---
title: "The Office Tech Wizard"
description: "Knowing how to operate a PDF viewer does not a tech wizard make; what it means to be good at your job."
date: 2024-09-21
tags:
  - Quick Thoughts
  - Rants
synopsis: "Knowing how to operate a PDF viewer does not a tech wizard make; what it means to be good at your job."
mastodon_id: "113178005978869507"
---

I came across [this submission to *Not Always Right*](https://notalwaysright.com/pdf-pretty-darn-futile-part-2/) today, and it got me thinking about some of the attitudes towards technology I've seen over the years. There is a contingent of people in many workplaces who believe they can do a perfectly good job without investing the time in learning about the tech they use each day; after all, their work gets done, doesn't it? We've all encountered this sort; the sort of person who's so far removed from a basic understanding of the tools they use each day that they'll brand you the office tech-wizard for knowing how to use the zoom function in a PDF viewer, copy and paste with the keyboard alone, or *(gasp!)* googling how to restart the print spooler when a job gets stuck. And sure, many of these folks do manage to get things done, but a problem arises when you consider *how.*

Early career folk don't have the luxury of being bad at their tools; it's sink or swim. So when older colleagues or those later in their career don't know how to use a particular piece of software, guess who has to pick up the slack? This isn't necessarily a problem in and of itself; there's nothing wrong with not knowing something and needing a bit of assistance, but this quickly becomes a problem when people decide that they are exempt from learning because of their age, position, workload, et cetera. At this stage, one individual's job becomes a team effort; because of someone's attitude towards technology, another person who also has their own tasks and responsibilities is *doing their job with them.*

In considering what it is to be good at one's job, let's leave outcomes off the table for a minute. If someone has to rely on a team to do their job, no matter the result, can they seriously claim to be good at it? Surely knowledge and experience are moot if someone cannot actually perform their work. What sort of value does this individual provide an organization when they systematically reduce the productivity of their more capable colleagues each day? Further, in what other industry can people get away with this attitude? It's unthinkable that there might be a mechanic who refused to learn to work a hammer, a writer who refuses to sharpen a pencil, or a microbiologist who can't operate a microscope and is just 'too swamped' to learn how to prepare a slide. To me, a white-collar worker not knowing how to use the zoom function in a PDF viewer is equally ridiculous when working with PDFs is something they do on a regular basis.

So when we consider whether we are good at what we do, atop knowledge, experience, and outcomes, let's include a few new criteria:

1. Do we create or reduce work for others?
2. Do we truly understand the tools that we use every day?
3. Can we perform basic maintenance and troubleshooting on our tools?

…or do we rely on a wizard?
