A lot in life is like a Wookie (Robert's Rule #25)

A lot in life is like a Wookie: hard to understand, very hairy, and can rip off your arms and beat you to death with them. (Robert's Rule #25)

Summertime for me is generally a very busy time. It's during this time that into the work/life mix are thrown not only the daily work/life challenges like how to make sure the laundry gets done and the bathrooms get cleaned but also additional things like children being on summer break and the resulting coordination of child care and the planning, scheduling, and taking of a summer holiday (not to mention trips to see family et cetera that really are 'holidays'), and when you travel with infants or toddlers such trips are whole projects in themselves.

Of course that's just the time that work activities seriously ramp up before we head into a release moratorium for the holidays as projects that were originally estimated to take 30 developer days are crammed into 5, and, the reasoning goes, since each 30 day project is crammed into 5 days, we can do 6 such projects. Thus, as the pressure from work mounts and you attempt to maintain work/life balance, you will undoubtedly come into conflict with those above you in the corporate chain and you will likely lose.

"That's life", they say, or "at the end of the day, that's what you have to deal with" as if a cliché will somehow make it more palatable or at least easier to endure. Here's the difficulty: as engineers and scientists, we expect, at least subconsciously, that life is somewhat orderly and something of a meritocracy where people compete like ideas and the best advance according to their abilities, just as ideas advance according to how well they are proven using scientific methods. To further add insult, we're taught as children in America that this is, in some degree, the reality as we celebrate those who work hard (either at sport or academics).

While there are those who recognize the failings of our educational system (in that it reinforces idea that our democratic republic is on some level a meritocracy), there are those who refuse to believe that we can be what we want to be and do (for the most part) what we want to do. There are those who recognize that even if we sincerely want to rescue the princess and make a daring escape while being pursued by the dark lord, we cannot - not even figuratively. Thus, the honest answer, as you've no doubt learned by now, is that the idea that our society or even our employer is a meritocracy is not even close to true. Those above you most likely are not there because they deserve it more than you, they are there because they played it more than you.

So, in your career, in this little game of whispers and thrones, learn who the Wookies are and let the Wookie win (First Corollary to Robert's Rule #25), because while no one worries about upsetting droids (scientists and engineers), in the words of the immortal Han Solo, "that's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose".

If people aren’t getting a point, use smaller words or a louder voice - it’s patronizing but they won’t get that either (Robert's Rule #23)

Engineers are generally thinkers. There are those times, however, when we are certain we've thought a problem through and really don't want to be annoyed with the facts. In times like these, meetings where there are more than one point of view - meaning my (right) point of view and the (wrong) point of view everyone else has - can be difficult

In those meetings it's important that a few things occur in order for you to be successful. First, if people aren’t getting your point, you should use smaller words or a louder voice - it’s patronizing but they won’t get that either. Second, you must keep your composure. If you lose your composure, nothing else will matter, because most will dismiss you as emotional (as opposed to rational). Third, you must monitor the quality of any decisions you make in a heightened state of agitation.

Remember, you're facing a serious threat in these heated meetings, these are serious dangers. A misstep in this area is one of the most effective means of destroying any image you may have as a politically savvy team-player as well as a thought-leader.

I know it seems obvious, and you probably wouldn't believe the stories of meetings I've been in that have descended into shouting matches, or worse, into cold, dismissive, condescending, passive-aggressive olympic-quality events.We, as a member of a team, can only be our best when we not only are contributing but also recognizing how all of our teammates look up to us.

Ok, enough channeling Machiavelli's Prince.

There will be times when you are the big fish in a little pond and your teammates will look up to you as the expert. There will be many more times you will be the medium (or more likely, small) fish in a large pond and doing anything other than keeping your composure and working together to resolve the conflict will get you derisively labeled a 'big fish'. So, keep the rule if people aren’t getting a point, use smaller words or a louder voice - it’s patronizing but they won’t get that either (Robert's Rule #23) in mind as well as keeping in mind that the rule that is really an anti-pattern, unless you really want to be a 'big fish'.

Know when to say "that'd be worth a whoopin'" (Robert's Rule #22)

In my family history, the tale is told of one particularly mischievous child who, after considering the possible consequences of a specific action would say "I believe that'd be worth a whoopin'" (a "whoopin", for those uninformed in southern American slang, is similar to a whipping but is given with anything close at hand - a belt, a switch, kitchen utensils, et cetera).

We are faced with decisions every day.  As technologists, the decisions that we face often have consequences which reach much further than those of other decisions. As leaders, one of the most cowardly things you can do, and one of the things that will destroy the morale of your team, is to try to deflect the consequences of your decisions, a technique commonly referred to as "throwing someone under the bus".

Make no mistake, there will be times in your career when your work, and life, will laud you for visionary thinking and there will be times when work, and life will punch you in the face, hard. Whether lauded or castigated, of one thing you can be sure, there will always be consequences.

While I know that most civilized people have moved beyond corporal punishment, my ancestor's concept still holds some validity, even when the 'whoopin' is metaphorical. Consider your options and make your decision. Just know when to say "that'd be worth a whoopin'" (Robert's Rule #22).

Too often 'we can' erroneously becomes 'we should' and 'we will' (Robert's Rule #17)

[Tweeted 2011-06-03]

Once upon a time I was in a meeting in which we discussed a web application that was scheduled for deployment in the immediate future. As we were working out the implementation details, we came upon the issue of needing to access private, restricted, highly confidential information.An additional wrinkle was the need for the database to be maintained by the system of record, which was on the internal network.

As we were discussing the options, one person (I'll call him n00b) suggested that we could easily solve the problem by joining the server to the DMZ and the internal network simultaneously. My response was an immediate "no, we can't do that". "Oh yes we can", the n00b replied. "All we need to do is install two network cards and use one for the DMZ and one for the internal network." In honesty, I was not the first one to laugh out loud, my manager was.

The n00b was insulted and said that he had used this approach for one of his clients (outside of work) and so I ended up telling him that what such a plan would do is create a bridge between the DMZ and our internal network, making not only the database server vulnerable, but the internal network as well. The n00b had a few more, equally appalling suggestions, but in the end the group, collectively, brought him to a measure of enlightenment.

Of course we had the technical ability to do what n00b suggested, just like I've had the technical ability to do hundreds of other blatantly stupid things and several more that weren't quite blatantly stupid (even if they were of equally questionable value).

Perhaps more disturbing than a n00b fighting for a bad idea is that if the n00b had been higher up on the food chain, rather than the n00b he was, the situation might have turned out differently. I've certainly been in situations where I've known what was asked was a bad idea and would even likely turn to bite me in the nether regions, and still I've had to implement the bad idea because 'the decider' made the decision.

We all face such situations; in fact, they're far from uncommon. This is why Rule #17 states that too often 'we can' erroneously becomes 'we should' and 'we will'. Robert's Rule #17 is simply a recognition of a sometimes disturbing truth we, as technologists and engineers, live with every day.