Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!unc!fsks
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social
Subject: Re: Salemanship
Message-ID: <512@unc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 19:52:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.512
Posted: Fri Jun 28 19:52:54 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 03:32:41 EDT
References: <968@peora.UUCP> <1424@mtx5b.UUCP> 
Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 80
Xref: watmath net.singles:7580 net.social:757
Summary: 


Frank Silbermann:
>> It doesn't matter how good your ideas are if nobody will listen or accept
>> them.  It takes salesmanship to convince others to accept your ideas.
>> This ability can make the difference between outstanding career success
>> versus rotting in a dead-end position.
>>
>> I have seen too many top notch techies who couldn't sell themselves,
>> who were thus not only unappreciated and underpaid by their managers,
>> but under-utilized by their companies.

In article  edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes:
>I disagree.  I want technical people who are competent and who are
>reasonably articulate, but if they need to ``sell themselves'' in order
>to be appreciated and utilized, I'm failing in my job as a manager.  And
>if they have a salesman-like mentality, I'll likely not hire them no
>matter how technically competent they are.
>
>Perhaps what you've noticed, Frank, is the inability of some ``techies''
>to communicate what they are thinking in a reasonable and articulate
>way.  Or it is a failure of managment to deal with its people in a
>way that allows them best to express their ideas--I've certainly seen
>this happen a lot as well.  But I wouldn't call these things a lack of
>the employee's ``salemanship''.

Salesmanship includes the ability to communicate what you are thinking
in a reasonable and articulate way.  If you cannot do this, then you
cannot be a good salesman.

>Many times I've seen people work hard to sell an idea, but ignore the
>ideas of the rest of the team--and thus create a tremendous problem by
>this ``salesmanship''.  I want to discuss possibilities and choose based
>on facts, not on the size of the ego of whoever has the idea.  An idea
>should succeed or fail on its merits; although I'm certain that good
>ideas are often passed over because they aren't well-presented, this is
>a failure in trying to *express* them, not *sell* them.

I think your point is that, with the ability to communicate in a reasonable
and articulate way, the other parts of salesmanship (persuading people on
an emotional level) are unnecessary and, in your position, counter-productive.
Certainly, you know your own situation best, but let's look at it from
another perspective.

As long as the programmer continues to receive promotions, he will eventually
reach a position where his boss will not be interested in the technical details.
The boss will rate him largely on a subjective basis (e.g. does he look
professional and responsible?  Does he wear a Brooks Brothers suit?).
This is where salesmanship comes into play.  A data-processing systems-
analyst must be able to gain the confidence of the less technical users.
An EDP consultant must impress managers who may not know what is happening
on a technical level, but who control the budget.

People who ignore salesmanship do so at their own peril.  Note that
Univac and Burroughs lost out to IBM for this very reason, even though
both were companies were more technically advanced.

>To tie this in with net.singles: there is a big difference between
>liking yourself and expressing your thoughts well (something other
>people generally find attractive), and having ``salesmanship''.  The
>latter has its place--I don't intend to demean sales people--but it has
>no place in relationships, and although superficially attractive, it
>wears out pretty fast.

I think that is only partially true.  Salesmanship is the ability to
present your case in the way that will best appeal to your "prospect".
To borrow terminology from the Myers-Briggs personality studies, your
spouse may be a "feeler" rather than a "thinker".  In that case, it
would be more considerate of you to deal with her on an emotional level,
rather than always using "cold, unappealing logic."

Besides, what about the problem of _INITIATING_ a relationship,
i.e. getting that first date?  I will agree that coldly manipulative
people do not do so well in relationships over the long haul, but
they often do well at starting relationships.  Perhaps it's best
to be flexible -- using salesmanship while relationships are still
superficial, and then growing out of that mode as the relationship
becomes closer.  Or would such flexibility be too much for one person
to master?

	Frank Silbermann