Ranks, moving, and life getting in the way?

[lklawson]

That is true if you let your imagination run wild and take everything to the extreme.

Huh? Are you saying that there's not a naturally occurring pecking order to pretty much all elements of human interaction? That's not my "imagination run[ing] wild and take everything to the extreme," that's just how humans work.

It is the natural instinct of humans to compete against each other and they will, invariably, create a sort of pecking order. Whether it be who is older, smarter, bigger, richer, has seniority, more certifications, more education, the bigger house, more sexual conquests, which on mom loves more, or can beat up more people, humans instinctively vie for position against each other, forming a pecking order.

It's how the human brain works.

Or were you talking about something else?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[spidersam]

Just read this a little more carefully with my glasses on and everything. I think you're mixing a lot of things up, and include above some situations where rank does exist, and some where rank would not be needed, and may not exist.

Bank tellers do have rank, because it's a profession. There are junior and senior tellers, and I would suspect that if they stick with it, they move to higher paying, more prestigious jobs as they gain more experience, which may include management. While we might not think of these as ranks in a traditional sense, I think they're analogous.

Line backers also have rank. There is the guy who is in the starting line up, and those who back him up. On a more macro level, there is the NFL, college varsity, junior varsity, high school varsity, etc. And these are even further broken out. Division I vs Division II. These are all examples of ranking structures. Saying you're a starting QB for the Bears, who got your football black belt from Lloyd Carr at the University of Michigan, all says something about your lineage.

I agree that not everything has ranks, though there may be a pecking order. As I said earlier, if it's a small group where there is no internal competition and no connection to a larger organization, there's no need for rank. Book club, for example. But if your book club starts competing in a national "Battle of the Books" trivia event, there will naturally arise some kind of ranking structure, internally to the club, and externally to rank your club against your competition.

Ok, so! The photo in the following link is a traditional Chinese kung fu school. “36,000 students.” Traditional CMA does not use color belt ranks. How do they know who knows what form? Do they only accept new students certain times of year and they stick together like an academic class? That is my guess. Maybe these are the best of the best and all at each other’s level?Google Image Result for https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3FDL4ZYEfcw/maxresdefault.jpg

 

[Steve]

Ok, so! The photo in the following link is a traditional Chinese kung fu school. “36,000 students.” Traditional CMA does not use color belt ranks. How do they know who knows what form? Do they only accept new students certain times of year and they stick together like an academic class? That is my guess. Maybe these are the best of the best and all at each other’s level?Google Image Result for https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3FDL4ZYEfcw/maxresdefault.jpg

Yeah ..i dont know enough about the group to say. I would speculate That there is structured rank, but I cant say what it looks like.

 

[lklawson]

Just read this a little more carefully with my glasses on and everything. I think you're mixing a lot of things up, and include above some situations where rank does exist, and some where rank would not be needed, and may not exist.

I don't think so.

Bank tellers do have rank, because it's a profession. There are junior and senior tellers, and I would suspect that if they stick with it, they move to higher paying, more prestigious jobs as they gain more experience, which may include management. While we might not think of these as ranks in a traditional sense, I think they're analogous.

Line backers also have rank. There is the guy who is in the starting line up, and those who back him up. On a more macro level, there is the NFL, college varsity, junior varsity, high school varsity, etc. And these are even further broken out. Division I vs Division II. These are all examples of ranking structures. Saying you're a starting QB for the Bears, who got your football black belt from Lloyd Carr at the University of Michigan, all says something about your lineage.

I agree that not everything has ranks, though there may be a pecking order. As I said earlier, if it's a small group where there is no internal competition and no connection to a larger organization, there's no need for rank. Book club, for example. But if your book club starts competing in a national "Battle of the Books" trivia event, there will naturally arise some kind of ranking structure, internally to the club, and externally to rank your club against your competition.

If you get a group of Tellers, all of them with the same title and all with the same authority (on paper), I guarantee that there will be one who is "in charge," who will usually be deferred to. And it may not have anything to do with seniority, or possibly even "skill." And everyone else will go down in descending order from that person. Same with the book club. And there's a similar dynamic with the the linebackers, though their position in the pecking order is more often dictated by skill and talent.

The same goes for most Boxing gyms. But boxing as an international community doesn't require belt ranks, even when someone from Cleveland,OH visits a club in Springfield, MO for a quick workout because he's there for work for a week or two.

Clear as mud?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Steve]

I don't think so.

If you get a group of Tellers, all of them with the same title and all with the same authority (on paper), I guarantee that there will be one who is "in charge," who will usually be deferred to. And it may not have anything to do with seniority, or possibly even "skill." And everyone else will go down in descending order from that person. Same with the book club. And there's a similar dynamic with the the linebackers, though their position in the pecking order is more often dictated by skill and talent.

It seems like you're conflating the pecking order within a particular rank or peer group, and rank at large. If you get a group of Senior Airmen together, a pecking order will naturally arise, independent of the formal rank structure in which they all participate. In MA, a group of purple belts don't technically outrank each other, but there is a pecking order and a rank structure.

Linebackers would be a little different because the pecking order within a position is derived from rank. The starting linebacker is higher on the pecking order than the 2nd string or practice squad guys.

On another hand (I think I'm at three now), the book club may have a pecking order and no rank structure, until one is needed. As I said before, if they choose to start competing in some way with other book clubs, a ranking structure will be needed.

The same goes for most Boxing gyms. But boxing as an international community doesn't require belt ranks, even when someone from Cleveland,OH visits a club in Springfield, MO for a quick workout because he's there for work for a week or two.

Sure, to an extent. If a professional fighter shows up in Cleveland OH for a workout, he doesn't lose his professional record. It's still there, even if he hasn't had an organized bout in 20 years.

Someone who has never participated in an organized event functionally has no real rank. And as you say above, he or she may not need it. But if that person wants to participate in a fight, he or she will need to opt into the rank structure. Generally, a person can't show up and say, "I'd like to fight Bruno the Champ for his belt." without some kind of professional record.

An expert judoka can work out in a BJJ gym, and no rank is required. But if he wants to compete in BJJ, he'll need to opt into the rank structure. Same

Clear as mud?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Murky...

 

[dvcochran]

Ok, so! The photo in the following link is a traditional Chinese kung fu school. “36,000 students.” Traditional CMA does not use color belt ranks. How do they know who knows what form? Do they only accept new students certain times of year and they stick together like an academic class? That is my guess. Maybe these are the best of the best and all at each other’s level?Google Image Result for https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3FDL4ZYEfcw/maxresdefault.jpg

That is impressive and speaks to the culture. The brief exposure I had to Kung Fu (green sash) had a ranking system.

 

[dvcochran]

Quick comment on this line. You seem to use the term "bias" as though it is inherently negative. Bias is essentially just an opinion. It can be an informed one or not. What you're trying to suggest is that my bias is unreasonable, which is possible, though I don't think so. But the important thing is, you also have a bias. I believe yours is unreasonable, because you think you can teach something you've never done.

Do you think a person who has never managed staff or lead a team can make his or her living teaching management skills or leadership? I don't. At best, you might get a person who can teach a sliver of it out of context, like a coaching model or conflict management. But they'll never really teach you to manage conflict. They can only teach you the Thomas Killman model. That's a bias I have. Really, it's the same bias I apply to anyone who is selling me a service.

And to be clear, there are a lot of folks out there who have never really managed staff, who are making their livings working for companies who farm them out. Some have even developed their own "styles" which they then "sell" as a package to companies, just like the painted horses referred to elsewhere. I don't think they should, and I avoid hiring them whenever I can. I have a bias against them that stems from a belief that someone who has experience can impart tacit knowledge, which is vital. Someone without experience can only teach from the book.

Self defense is the same thing

Well said.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Gentlemen. I offer you this health tonic I call aikido. It will restore your vigorous nature, give you energy, and keep you healthy. Full disclosure, I am not a doctor, but self defense, it is a focus, and many have noticed a benefit. Mr jones finds it helps with his diverticulitis and gout.

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Quick comment on this line. You seem to use the term "bias" as though it is inherently negative. Bias is essentially just an opinion. It can be an informed one or not. What you're trying to suggest is that my bias is unreasonable, which is possible, though I don't think so. But the important thing is, you also have a bias. I believe yours is unreasonable, because you think you can teach something you've never done.

Do you think a person who has never managed staff or lead a team can make his or her living teaching management skills or leadership? I don't. At best, you might get a person who can teach a sliver of it out of context, like a coaching model or conflict management. But they'll never really teach you to manage conflict. They can only teach you the Thomas Killman model. That's a bias I have. Really, it's the same bias I apply to anyone who is selling me a service.

And to be clear, there are a lot of folks out there who have never really managed staff, who are making their livings working for companies who farm them out. Some have even developed their own "styles" which they then "sell" as a package to companies, just like the painted horses referred to elsewhere. I don't think they should, and I avoid hiring them whenever I can. I have a bias against them that stems from a belief that someone who has experience can impart tacit knowledge, which is vital. Someone without experience can only teach from the book.

Self defense is the same thing

You're rehashing an old issue of "what is application". We've been over this many times, and you and I simply don't agree on a definition. This is essentially the pilot analogy all over again, and won't get us any farther than that did.

 

[Steve]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Dude, it was satire. I even used a little smiley face. The irony here is that you are taking all this personally, when I actually had someone else in mind entirely at the start. I guess you feel like the shoe fits, but I'm not putting that on you.

You're rehashing an old issue of "what is application". We've been over this many times, and you and I simply don't agree on a definition. This is essentially the pilot analogy all over again, and won't get us any farther than that did.

It's sounds familiar, because the philosophical underpinnings are the same. However, there is a crucial difference between the pilot analogy and this one. For pilots, it would be ludicrous to learn to fly a plane from someone who is not qualified. It would be unfathomable in most training courses for the instructor to have only academic understanding of the subject they are teaching. I have a friend now who is learning to weld at the local technical college. Interestingly enough, the instructors have both worked as union welders for decades.

I used leadership and management training in this case, because I know for a fact that there is a current trend in professional development to devalue subject matter expertise in lieu of "generalist" facilitators who teach proprietary models. It's directly analogous to self defense and martial arts training. Guys who are not experienced become "qualified" to instruct "systems" that have been invented by someone else. It's bad training, even if the model is solid. At the very best, it puts the onus of making the model work entirely on the trainee. Can some negotiate that transition? Sure. Maybe a few, if they can overcome their instructor's lack of experience with their own.

Give this a few years and you'll agree that what I'm saying is common sense. I'm confident in that. However, it will take longer if you put your fingers in your ears and stop listening (figuratively speaking of course).

I don't post all that much any more, and rarely add to threads, other than lame attempts to be funny. But sometimes, you guys talk about something I know a little about and am interested in. Skill development is one of those things. I've been in the field for decades. I'm not just winging it or teaching from a book.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Dude, it was satire. I even used a little smiley face. The irony here is that you are taking all this personally, when I actually had someone else in mind entirely at the start. I guess you feel like the shoe fits, but I'm not putting that on you.
It's sounds familiar, because the philosophical underpinnings are the same. However, there is a crucial difference between the pilot analogy and this one. For pilots, it would be ludicrous to learn to fly a plane from someone who is not qualified. It would be unfathomable in most training courses for the instructor to have only academic understanding of the subject they are teaching. I have a friend now who is learning to weld at the local technical college. Interestingly enough, the instructors have both worked as union welders for decades.

I used leadership and management training in this case, because I know for a fact that there is a current trend in professional development to devalue subject matter expertise in lieu of "generalist" facilitators who teach proprietary models. It's directly analogous to self defense and martial arts training. Guys who are not experienced become "qualified" to instruct "systems" that have been invented by someone else. It's bad training, even if the model is solid. At the very best, it puts the onus of making the model work entirely on the trainee. Can some negotiate that transition? Sure. Maybe a few, if they can overcome their instructor's lack of experience with their own.

Give this a few years and you'll agree that what I'm saying is common sense. I'm confident in that. However, it will take longer if you put your fingers in your ears and stop listening (figuratively speaking of course).

I don't post all that much any more, and rarely add to threads, other than lame attempts to be funny. But sometimes, you guys talk about something I know a little about and am interested in. Skill development is one of those things. I've been in the field for decades. I'm not just winging it or teaching from a book.

You continue to have the condescending attitude that my view is somehow less matured than yours (the "give it a few years" phrase). I've been training for over 35 years. I'm probably not going to make a major change in my views just due to the passage of time.

And the issue you're not understanding is the same as it was with the pilot analogy. I don't know how to clarify it for you. Either I've never done a good job of explaining it, or something is blocking your usually quick comprehension, or maybe some of both.

 

[Steve]

You continue to have the condescending attitude that my view is somehow less matured than yours (the "give it a few years" phrase). I've been training for over 35 years. I'm probably not going to make a major change in my views just due to the passage of time.

And the issue you're not understanding is the same as it was with the pilot analogy. I don't know how to clarify it for you. Either I've never done a good job of explaining it, or something is blocking your usually quick comprehension, or maybe some of both.

maturity has nothing to do with. Also has nothing to do with your training. That you’re reading it this way just reinforces my belief that you are just operating in a blind spot.

I’m always happy to re-evaluate my perspective, but so far I think you’ve explained nothing. I just see a lot of you expressing outrage and being huffy. What is the issue I’m not understanding? Tell me again how a person who has never managed a team can teach someone the art of managing for performance? How does someone who has never done this teach someone how to manage a team when things go sideways and you have situations that don’t neatly fit a training model? My experience is that they really cannot. Why do you think otherwise? Explain to me why a trained chef would value instruction from a person who has only ever read cookbooks? You don’t explain any of this. Really, all you do is get huffy, accuse me of being condescending and then allude to some long past explanation that I just didn’t get way back when. Shoot, just provide a link to that post and I’ll just reread it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

maturity has nothing to do with. Also has nothing to do with your training. That you’re reading it this way just reinforces my belief that you are just operating in a blind spot.

I’m always happy to re-evaluate my perspective, but so far I think you’ve explained nothing. I just see a lot of you expressing outrage and being huffy. What is the issue I’m not understanding? Tell me again how a person who has never managed a team can teach someone the art of managing for performance? How does someone who has never done this teach someone how to manage a team when things go sideways and you have situations that don’t neatly fit a training model? My experience is that they really cannot. Why do you think otherwise? Explain to me why a trained chef would value instruction from a person who has only ever read cookbooks? You don’t explain any of this. Really, all you do is get huffy, accuse me of being condescending and then allude to some long past explanation that I just didn’t get way back when. Shoot, just provide a link to that post and I’ll just reread it.

Okay, I'll take another stab. Firstly, we have to acknowledge that there are many who have managed a team who are bad at managing, regardless of the success of their team. There are also many who are good at managing, but bad at teaching or mentoring management. There are some who, with just a little experience as managers, turn out to be quite good at managing, and at mentoring others in management skills.

This seems to have something to do with seeking knowledge, but it's not as strong a correlation as might be expected. Many folks with management degrees aren't any better at explaining what makes a good manager than their non-degreed counterparts.

Somewhere in the middle of all this is a sweet spot, theoretically speaking - someone with reasonable experience and good information (whether from formal training or from personal pursuit of knowledge). But that doesn't apply evenly to all people. The only way to know if someone is any good at developing managers is to see how managers do that they work with. And the confounding variables in that make a whole new bowl of squirrels. Yet we can often recognize people who seem to do a good job developing managers, in spite of the fact that we can't really measure it in a reliable way.

And all of that applies - sort of - to the other side of your analogy, too.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

maturity has nothing to do with. Also has nothing to do with your training. That you’re reading it this way just reinforces my belief that you are just operating in a blind spot.

Now to deal with this. Go back and read your own post. How does saying I'll understand in a few years not suggest it's about maturing in my training? It's a nonsense statement, Steve.

 

[Steve]

Okay, I'll take another stab. Firstly, we have to acknowledge that there are many who have managed a team who are bad at managing, regardless of the success of their team. There are also many who are good at managing, but bad at teaching or mentoring management. There are some who, with just a little experience as managers, turn out to be quite good at managing, and at mentoring others in management skills.

This seems to have something to do with seeking knowledge, but it's not as strong a correlation as might be expected. Many folks with management degrees aren't any better at explaining what makes a good manager than their non-degreed counterparts.

Somewhere in the middle of all this is a sweet spot, theoretically speaking - someone with reasonable experience and good information (whether from formal training or from personal pursuit of knowledge). But that doesn't apply evenly to all people. The only way to know if someone is any good at developing managers is to see how managers do that they work with. And the confounding variables in that make a whole new bowl of squirrels. Yet we can often recognize people who seem to do a good job developing managers, in spite of the fact that we can't really measure it in a reliable way.

And all of that applies - sort of - to the other side of your analogy, too.

Where in your spectrum above is the guy who doesn’t know if he is good at managing a team because he’s never done it, but teaches it for a living?

Edit: just a small thing, but I consider development to be a long term, relational thing. I’ve developed a lot of managers and other employees over the years, but I’ve also trained them. Training is short term. Also, they have all been applying skills in context throughout. When we speak of development, I think this a function of training, time, competent coaching, candid feedback, and consistent application. These are all intrinsic to the process.

 

[Steve]

Now to deal with this. Go back and read your own post. How does saying I'll understand in a few years not suggest it's about maturing in my training? It's a nonsense statement, Steve.

I already answered this pretty directly. Are you asking rhetorically now?

 

[dvcochran]

Dude, it was satire. I even used a little smiley face. The irony here is that you are taking all this personally, when I actually had someone else in mind entirely at the start. I guess you feel like the shoe fits, but I'm not putting that on you.
It's sounds familiar, because the philosophical underpinnings are the same. However, there is a crucial difference between the pilot analogy and this one. For pilots, it would be ludicrous to learn to fly a plane from someone who is not qualified. It would be unfathomable in most training courses for the instructor to have only academic understanding of the subject they are teaching. I have a friend now who is learning to weld at the local technical college. Interestingly enough, the instructors have both worked as union welders for decades.

I used leadership and management training in this case, because I know for a fact that there is a current trend in professional development to devalue subject matter expertise in lieu of "generalist" facilitators who teach proprietary models. It's directly analogous to self defense and martial arts training. Guys who are not experienced become "qualified" to instruct "systems" that have been invented by someone else. It's bad training, even if the model is solid. At the very best, it puts the onus of making the model work entirely on the trainee. Can some negotiate that transition? Sure. Maybe a few, if they can overcome their instructor's lack of experience with their own.

Give this a few years and you'll agree that what I'm saying is common sense. I'm confident in that. However, it will take longer if you put your fingers in your ears and stop listening (figuratively speaking of course).

I don't post all that much any more, and rarely add to threads, other than lame attempts to be funny. But sometimes, you guys talk about something I know a little about and am interested in. Skill development is one of those things. I've been in the field for decades. I'm not just winging it or teaching from a book.

I appreciate you tilt toward experience. Can you share your background?
I often have to work with skilled trade people like welders, pipefitters, electricians, etc... Some of the smartest people I know. Most of them can't teach their way out of a paper bag. One, because they have no desire to, and two because teaching is a different skill set. They are very specific in what they do. Can the welder show you how to strike an arc, sure. Can they make you good at it? Nope. That is the skill of a teacher, they can make you good or at least better at a skill or subject. But I would not call them generalist even though what they teach is usually broad.
I had been working for about 15 years before I finished college. I now have two Masters degrees and I cannot over exaggerate how much easier it was being able to understand where and how to apply all the theory I was being taught. I remember looking over at kids who eyes were glazed over, totally lost. They could do the math or figure out the problem but it meant nothing because they had no idea what to do with it. So while I appreciate you favor of experience that does not make a person a teacher or an instructor.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Where in your spectrum above is the guy who doesn’t know if he is good at managing a team because he’s never done it, but teaches it for a living?

Edit: just a small thing, but I consider development to be a long term, relational thing. I’ve developed a lot of managers and other employees over the years, but I’ve also trained them. Training is short term. Also, they have all been applying skills in context throughout. When we speak of development, I think this a function of training, time, competent coaching, candid feedback, and consistent application. These are all intrinsic to the process.

This is where we get back to the part you and I simply din't agree on, concerning the analogy. I think the point you're trying to get to is more analogous to the guy who has managed, but not in the context in question, and very few available managers have, either. But this guy showed skill managing in other contexts, and has mentored folks who worked in similar contexts. And he put in the time to learn about the context, to be able to give some suggestions on nuance that's likely to appear in that context.

But now we're just back to the same question again: what is "application". You still see self-defense as the thing that's being learned, rather than a purpose (and not even the purpose) for the thing being learned.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I already answered this pretty directly. Are you asking rhetorically now?

No, I'm asking more directly. I don't think your prior answer really answered it - or tried - you just basically said, "that's not what I'm saying, and your response proves what I'm saying".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I appreciate you tilt toward experience. Can you share your background?
I often have to work with skilled trade people like welders, pipefitters, electricians, etc... Some of the smartest people I know. Most of them can't teach their way out of a paper bag. One, because they have no desire to, and two because teaching is a different skill set. They are very specific in what they do. Can the welder show you how to strike an arc, sure. Can they make you good at it? Nope. That is the skill of a teacher, they can make you good or at least better at a skill or subject. But I would not call them generalist even though what they teach is usually broad.
I had been working for about 15 years before I finished college. I now have two Masters degrees and I cannot over exaggerate how much easier it was being able to understand where and how to apply all the theory I was being taught. I remember looking over at kids who eyes were glazed over, totally lost. They could do the math or figure out the problem but it meant nothing because they had no idea what to do with it. So while I appreciate you favor of experience that does not make a person a teacher or an instructor.

Theory without some sort of application leaves me glassy-eyed, too (except in the confines of a fun discussion, perhaps). And you have a point about folks knowing the "how", but not being able to transfer that knowledge, because they lack the theory (the "why"). Part of what I do in my consulting is teach subject-matter experts (the folks who know how to do the job from experience) how to transfer that knowledge. I also sometimes get to turn them into full-fledged trainers, when the stars align (job opening and the right person when I'm there).