Boss By Day, Gamer By Night 51
Ant writes "Computerworld queried seven executives at some of today's top tech firms to learn how they started gaming, what they play now, and how their virtual skills translate to the real world of the office. Alan Cohen, vice president of enterprise solutions at Cisco Systems, had this to say: 'Now, increasingly, games are Internet 2.0 encounters. They're all about how well you work together with others any time, any place, with players from around the world. Rock Band 2, World of Warcraft, even Guitar Hero promote the shared experience and are all about how together we can do more, be more, compete better than we can by going it alone. That's right in line with how the corporate environment is evolving: You can play (or work) anytime you want, and you have to compete and collaborate on a global basis in order to succeed.'"
Re:Golf was bad enough, what if I beat the boss at (Score:0, Insightful)
Boss By Day, Gamer By Night...
Idiot by life.
Re:Golf was bad enough, what if I beat the boss at (Score:3, Insightful)
So what?
They should have the maturity to deal with being owned. Any boss that can't handle it either needs to get out of gaming, or learn to play.
Re:Golf was bad enough, what if I beat the boss at (Score:5, Insightful)
There are an infinite number of cliches surrounding communication, saying what you mean, etc. People don't say what they mean, people say what they must in order to show respect and position.
For example, if you are a guest at somebody's house, it's polite to ask for what you need, rather than simply state the need. You wouldn't say "where's the bathroom" unless it's a rather close friend. Instead, you'll say something like "Do you mind if I use your restroom?".
Which, if you think about it, is pretty silly. The question might be completed as: "... instead of crapping in my pants?"? but that's not what we say.
Phrasing our need as a question establishes a sort of pecking order - we are acknowledging to the host(s) that it's his/her/their place, and that we are, for a time, subservient to their wishes. We know they don't want us to crap in our pants or on their carpet, and they most certainly don't want to offend us - they will basically *always* say yes, and then often make a point of making sure that our bathroom experience is pleasant by offering towels, etc. The host is indicating to the guest that the guest is welcome.
It's a complex dance that those who are aware of (who are "polite") partake of in interacting with other people. It's how we, as social mammals, determine pecking order and expectations for code of conduct. Guys open doors for women, regardless of age or size, and let the ladies go first. Guys open the car passenger door for the lady, but the lady had better reach over and unlock the driver's side door... etc. etc.
The question is: are video games are distinct? Is the agreement is that Video games are a different reality, having no bearing on this one? Are they are distinct from the workplace?
If the agreement for this question is "no", and your boss is pissy because you fragged him, he does not deserve to be your boss. But there could easily be circumstances where showing up the boss could carry grave repercussions, just like beating him at golf. Here you are, a guest at the boss' house, and rather than ask to use the bathroom, you walk in like you own the place...
Sorry to say it, but manners matter.
Golf's bad enough, what if I beat the boss at sex? (Score:2, Insightful)
"If the agreement for this question is "no", and your boss is pissy because you fragged him, he does not deserve to be your boss. But there could easily be circumstances where showing up the boss could carry grave repercussions, just like beating him at golf. Here you are, a guest at the boss' house, and rather than ask to use the bathroom, you walk in like you own the place..."
Except in cooperative games there's no location and no ownership. A social order based on merit, not a pecking order based on who's footing the paycheck.
Re:Golf's bad enough, what if I beat the boss at s (Score:3, Insightful)
Which can precisely be the problem if the natural, merit-based pecking order is at odds with the imposed hierarchy. I've known enough managers that found themselves in the difficult position of being the natural second fiddle to some of those they were supposed to be managing. One of them handled it well in paying great attention to what they were told and learning rapidly. The other was so well respected for the areas that they were more suitable to lead on that it wasn't an issue. The rest of them all handled it by being complete arseholes to their staff.
Work is an unnatural hierarchy most of the time. There is none of the evening out of status over time that occurs in natural groups. The loop of feedback is distorted by power (in both directions). That is why it is often best to keep a strict boundary between the work and life, unless one wants to consider your manager your superior in your social life as well.
Holy corproate jibberish (Score:3, Insightful)