3 ms·

Ctrl-F "team"... Actually, fewer matches than I might have guessed, but even so there seems to be a great deal here about teams and interactions and very littl

by dasmoth 10y ago

Ctrl-F "team"... Actually, fewer matches than I might have guessed, but even so there seems to be a great deal here about teams and interactions and very little about letting smart individuals get on with things in private spaces.

trhway 10y ago
we've just seen it in the hardware - horizontal scaling, a huge number of well connected commodity elements beat standalone super-servers for most practical purposes and metrics. So, now we going to do that with human "wetware" too, and HR glamorizes itself as Kubernetes (with original system suitably called Borg at Google) in that brave new world.
- cle 10y ago
  > So, now we suppose that would work for human "wetware" too Why do you think it wouldn't?
  - dasmoth 10y ago
    It's not out of the question that they might. Although there's a countervailing view that humans motivated by passion perform better -- perhaps dramatically better -- than those who feel like cogs in a machine. Either way, it's an important issue for people who hope to find a working environment where they feel satisfied (which, to be clear, might for different people mean a preference for teamwork, solo-work, or perhaps some of each).
    - cle 10y ago
      > Although there's a countervailing view that humans motivated by passion perform better -- perhaps dramatically better -- than those who feel like cogs in a machine. I'm not sure that matters much. If it delivers more to the bottom line to treat people like cogs so that the org is more scalable, then that's probably what will happen. In modern distributed systems, we've de-emphasized vertical scalability (in our analogy, an individual's motivation and performance) to improve horizontal scalability, fault tolerance, flexibility, etc. It sucks to admit, but if your organization needs those kind of scaling characteristics, then treating your employees like cogs may be the most profitable organizational structure.
  - trhway 10y ago
    >Why do you think it wouldn't? i restated as i had used 'suppose' in the sense that we aren't there yet. And in some sense there is no question whether it will work or not - it is just our future and so it "will happen" instead of "will work"

by dasmoth 10y ago

trhway 10y ago

we've just seen it in the hardware - horizontal scaling, a huge number of well connected commodity elements beat standalone super-servers for most practical purposes and metrics. So, now we going to do that with human "wetware" too, and HR glamorizes itself as Kubernetes (with original system suitably called Borg at Google) in that brave new world.

cle 10y ago
> So, now we suppose that would work for human "wetware" too Why do you think it wouldn't?
- dasmoth 10y ago
  It's not out of the question that they might. Although there's a countervailing view that humans motivated by passion perform better -- perhaps dramatically better -- than those who feel like cogs in a machine. Either way, it's an important issue for people who hope to find a working environment where they feel satisfied (which, to be clear, might for different people mean a preference for teamwork, solo-work, or perhaps some of each).
  - cle 10y ago
    > Although there's a countervailing view that humans motivated by passion perform better -- perhaps dramatically better -- than those who feel like cogs in a machine. I'm not sure that matters much. If it delivers more to the bottom line to treat people like cogs so that the org is more scalable, then that's probably what will happen. In modern distributed systems, we've de-emphasized vertical scalability (in our analogy, an individual's motivation and performance) to improve horizontal scalability, fault tolerance, flexibility, etc. It sucks to admit, but if your organization needs those kind of scaling characteristics, then treating your employees like cogs may be the most profitable organizational structure.
- trhway 10y ago
  >Why do you think it wouldn't? i restated as i had used 'suppose' in the sense that we aren't there yet. And in some sense there is no question whether it will work or not - it is just our future and so it "will happen" instead of "will work"