By using "cool", I get the impression that you're thinking more about respect from people outside work, rather than those you are working with. I think the article was talking about respect from the people you work with and work under, in the sense that if you are not respected, then you likely won't get paid what you are worth. From the point of view, point (a) is a contradiction - if you are not respected by the company you work for, the pay won't be good.
Respect has to be earned. If one's morale is buttressed by toadies and 'respecting' yes-men who gush about how awesome you are just because of your job title, things are more likely to go off the rails when the sun stops shining.
By all means mix with like-minded people, but your morale and motivation shouldn't depend upon whether or not your neighbour thinks you're 'cool'.
> Some people are a whole lot more fragile than others.
A slightly more charitable way to phrase this might be “Some people prefer to be treated as professionals, with dignity and respect.”
I think what the poster above you was trying to get across is, part of a leaders role is to distinguish what works best for their different team members. While some people may enjoy being treated less than respectful, others may not.
> Is there some way to make human respect feel like it's not a zero sum game?
Respect is non zero sum but status is definitionally a positional good. If you’re number 1 someone else isn’t. There can be uncertainty about status but ambiguity always collapses eventually. Everyone can be treated with respect but there will be a prestige or dominance hierarchy in any group of humans, subtle as it may be.
> treating your coworkers and customers with respect and empathy
This can be as subjective as the word professionalism. People always use their own value judgement in these things - whether it's deciding if something is professional, or not, or if something is respectful, or not.
Sometimes, you do have to just follow rules, for the sake of it, because there is no standard in personal value.
Maybe I've been especially fortunate, or I'm just not understanding the question right, but I've felt respected pretty much from the beginning of my career (aside from grad school, which was not great, in many respects). Or at least I've felt "treated with respect" -- not sure if that's exactly the same thing. But I've always been given a fair amount of independence at work, and I've generally been able to solve whatever I'm assigned to solve, or clearly articulate the challenges, allowing those with different/more expertise to help out. And I've never been made to feel ashamed or inadequate because of either the work I've completed or the work I've needed to seek out additional help to complete.
Respect is a personal trait not a business trait either you have it or you don't. If you want to make money fine but chances are if that is your focus you are not going to have quality people you need anyway you will have the ones' you want to afford.
We're not talking about "like" or even "can bear the company of" here, we're talking about respect. I'm friends with many people who I don't respect in a work sense.
Perhaps my mistake was not to append "in a work sense" to the word "respect".
Also, part of being competent at evaluating other people's competence is not to base your evaluation on a single sample.
"Those that I respected the most." I always say this, but if you appreciate someone at work, dont say it to them. Say it to management. Managements face an impossible task of appreciating every single employees' worth. You can help.
> Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority”
> and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person”
> and they think they’re being fair but they aren’t, and it’s not okay.
I can certainly see how you could interpret my remarks on disrespect as "perceiving it (...) as a threat to one's dominance", but this was certainly not my intention.
My context is of never having had a 'bad' manager, they have always been agreeable and pleasant with a good technical understanding and (I can only assume) high self-esteem.
I think I have used the word respect in two slightly different ways: one when describing employer/employee relationship and one where describing manager/managed.
When I talk about disrespect in the context of a manager I mean it on more of an interpersonal relationship level, not as a struggle for dominance in some sort of power structure.
> "...As an employee I would see that as weakness, especially if combined with technical incompetence."
Adding the bit about "technical incompetence" sound to me like you are projecting certain other attributes on the hypothetical manager that we are discussing. What has been your experience with managers?
> "It's funny, an employer actually asked me that in my first job and I shrugged my shoulders and I said I probably wouldn't notice, which was an answer that clearly infuriated him."
When you have few bills to pay and/or other obligations then this attitude is fine, but I think for a large group of people (e.g. with families to support) this would be a real problem.
The point I was trying to make in the paragraph about "programmers acting any way they like" was that this may be an accept/successful strategy in the short term, but it may not be optimal long term. However indispensable you are now there is someone somewhere out there looking to optimize your job or make your skill set irrelevant. It's certainly possible that you are the exception and that no one will be able to do this to you, but I don't think that it applies to the majority of people reading this thread (I know it doesn't apply to me).
It seems like you view the employer/employee relationship in a very adversarial way, rather than an optimal way for both parties to get something they want. I have had jobs in the past (mainly part time service worker type jobs) where I feel that this attitude is valid. However, most companies I have worked for as a programmer have been small/medium level and started/funded by the same people (no VC money, no faceless career CEO or public shareholders). In these situations I have found that there is no calculated malice or attempt to 'enslave' you, just a few motivated people putting their own money and future on the line to try and make something of value and better themselves.
> "By his definition, you think programmers are "too free", no?"
No, I think a lot of programmers think that they are "too free", but are in-fact only "short term too free"
By using "cool", I get the impression that you're thinking more about respect from people outside work, rather than those you are working with. I think the article was talking about respect from the people you work with and work under, in the sense that if you are not respected, then you likely won't get paid what you are worth. From the point of view, point (a) is a contradiction - if you are not respected by the company you work for, the pay won't be good.
reply