I have a different take: Volunteer for the most difficult, nasty project your company has. Put a huge time estimate on it, then just chug along, but eventually get it done, and on time. This keeps you from being pestered by all the little things that come up, plus you need to focus, so working from home is acceptable sometimes, and when it's done, you look like a hero.

I'm with you. It seems like the articles points are, "How to survive at a dysfunctional company for a while." The most successful people I know are the go-getter type, not fake "look how busy I am" people, but people who really took on unique challenges and did them. Being a decent soldier and shirking off a lot of the nonsense would make you decently paid with a some job security, but I reckon it's not the way to get far ahead. But everyone has different priorities - it seems like a lot of people aren't look for much out of work besides some stability and a paycheck, then they enjoy their families, hobbies, friends, projects outside of work. That seems like it can be good too.

I think most are misinterpreting this article. Take a look at Dudley B.'s other writing. It's all a tongue-in-cheek commentary on office life, a la Dilbert. For example, "How to surf the web at work and avoid wandering eyes" (http://www.examiner.com/x-3040-Life-in-the-Cubicle-Examiner~...)

I'd say most of his satire is very much on point.

I find his humor "elusive." I much prefer The Register's BOFH though I haven't read it in years.

Right, so what he said is not advise? Cus I was beginning to think that the guy is deluded, because well there is nothing to support what he says. I mean, if I want opinions I can turn on the telly and listen to politicians parrot all day!

The real problems most companies have can't be solved without pissing a lot of people off, tho'. Unless all the people whose decisions lead you into that situation are no longer there...

8. When stuck in a meeting with clueless people debating insignificant details, throw out a critical valid technical issue that hadn't been considered and dramatically alters the conversation. This is generally easy to do if you're a hacker with his finger on the pulse of the project. It also accomplishes 2 things:

- It bolsters your reputation both as a technical expert and a team player.

- It ends the meeting by freezing everyone else's brain in an endless loop.

You must live in a fantasy land where the people working around you rational adults.

Doing this in the real world will lead people to thinking you are a "dick".

I've used it to good effect, depending on the audience.

The type of meetings that this works in usually involve multiple levels of management and serve more as a forum for peacocking.

Just remark that your presence is not required/useful/necessary for discussion about [the irrelevant subject under discussion] and leave.

That is a great way to marginalize yourself. Better is to have your laptop and say "I'll have one ear in the conversation, and I'm here if you need my input, but otherwise, I've got this SUPER HUGE IMPORTANT thing to crank on." Then you can be excused, in one sense or the other. Of course, it is better still to run the meeting so it happens correctly.

Of course, the first course of action is taking over direction of the meeting when required, but if that doesn't work, a few words with the proper intonation will make the point as clearly as pulling out your laptop. It'll burn some karma, but as a proper slacker you should have enough of it :P.

At my last job, this would either:

A. Add another hour to the meeting. B. Add a second meeting to solve the problem, which I would be required to chair. C. Both A & B.

I find myself doing some of these without even realising. I don't think that makes me a slacker, I just don't like people walking all over me.

Has the heroic connotation that the word 'slacker' was imbued with during the generation-x heydays of the 90s completely eroded now? This must be what it feels like to be past one's prime. Linklater, help me.

Slackers are now hipsters; same basic sense of entitlement.

That's an interesting reaction - primarily because a sense of entitlement, to me, seems like neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for being either hip or slack. It also seems like you're suggesting that hipsters did not exist until recently, which strikes me as untenable.

Fashion takes work...too much work, in my opinion. Perhaps you say this because they both drink lattes?

It's also an inaccurate characterization of the "slacker" literary genre. The gen-X "slacker" persona was always more about the cultural malaise caused by the dramatically lower lifestyle prospects afforded to the post-boomer generation, than it was about being "entitled" (for those who are interested, go read "Generation X" by Coupland to see the origin of the genre. It's also a really good book.) Hipsters have been around for a lot longer than that (since the Beat Generation, at least), and are more defined by hedonism and rebellion than by disillusionment.

While I don't think that these sorts of stereotypes are terribly precise (or incredibly useful), it is sort of interesting that younger generations seem to be lumping together gen-X-ers, hipsters, and Holden Caulfield together under the label of "entitled". If you ask me, the current generation of college kids are far more "entitled" by any conventional definition, so it's a curious choice.

Now get off my lawn. :-)

The destruction of Europe and post-war prosperity and the advance of technology has led Americans to grow progressively more entitled. It's no wonder kids today lump it all together, because in general any American under 60 is way more self-entitled than is warranted under current global conditions.

Well, they are entitled. Its their world. its their life, they have been educated of such high ideals as democracy an human rights and they are richer than any previous generation.

slackers wear flannel shirts and loose jeans.

hipsters wear flannel shirts and tight jeans.

slackers drink Grain Belt Premium.

hipsters drink PBR.

slackers smoke marlboros.

hipsters smoke parliament lights.

slackers listen to pavement.

hipsters listen to MGMT remixes.

slackers have jobs but don't do any work.

hipsters don't have jobs at all.

by definition if you have an engineering degree and are working on your startup or at google you aren't a slacker or a hipster.

get it straight.

I agree, I find that I do most of these (and a few others that I wont share) just to gain back a bit of control.

While I didn't think all of the advice was that great (send e-mail in all caps to a fellow employee?), I did rather enjoy the lighthearted tone. And I think #3 is especially valid for programmers who use that extra time for learning new stuff or doing an interesting side project (or even just resting one's hands).

The CAP email will never result in anything good, but yes #3 is how those of us not lucky enough to work at google can implement our own 20% time policy.

"Go-getters are always busy but they only focus on tasks that get noticed by executives. These tasks are usually highly visible but rarely important to the success of the company."

I stopped taking this article seriously at this point.

Are people voting this up because they think it's funny? There's not much here that rings true, in my opinion.

"Eating lunch at your desk is like landing on Free Parking and not taking the cash in the middle."

That's my new favourite quote!

In the spirit of the article I will state as a highly organized type that I stopped reading at this point since the rules of Monopoly clearly state that cash is not placed at Free Parking and it is simple a resting place. http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/monins.pdf

/liked getting money at that spot anyway

Being lazy can motivate efficiency. But efficiency should not be sacrificed with productivity.

Maybe it's just me, but I want to be productive as much as possible. Sometimes the desire to be busy keeps me busy when I accomplish little of worth. My daily photography blog at blipfoto motivates me to look back at the end of a day and see what I actually got done. It is motivational when I don't get lazy with it. Which brings me back to my initial point, if you can work smart, why not work smart at working hard (or is it work hard at working smart)?

Being an effective slacker sounds very oxymoronic to me.

I strongly disagree with the #1. In my practice, volunteering allows you to secure a rewarding, easy-to-finish-on-schedule task preemptively, while mundane, troublesome and underappreciated tasks are subsequently assigned to other co-workers.

Also, by volunteering you show the boss you actually care and are always ready to work, making you a valuable and trusty employee. Which other colleagues must earn with hard work.

Pick your preferred tasks early and often! ;)

Being a loafer is even better than being a slacker. This essay reminded me of Dick Wolff's Parting Shot column from the April 1987 Guns and Ammo where he goes on about the joys of being a loafer. I couldn't find it with Google, so it may not be on the web (if it is, somebody please leave a URL).

It's "highly effective" in terms of the slacking. Not necessarily benefiting the company.

Don't worry, I'd wager that around 90% of the people in most large companies are already doing this, the rest are actively climbing that ladder.

Of course there are others who aren't part of the equation at all.

#2, I think, is key.

"CAP" them.

Awesome.

This guy really does not like his job! I suggest he starts working as a waiter, or bar attender, or whatever job he considers fun albeit low paid and work on what he really wants to in the evenings and weekend.

What's the point of working in a company where you'd rather flip the coin than do your work. I mean the tasks that he has to do can;t be more boring than flipping a coin!