Geeks Hate Authority

Many geeks just plain disdain authority. It allows people of questionable reasoning or wisdom, or those who don't show their train of reasoning, to make far-fetching decisions, and that drives the logical side of geeks bonkers. Geeks would prefer some kind of "democracy of ideas".

Is "authority" really the thing that allows people to do that? Or is it hierarchical power divorced from ability?

See AlphaMale

The view espoused here is similar to Chomsky's view of anarchism -- not a political force, but more the idea "that it is incumbent upon all authority to justify itself. Most institutions in our society base their legitimacy solely on their historical existence without acknowledging, that in a Democracy, their ultimate legitimacy rests on voluntary acceptance of their authority by those who vote." -- http://www.zpub.com/notes/aan-QuickGuide.html

The Free Software Foundation is a well known example. It doesn't naively advocate abolishing copyright; rather it tries considering what forms of copyright are best for different purposes, to optimize the system.

Of course, like any group, the worst parts of this will be most evident. If it is true that a small amount of programmers will be OrdersOfMagnitudes? better than others, you might come away with a negative view against this aspect of geeks. (Especially if your definition of "geek" is more about tech fetishists, who tend to be unreasonable.)

I think this is because geeks (and many other professionals) prefer what Charles Handy calls a "people" culture, where the career of the person takes precedence over the needs of the organization. (The others are Power - a few powerful/influential individuals drive things, Role - management by formal roles and procedures, and Task (project driven, often with a matrix structure).

In "people" cultures, control comes from mutual discussion and consent, with much negotiation. If it isn't in fact a people culture, but you think it should be, you'll get the issues referred to above.

Another possible contributing cause is that geeks, being of AboveAverageIntelligence?, see through the patently false rationale often given as "reasons" why some job should be undertaken.

It's tough to have respect for an authority whose stated purposes are known to be false.

Or seem to you to be false. Maybe you just don't have the entire picture.

I submit that anyone who's been in this business for more than 5 years has almost certainly had an encounter with "MissionStatement mania" or "ShareholderBenefit? constraints" or just plain lying. There are (at least) two different games being played: one by engineers and problem solvers of other stripes (make a better product) and another by top tier execs (make a bunch of money). The ImpedanceMismatch between these two sets of goals leads to "well, we can't tell the engineers this, so tell them that it's all about industry leadership or something."

With experience, especially the experience of running one's own business for a few years, the "entire picture" is not so hard to work out. You can't lie to me about your (our) goals, do something (exert effort) that clearly doesn't align with the stated goals, and expect that I won't notice. At least not for very long. And eventually a pattern emerges.

Geeks love authority, at least, they love being an authority. They dislike having non-geeks in authority over them.

In my experience, geeks don't enjoy having authority over others either. (But I totally agree with regards to being an authority :-). Sometimes geeks end up in positions of authority because they are seeking more creative freedom, not because they want to have power over others.

In my experience, geeks thoroughly enjoy having authority over others. Just not necessarily formal responsibility for them. The disagreement with other's authority is after all really just saying that you should be able to decide this issue, not them. In other words, geeks want to exercise their "expert power" that comes from their knowledge, and resent when people use the "position power" of their position in the organization in a way that conflicts with it.

''I probably didn't explain myself too well. I think there is a big difference between being having the power to make your own decisions, and the power to make decisions for others. Many of the folks I know (myself included) seek the latter primarily as a means to get the former, and don't necessarily enjoy having to tell other people what to do.''

I still think that's often much the same thing. You can't always have everyone making their own decisions about shared issues, and in my experience, geeks (and I'd include myself in there) don't like other people making decisions on geek issues and would rather they'd just follow their lead on this....

I see your point now, and I totally agree. It's like: for situations where we can all operate independently, I'll take my way and am happy for you to take yours. But where they overlap, I'd rather be in a position to make the decision, than sacrifice the luxury of working the way I want. Cheers.

Or at least debate the issue in some detail. ManagementBySoundBytes? is really annoying and limiting, yet popular. It is easier to be motivated about something that you feel is the right track rather than something that seems like a capricious decision from higher-ups.

Nothing on this page is true. It is not true that geeks disdain authority. What is true is that they have their own hierarchical authority, and that they disdain all other forms of authority.

Concur Geeks love to have authority, they just don't like the idea of someone else having authority.

Everybody loves authority, not just geeks. It's human nature. Geeks just have a much stronger preference that authority, if not their own, be at least somehow tied to logic. This includes letting everybody have a say and an open debate be had on the merit of the issues or comparisons raised. Most agree there should be a final "judge", but at least have a spirited, inclusive, and open trial for key decisions. Geeks want evidence that the "judge" both understands the issues and made a good faith effort to describe the reasons behind their final decisions. We want to see the judge "sweat out the logic". Contrast this with closed-door PHB decision meetings, where the results seem capricious and ill-informed, and the reason behind them private. It's only slightly better than tossing dice in the eyes of geeks. The hierarchy of preference of geeks would resemble:

Non-geeks will typically have a weaker preference between 2 and 3 (or can't tell the difference).

A lot of geeks would prefer 4 over 3.

Maybe they are one in the same: if you open up a PHB's head, you may see a roulette wheel in there.

Democracy of ideas? I'm not much happier about the idea of the majority having authority over me than I am about some PointyHairedBoss having authority over me. -- AdamSpitz

Assuming you are not the king of the world, you generally have to pick one or the other.

I don't want to control other people. I just want to control myself. --as

Just give yourself the root password to yourself. . . and make sure the other voices in your head don't get it

{My head is a democracy. Each voice gets a vote.}

That government is best which covers least. -- ThomasPaine?

s/covers/governs/?

Hrm. I like the covers one better. . . i.e. "The government that covers up things least, governs best"

Some of the geek disdain for authority must surely come from the fact that authority usually derives from popularity contests, nepotism, and other things totally irrelevant to the responsibilities of the authority. Is it not obvious that decisions be made by those with the merit to do so? Geeks may not (usually don't want to) wield authority, but may feel forced to reluctantly do so if no one else has any known merit to do so, or everyone is concentrating on irrelevant petty things and ignoring what's at stake.

EditText of this page (last edited August 10, 2012) or FindPage with title or text search