> man, is to know when to speak like a fool, and when to dive into deep thinking, and when to shut up.