The internet has made a lot of people armchair experts happy to offer their perspective with a degree of certainty, without doing the work to identify gaps in their knowledge. Often the mark of genuine expertise is knowing the limitations of your knowledge.
This isn’t a social media thing exclusively of course, I’ve met it in the real world too.
When I worked as a repair technician, members of the public would ask me for my diagnosis of faults and then debate them with me.
I’ve dedicated the second half of my life to understanding people and how they work, in this field it’s even worse because everyone has opinions on that topic!
And yet my friend who has a physics PhD doesn’t endure people explaining why his theories about battery tech are incorrect because of an article they read or an anecdote from someone’s past.
So I’m curious, do some fields experience this more than others?
If you have a field of expertise do you find people love to debate you without taking into account the gulf of awareness, skills and knowledge?
HR is a funny one; if you know what you’re talking about about and can speak to different audiences at their level it’s not generally push back from a professional knowledge point–pushback for HR is usually “yeah but that is hard/not what I want” which is very different and totally fine.
Except fucking compensation. Glassdoor is the WebMD bane of comp conversations with employees. It’s a selection-bias informed group of people who provide salaries when they think they’re underpaid and need validation. While, for the most part we’re all underpaid, just like WebMD, the dangerous oversimplification of very nuanced and complex data is nothing but a PITA to people trying to to fix or work in good systems.
“I saw my job is being hired for $xx,xxx I should be getting that”. Location, industry, industry segment, education, KSA, org size, high variance in titles from one company to the next(manager here is VP there), every other pay/bonus/benefit/time off difference, internal pay equity considerations that are often statutory by state/feds–none is captured and people aren’t taught that those are part of comp. Just this title is $xx,xxx. The worst part is that managers run to HR with often this info directly supplied by candidates or their own employees all worked up HR is fucking them by underpaying. I’m the first person to tell a manager their comp is fucked against a market if it is, which helps build trust but it’s exhausting.
This plays out in every job offer, promotion, annual merit increase and any time you remind people they’re not coming to work for free.
Again, almost never see this in other areas if you know what the hell you’re doing in HR, but I guess the incentive and stakes are high enough in comp to make people just go off the deep end.
I have never experienced that world, and never heard what it’s like from that side. Really appreciate your insight just because it’s so different to all the “expert advice” that floats around on social media
If everyone got what their work was worth then the company couldn’t make profit as each individual’s contribution and pay would scale proportinally.
And since there are people who are overpaid (eg I) there will always be more underpaid people in total.
Just as body weight depends on calories in/out (work/pay) at the end, but what’s inside the diet (compensation package) is still important. (even though you could lose weight while only eating junk food, you shouldn’t)
I might just be the idiot here, but this is how it makes sense to me.