Millstoning in Electronics?

[tggzzz]

Another two were on their cellphones texting all the time.

Thanks, years ago i had one that would do 5 mins of soldering, then revert to making a big solder pool lake on the ESD mat, or going on his mobile phone.
But He was lauded as the new Messiah by the company owner.
The owner could see him distrubing me all the time, but encouraged him to pick my brains out at every  opportunity...my work inevitably suffered delays as a result of being his "servant" mentor, and the owner would lambast me for that.

When you find yourself in situations like that, just run away. Whatever the reason - even if you are partially responsible, be it due to your behavior, not setting limits, whatever... this can't end well.
When a company does that, it's usually to show you that you don't matter anymore. Get the hint and go.

I don't disagree, but that's not always possible. Classic issues are wife/children/parents who can't be uprooted, and geography of course.

[robint]

cant say in my umpteen years in the  trade I ve heard that term?  Seems like a hypothesis IMHO.

What I have seen seen is some cheap charlie hirings using the milk round, where a dozen say bodies are trawled to fill slots fully expecting to get a wastage of 50% in the first years - the smart guys realise they signed up to a dead outfit full of pensionable treadwaters obstructing any initiative.  Been there got out pdq.
Ive also seen these uninspiring remainders (NAAFI types) who just slither along on minimum effort other that cosy relations with superiors.  Amazing how far up the tree these slugs can climb in time.

[tggzzz]

cant say in my umpteen years in the  trade I ve heard that term?  Seems like a hypothesis IMHO.

What I have seen seen is some cheap charlie hirings using the milk round, where a dozen say bodies are trawled to fill slots fully expecting to get a wastage of 50% in the first years - the smart guys realise they signed up to a dead outfit full of pensionable treadwaters obstructing any initiative.  Been there got out pdq.
Ive also seen these uninspiring remainders (NAAFI types) who just slither along on minimum effort other that cosy relations with superiors.  Amazing how far up the tree these slugs can climb in time.

That seems like the GEC/Marconi milk round behaviour, back in the 70s.

Put in ~6 CVs, offered ~12 interviews (one implying the interview was a formality!), some at sites with 200 vacancies.

Went to half a dozen interviews. They were useful because they enabled me to calibrate what I was looking for in a job, and which places would be good to work.  Not GEC/Macaroni, of course.

[Faringdon]

At this one place, many years ago....they literally handcuffed a newly qualified engineer to me, and told me to go through a power supply design with him......and only advance the design at his pace of understanding and no faster, and also garantee to the customer that it could be done within 4 weeks from scratch to finished PCB and BOM  and schem. It just wasnt working.
The guy wasnt getting it, wasnt picking it up quick enough.
I was bascially like his "slave" mentor.
Has anybody else done this kind of thing?

I  think such "handcuffing" doesnt work in SMPS design.....SMPS design isnt "A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J, DONE"
....its more

"A,B,C,D, go back to A and tweak a bit, E, F, go back to C and tweak a bit, then to E and tweak there, G,H".............you know what i mean.

It  just not beneficial to try and  handcuff a new grad to an engineer and hence clone the experienced engineer in this way.
Has anybody else  encountered  this kind of thing?

Literally trying to CLONE an EE by handcuffing a new grad to him/her

[tggzzz]

At this one place, many years ago....they literally handcuffed a newly qualified engineer to me, and told me to go through a power supply design with him......

Was it his left wrist to your right wrist, or vice versa?

[Faringdon]

Crikey we were virtually strapped to each other lasoo style.....i am surprised they didnt want  him in the toilet with me.....it was literally..."we want to clone our EE"

[Nominal Animal]

At this one place, many years ago....they literally handcuffed a newly qualified engineer to me, and told me to go through a power supply design with him......and only advance the design at his pace of understanding and no faster, and also garantee to the customer that it could be done within 4 weeks from scratch to finished PCB and BOM  and schem.

Literally?  You were in prison?  Otherwise that would be quite illegal in most places in the Western world.
Are you sure you did not just misunderstand the "at his pace of understanding and no faster" part?

If the junior was present, managers often say things like that out of social pressure, without actually meaning it.

The correct approach, in my opinion, is to calmly explain to the manager that those requirements are in conflict, and cannot be achieved at the same time, and ask for which comes first: customer deadline, or the junior's understanding.

Now, to do this, this also requires social skills.  Manipulative managers often say "both, just deal with it", because they already know the project will fail, and just need a scapegoat to blame and fire.  For the same reason, they will refuse to give any such orders in writing, i.e. email or such.  So, one needs to be able to provide a simple but useful argument when presented with such.

It is crucial to report to ones manager immediately when you detect a conflict in your orders/directives, in email (so that you retain a verifiable copy of the mail), even if already discussed face-to-face (as a reminder of your understanding of their directives), warning them of the consequences if the conflict is not resolved.  In your particular case, that the junior is so slow the four week deadline cannot be met.

This requires clear and concise communications, one to three lines per order max.  This can be achieved via practice.  Find a friend, pick conflict situations, and do exercise emails to resolve the conflict.  The target is always to 1) make sure the manager knows the effects of their decisions, and 2) that you have both that and the manager's order in writing.

If the manager objects to such emails, tell them you require them to track priorities and orders, and start looking for a new job immediately.
Managers who object to their orders being recorded are the ones who will throw you off the cliff whenever they feel it might benefit themselves.

While many think of your (Faringdon's) posts as trolling due to their repeated themes, I think it has more to do with your personality traits, specifically high agreeableness (and to a minor extent, neuroticism) –– these are personality traits, not flaws or faults! –– (and confrontation avoidance) which is somewhat rarer in technically oriented people (and more common in socially oriented people), making you easily manipulated by socially adept managers who find you easily exploitable and manipulable.
High agreeableness basically means that your first instinct in the abovementioned situations with a manager is never to oppose or escalate the conflict, but to go with the flow instead.

I am not agreeable (quite opposite ), but I am easily socially manipulable, because I want to fix things and make them better; I am easily diverted by presenting problems that ostensibly others have failed to solve.  So, I can see how easily a socially inept/not-proficient highly agreeable, easily socially manipulated person might find themselves repeatedly in the situations you have described, without recognizing the pattern (it being inherently social and not technical one).  If this is the case, I would seriously consider assertiveness training, and possibly cognitive-behavioural therapy (with a therapist specialized in workplace dynamics) to examine how these situations have repeated, and what you can do to avoid them in the future.  After all, such therapy is nothing weirder than learning a new language –– this time, a situational social awareness and reactions to specific patterns –– and observational skills to detect situations and react to them positively with prepared and pre-rehearsed, clear patterns to resolve the situation.

[tggzzz]

Crikey we were virtually strapped to each other lasoo style.....i am surprised they didnt want  him in the toilet with me.....it was literally..."we want to clone our EE"

So, no, you weren't "literally handcuffed" to the new engineer, viz:

At this one place, many years ago....they literally handcuffed a newly qualified engineer to me, and told me to go through a power supply design with him......

Was it his left wrist to your right wrist, or vice versa?

[pcprogrammer]

Literally?  You were in prison?  Otherwise that would be quite legal in most places in the Western world.

I think you missed the "il" 

Fixed it for you.

Literally?  You were in prison? Working for the police?  Otherwise that would be quite illegal in most places in the Western world.

[pcprogrammer]

........

Keep in mind that some rather silly and odd questions have been asked by the entity named Faringdon, so I would certainly take everything the entity writes with a huge grain of salt.

Think back of thievable scopes, spraying wooden floors wet to overcome ESD, etc.

[Nominal Animal]

Literally?  You were in prison?  Otherwise that would be quite legal in most places in the Western world.

I think you missed the "il" 

You know me fail English, you meanie! 

(Joking aside: thanks, corrected now.)

Keep in mind that some rather silly and odd questions have been asked by the entity named Faringdon, so I would certainly take everything the entity writes with a huge grain of salt.

Think back of thievable scopes, spraying wooden floors wet to overcome ESD, etc.

Surprisingly, that all matches a personality profile which avoids personal confrontation like the plague.  Even their habit of thanking everybody, even those who post things that would really irk for example myself, fits the picture.

There are all kinds of personality types among humans, and that is one of the key reasons why we are so adaptable compared to basically any other species.  There aren't that many vertebrates that can live all the way in the Arctic down to the hottests deserts and rainforests in the Equator.

Evolutionarily useful personality profile mixes can appear quite odd in todays Western societies, especially now that social conformity is being highlighted and emphasized so heavily by social media.  Highly agreeable and highly neurotic personality types (for whatever reason, much more often women than men) are especially vulnerable to social-related stressors, and suffer from related mental illnesses in increasing numbers (see e.g. University student mental health statistics).  Super-agreeable but less-neurotic personality types can be quite adamant peacemakers and conflict-avoiders, even looking at technological solutions to avoid social confrontation; but the lesser neuroticism also means they can feel free to describe their ideas and experiences online, something a more neurotic personality type would find very difficult.

I'm not a psychiatrist, and haven't studied psychology much (except what I've had to, due to my own issues), so this is just my opinion based on my observations on Faringdon's posts.  I could be utterly wrong here, but the various pieces seem to me to fit well enough to post this, just in case it helps anyone.

My own immediate emotional reactions differ very much depending on whether I know (or think I know) why someone reacts the way they do; apparent understanding makes it much easier for me to deal with odd/uncommon/strange behaviour, as long as it does not damage or hurt anyone.
For whatever reason, Faringdon doesn't bother me, really.

[pcprogrammer]

You know me fail English, you meanie! 

I know, just teasing a bit 

For whatever reason, Faringdon doesn't bother me, really.

His posts do not bother me either. At times they are fun. The ones about the SMPS's I mostly just avoid because I know next to nothing about them. Can't really tell if they make sense or not, but something like in this thread sounds very unlikely. But hey, who knows, we live in a very strange world 

[tooki]

While many think of your (Faringdon's) posts as trolling due to their repeated themes, I think it has more to do with your personality traits, specifically high agreeableness (and to a minor extent, neuroticism) –– these are personality traits, not flaws or faults! –– (and confrontation avoidance) which is somewhat rarer in technically oriented people (and more common in socially oriented people), making you easily manipulated by socially adept managers who find you easily exploitable and manipulable.
High agreeableness basically means that your first instinct in the abovementioned situations with a manager is never to oppose or escalate the conflict, but to go with the flow instead.

As an interesting aside, having a manager with high agreeableness can be awful in ways that don’t become apparent until down the line. I worked at one place where my manager (one of the owners/founders) was highly agreeable. Of course it meant that in many ways he was easy going and nice to work with. The problem is that he simply could not bring himself to give any “negative” feedback. (I guess in his mind it’s the same as criticism.) So if you were happily doing what you thought he wanted, but was actually on a different course, he wouldn’t say anything until he eventually snapped. Even if you asked point-blank “please inform me right away if I’m not doing it the way you want. It won’t upset me, it will actually be a big help.” he still couldn’t do it.

The other problem with high agreeableness is that they will promise things that they have no chance of delivering on. That manager would do it to us, to customers, etc. (Me, I have no trouble saying “sorry, I can’t promise that”.)

In contrast, the best teacher I ever had was one whose expectations were always absolutely crystal-clear: things needed to be done how he said it, and he expected top quality and wouldn’t accept anything less. As adolescents, the first year with him we thought “who the fuck is this lunatic?” But by the second year, it was second nature and you never had to wonder “what did he mean in this assignment?” And in the third and final year, we knew him so well we could play off his predictability.

But it wasn’t until I’d worked for managers who couldn’t express their expectations that I realized how valuable clear, unambiguous communication is.

[SiliconWizard]

I am not agreeable (quite opposite ), but I am easily socially manipulable, because I want to fix things and make them better;

Yes, that's how managers manipulate engineers when they know that a direct order won't work/will make them look nasty.

We want to fix things.

Note that this kind of manipulation goes beyond the realm of engineering and workplace.

[Nominal Animal]

As an interesting aside, having a manager with high agreeableness can be awful in ways that don’t become apparent until down the line.

Agreed; I've had a such project manager also.  When everyone was co-operating positively, they did fine; but when one person started manipulating everyone else, they crumbled and switched jobs.  Was a horrible experience for me also.  That was the project where that one person sent an email to students exhorting them to "be real humans, not just students".

But it wasn’t until I’d worked for managers who couldn’t express their expectations that I realized how valuable clear, unambiguous communication is.

So true.  It can feel socially cold or abrupt at first, but it makes working so much easier and less stressful, I definitely prefer that.

As I've mentioned before, I've done my best work in a team where our domains of expertise overlapped only slightly: just enough so we could fully trust each other.  That is when I learned that when there is a technical reason why a specific feature cannot be implemented in exactly the way the UI/UX/artist wants, one can simply quickly sketch out the root limitations, and describe a couple of alternatives to sketch out how those limitations can be avoided or overcome, the UI/UX/artist will often find an even better option.  This, too, requires not only trust in each others' skills, but clear, unambiguous communication.
The hardest part is describing the technical details and reasons to a non-expert peer; that's where my use of analogs comes from.
The other members liked me too, and have mentioned they too had a "nothing is impossible" feel in that team.

I am not agreeable (quite opposite ), but I am easily socially manipulable, because I want to fix things and make them better;

Yes, that's how managers manipulate engineers when they know that a direct order won't work/will make them look nasty.

We want to fix things.

Note that this kind of manipulation goes beyond the realm of engineering and workplace.

Oh yes.  You have perhaps noticed my extreme attitude about "playing social games" even in discussions online? 

I am still easily manipulated in real life, but I usually do realize it soon afterwards (because of experience!), and it makes me angry.
It is unfair, and the sense of fairness goes deep, below and pre-sentience, being found in many other social animal species.

If we look at eusocial species, it is the equivalent of parasitism: exploiting others without providing anything in return.
Funny thing is, mutually beneficial social interaction is not only usually less effort, but also yields better results; and this can even be mathematically proven (see e.g game theory).  Mutualism isn't even limited to mammals or vertebrates, consider burrowing tarantulas and their small "pet" frogs for example, not to mention ants and termites farming fungi already extinct everywhere else except their nests.

To circle back to the original topic, I don't think one has to be a troll or be playing games to post the kinds of threads Faringdon/Treez has; having a less common set of personality traits suffices.  Whether that is or is not the case, does not actually matter to me, because I also happen to know that responses centering on things with very little emotion are what titillates a troll the least: if they are true, then some of my posts might be useful; but if they are a troll, none of my posts will bring them much satisfaction at all.  Win-win.

[SiliconWizard]

If we look at eusocial species, it is the equivalent of parasitism: exploiting others without providing anything in return.

I'm not sure pure parasitism - in the sense of not providing anything in return - does actually exist in nature, or at least it's relatively short-lived.
There's often some mutual benefit, even if we can't comprehend it.

Alternatively, there's probably a form of "mild parasitism" that provides zero benefit to the host, but is not "annoying" enough for the host to care. Something that we also probably find in human interactions. Depending on our own individual tolerance threshold.

But even when things are really not obvious, I don't discard the probability of a mutual benefit in most cases. Our brain finding sometimes weird benefits to seemingly annoying situations.

[Nominal Animal]

If we look at eusocial species, it is the equivalent of parasitism: exploiting others without providing anything in return.

I'm not sure pure parasitism - in the sense of not providing anything in return - does actually exist in nature, or at least it's relatively short-lived.
There's often some mutual benefit, even if we can't comprehend it.

Sure, I do agree with that.

So, consider my statement a slight exaggeration, highlighting the difference between mutually beneficial interaction, and interaction where you have no intention to reciprocate.

Or, using as simple terms as possible, to highlight the difference between mutualism and parasitism as interaction strategies.