7 ms·

> As a side-note, creating external deadlines is also a great way to rally a team My experience with this is that external deadlines work for teams that are un

by nvader 11y ago

> As a side-note, creating external deadlines is also a great way to rally a team My experience with this is that external deadlines work for teams that are unfocused and whose own motivation is low. However, for a team that is already executing well, an imposition of an external deadline (especially for a reason as poorly-thought-out as "to rally the team"), if it's aggressive enough to see increased throughput, will lead to poor processes, cut corners and burnout. Perhaps there is an element of rationalization here, where a poor manager, who failed to anticipate at a distance a goal that was then attainable, becomes aware of it once it is closer and in danger of passing by, and has to make huge efforts at re-prioritization and motivation to meet it. In hindsight, the manager rationalizes that the fire drill was a good thing for the company, because obviously, the deadline was achieved! Oh, and look, next week there's a customer coming on-site, wouldn't it be great if this other feature was added in time for that...? I have not had to build and lead a team yet myself, but the process I would follow, and the advice I would give others, is to choose to work with a focused, motivated team, and reduce the importance given to external deadlines. They should influence the prioritization given to relative projects, but cannot be used to crank the throughput nozzle.

thewhitetulip 11y ago
Yes, it irks the good team that there are new "deadlines" being set as if they can't meet the deadlines assigned to them. It is really lowering the team moral when done and should never be done. I was lucky to have an amazing manager for that one doomed project, we were 4-5 months behind timeline yet he said, "I am not going to micromanage you, I trust you that you'll deliver this on time" (he had been assigned halfway into the project), the project had escalated to one level lower than the CEO and the result? The team delivered! Because the team wasn't micro managed!
jakejake 11y ago
Once you do lead a team, which I'm sure you will do in the future if you're so inclined, It can be a bit harder than you would think! Even a team of all A players can flounder and never produce anything if you're not careful. For me the thing is that you just have to constantly adapt your plan as things develop. I don't think deadlines are inherently bad. But if you do set deadlines, the team needs to be a part of that process and the goals need to be based on reality rather than just arbitrary. If you have hard external deadlines, then that may dictate the features you can deliver. I find that developers (myself included) appreciate being able to focus on their individual tasks, knowing that the manager is making sure the ship is heading in the right direction.
- nostrademons 11y ago
  I've found that teams (and individuals) function best when tasks are either scope-delimited or time-delimited. Not both, and not neither. If the task is concrete enough that the desired outcome is crystal-clear and there's not much risk in completing it, then just say "It's done when it's done" and let someone work at it. If the task has fuzzy success criteria - "Make this UI better", for example, or "speed this up as much as you can", or "explore new approaches for this module" - put a deadline on it. It's possible to spin your wheels forever if you don't have a clear destination and clear timeframe.
  - holografix 11y ago
    This. So obvious and so right.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    I would say proficiency makes motivation even more critical, because proficient people know they can go wherever they want, so they're less inclined to put up with bullshit.
- segmondy 11y ago
  He didn't say "A players", he said, "Focused teams".
kaitai 11y ago
It doesn't sound like the guy said, "Let us search for an external deadline so that we can rally this team!" Instead, it sounds like a reasonable amount of time ahead he said, "Hey, there's a cool chance to demo this publicly coming up -- let's see if we can get it out there!" Sure, the guy was in some sense a manager, but this isn't some corporate situation with external motivation as one of the few rewards. It's a small team of people who are into the idea enough to work on it on the side, to begin with. The article presents this as an internally chosen external deadline, and those can often be really useful.
shostack 11y ago
100% agree. A-players don't need artificial deadlines because they are already pushing themselves hard to deliver at a solid pace. And if they slow down on something or need to take a more moderate pace for a bit, it is often to manage against their own risk of burnout and once they recover, they are back at it. Unfortunately, you can run into situation of mixed teams of A-players, B-players and C-players. While the C's should probably be let go, B-players often need deadlines because they are not driving things forward enough on their own (or they would be A-players). I have not found a good way to solve for this in a manner that doesn't constrain the A-player by the arbitrary deadline as well when they are all working on something together. Personally, I hate artificial deadlines. I want to do good work and put it out there when it is good enough to go out there (not perfect, just good enough), and not have to rush. Rushing leads to mistakes and overlooking things.
- mreiland 11y ago
  I think breaking people down into A, B, and C-players is dehumanizing bullshit.
  - gearoidoc 11y ago
    Right? And its totally possible for a supposed 'A player' to suffer a dip in productivity (due to, y'know, LIFE) and its similarly possible for a B player to upgrade to an A given enough experience. Overall the whole A/B/C boxing just smacks of 'humans as resources'.
    - holografix 11y ago
      Is it just me or the whole "I have to be an A player" just another way of dividing everyone into winners and losers, good or bad? I have a theory that because American society is so ultra-competitive it alienates people who think it's impossible for them to ever be "winners", leading to Some of these people to "win" by shooting the Winners and the indifferent. Are mass school shootings done by C players so think they won't ever be A players and who take it out on the perfect As and indifferent Bs?
the_watcher 11y ago
The benefit of external deadlines, for me, isn't so much about motivation, but about prioritization. When you have a lot of stuff you could be doing, deadlines are an effective tool in ensuring you work on what is most important. I don't think they should be the sole or even primary tool for this, but they're pretty helpful.

by nvader 11y ago

thewhitetulip 11y ago

Yes, it irks the good team that there are new "deadlines" being set as if they can't meet the deadlines assigned to them. It is really lowering the team moral when done and should never be done. I was lucky to have an amazing manager for that one doomed project, we were 4-5 months behind timeline yet he said, "I am not going to micromanage you, I trust you that you'll deliver this on time" (he had been assigned halfway into the project), the project had escalated to one level lower than the CEO and the result? The team delivered! Because the team wasn't micro managed!

jakejake 11y ago

Once you do lead a team, which I'm sure you will do in the future if you're so inclined, It can be a bit harder than you would think! Even a team of all A players can flounder and never produce anything if you're not careful. For me the thing is that you just have to constantly adapt your plan as things develop. I don't think deadlines are inherently bad. But if you do set deadlines, the team needs to be a part of that process and the goals need to be based on reality rather than just arbitrary. If you have hard external deadlines, then that may dictate the features you can deliver. I find that developers (myself included) appreciate being able to focus on their individual tasks, knowing that the manager is making sure the ship is heading in the right direction.

nostrademons 11y ago
I've found that teams (and individuals) function best when tasks are either scope-delimited or time-delimited. Not both, and not neither. If the task is concrete enough that the desired outcome is crystal-clear and there's not much risk in completing it, then just say "It's done when it's done" and let someone work at it. If the task has fuzzy success criteria - "Make this UI better", for example, or "speed this up as much as you can", or "explore new approaches for this module" - put a deadline on it. It's possible to spin your wheels forever if you don't have a clear destination and clear timeframe.
- holografix 11y ago
  This. So obvious and so right.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- s73v3r 11y ago
  I would say proficiency makes motivation even more critical, because proficient people know they can go wherever they want, so they're less inclined to put up with bullshit.
segmondy 11y ago
He didn't say "A players", he said, "Focused teams".

kaitai 11y ago

It doesn't sound like the guy said, "Let us search for an external deadline so that we can rally this team!" Instead, it sounds like a reasonable amount of time ahead he said, "Hey, there's a cool chance to demo this publicly coming up -- let's see if we can get it out there!" Sure, the guy was in some sense a manager, but this isn't some corporate situation with external motivation as one of the few rewards. It's a small team of people who are into the idea enough to work on it on the side, to begin with. The article presents this as an internally chosen external deadline, and those can often be really useful.

shostack 11y ago

100% agree. A-players don't need artificial deadlines because they are already pushing themselves hard to deliver at a solid pace. And if they slow down on something or need to take a more moderate pace for a bit, it is often to manage against their own risk of burnout and once they recover, they are back at it. Unfortunately, you can run into situation of mixed teams of A-players, B-players and C-players. While the C's should probably be let go, B-players often need deadlines because they are not driving things forward enough on their own (or they would be A-players). I have not found a good way to solve for this in a manner that doesn't constrain the A-player by the arbitrary deadline as well when they are all working on something together. Personally, I hate artificial deadlines. I want to do good work and put it out there when it is good enough to go out there (not perfect, just good enough), and not have to rush. Rushing leads to mistakes and overlooking things.

mreiland 11y ago
I think breaking people down into A, B, and C-players is dehumanizing bullshit.
- gearoidoc 11y ago
  Right? And its totally possible for a supposed 'A player' to suffer a dip in productivity (due to, y'know, LIFE) and its similarly possible for a B player to upgrade to an A given enough experience. Overall the whole A/B/C boxing just smacks of 'humans as resources'.
  - holografix 11y ago
    Is it just me or the whole "I have to be an A player" just another way of dividing everyone into winners and losers, good or bad? I have a theory that because American society is so ultra-competitive it alienates people who think it's impossible for them to ever be "winners", leading to Some of these people to "win" by shooting the Winners and the indifferent. Are mass school shootings done by C players so think they won't ever be A players and who take it out on the perfect As and indifferent Bs?

the_watcher 11y ago

The benefit of external deadlines, for me, isn't so much about motivation, but about prioritization. When you have a lot of stuff you could be doing, deadlines are an effective tool in ensuring you work on what is most important. I don't think they should be the sole or even primary tool for this, but they're pretty helpful.