When Worlds Collide: Tech vs. Non-Tech

Differences in work styles, emotional expression, perceptions, and understanding, between technical and non-technical people can result in misunderstanding, conflict, or limited collaboration and productivity. Or not, if an effort is made to identify and act on the differences.

 
 

The first step is identifying those differences.

The Geek Leaders Handbook by Paul Glen & Maria McManus [1] does a great job of delving into some of the differences between geeks and non-geeks. Here are some examples loosely inspired from the book:

  • Example: Your IT Specialist is resistant (even a little arrogant) when you come to them suggesting your fix to the problem with your laptop, because they want to fully understand what the problem is first (as if you didn’t) before deciding on the solution.

The Differences: For some people, work is about solving problems. They plan for the result (the future) by starting with the present and moving forward with a series of steps. For others, work is about achieving a vision. They plan by starting with the result (the future) and stepping backward.

  • Example: Your VP Sales comes to you with a visionary proposal to move the entire sales organization to a new CRM, which has automated the latest in sales techniques and Big Data concepts. You express skepticism and concern for the many unidentified and unknown risks.

The Differences: For some people, the future is promising. They are more concerned about the future’s attractiveness than its plausibility. For others, the future is looming. They plan for the worst and think the future is a fantasy unless there is a clear and plausible plan to create it.

 
 
  • Example: You asked two teams to evaluate several business proposals. One team made their recommendation based on extensive analysis and comparison of the submitted information, and consulted the proposers only for clarification. The other team made their recommendation based on summary analysis of the proposals and extensive meetings with the proposer’s key players and their referrals. The two recommendations do not match.

The Differences: Some people know and believe rationally, through objective and detailed analysis and validation of all components. Others know and believe viscerally, in their gut, by getting the gist, connecting to their own experience, and checking with others.

  • Example: Back to your Sales VP asking you to build them a new CRM. The VP is looking for the answer to be a simple “yes” because they know it’s possible. You, on the other hand, are asking for details and rationale that support your commitment to their request.

The Differences: Some people use language as an experience to convey subjective meaning. Others use language as a process to convey concise, precise, and objective information.

 
 
  • Example: A product manager previewing a presentation of a 3-year product roadmap with a Tech Team Leader was surprised when the team leader became very upset with the slide with specific dates on it. “How can you possibly commit to delivering on those dates? I won’t have anything to do with it.”

The Differences: For some people, “truth” is absolute and sacred, based on facts known to be true. Hyperbole, exaggeration, and opinions stated as facts are lies and deeply offensive. For others, they’re only lying if they say something known to be absolutely false.

  • Example: When the network architect discovered the two remote sites had implemented their networks clearly not following the documented network design and rules, she lost all trust in them. “I can’t work with them any more.” The general managers at the two sites argued that their techs followed “the spirit” of the design and rules without compromising security.

The Differences: For some people, right and wrong are relative: shades of gray. Every situation is different, and feelings and intuition should be taken into consideration. For others, right and wrong are absolute: black or white. Structure, rules, consistency, process, and fairness must be considered.

  • Example: The committee working on the hybrid work plan was at odds and unable to get agreement. One camp wanted the arrangement to be flexible, aiming for inspiring and energizing the employees’ productivity, while the other camp focused on cost-savings and uniformity, aiming for ease of administering the plan, tracking performance, and separating the employee’s typically emotionally-influenced personal life and their work life.

The Differences: Some people make decisions taking desire into consideration. Feelings are important; if you don’t express them, you might be overlooking aspects of trust, inspiration, and reliability. Others make decisions based only on facts and logic, considering desire and other feelings as arbitrary, volatile, immature, and moody.

 
 

These examples are illustrative and may be a little dramatic or oversimplified. But consider what similar instances of behavioral differences (not necessarily prototypically geek or otherwise) you have that have resulted in misunderstanding or conflict, or might have if not managed properly.


The Five C’s

When you encounter differences like these, what are your options?

Differences that lead to polarization result in choices where someone wins, and someone loses. Differences that lead to unification result in choices where everyone wins.

When a leader discovers and taps into the common interest of people engaged in conflict or resisting a change, the resulting dialog and exchange of information and ideas can redefine the situation as an opportunity to which everyone agrees. Finding that commonality – overlap – requires deep listening and creative, outside-the-box-style facilitating, to open minds and hearts.

Consider following this general outline:

  1. Compassion: Develop mutual compassion and empathy. Listen respectfully and carefully to what the other is saying, to understand things from their perspective without defending your own. This is not about agreement with their differences, just understanding them.

  2. Curiosity: Explore what’s behind or underneath the differences. What other related experiences are they having/ have they had? Is there something else going on that hasn’t been put on the table? Why is this so important to them? What makes them tick?

  3. Commonality: Find areas where there is agreement. It might help to try for only 10% agreement. Step back and look at a bigger context in other dimensions: organization, calendar/time, life, career, goals, values, norms, etc. What can/ does everyone agree with?

  4. Creativity: Identify what to adapt, reframe, reposition, experience, learn, grow, or otherwise change in the circumstances so the differences are acknowledged and valued and aligned with the identified commonalities. What are the gifts and opportunities to be gained by working together? What is everyone willing to do to make this work?

  5. Commitment: Make it so. Engage. Take the defined steps. Pay attention to the outcomes to catch any areas where additional differences arise, and loop back to take other iterations.

 
 

I recommend The Geek Leaders Handbook [1] for much more analysis and detail of the differences between geeks and non-geeks and how to work with them, beyond what I’ve offered here. In addition, Positive Intelligence® [2] provides a more generalized framework for understanding your own and others’ differing mindsets and resolving the resulting conflicts.


My approach to leadership coaching is less focused on managerial skills, like setting strategy and direction, defining organization, monitoring and measuring performance, and communicating, and more focused on leadership attitude, mindset and energy. I coach Positive Intelligence® [2] and other attitude, energy, and mindset practices, especially (but not exclusively) for mid-level high-tech leaders.

If you are feeling inspired to build, reestablish, or further develop these and other leadership practices, check out my Energy and Mindset Reboot Program and find out what it can do for you in a free 30-minute Discovery Session.


 

“It is the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) that those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.” – Charles Darwin

 

[*] References:

[1] Paul Glen & Maria McManus, The Geek Leader’s Handbook: Essential Leadership Insight for People with Technical Backgrounds, Leading Geeks Press, Los Angeles, CA, ©2014 https://a.co/d/jeqLtYP

[2] Shirzad Chamine, Positive Intelligence: Why Only 20% of Teams and Individuals Achieve Their True Potential and How You Can Achieve Yours, Geenleaf Book Group Press, Austin, TX, ©2012 https://a.co/d/3NCZUXZ