3 ms·

What you have just described is the political reasons for not giving your employees agency in making their own decisions. Technically, while each stack might pr

by dkhenry 10y ago

What you have just described is the political reasons for not giving your employees agency in making their own decisions. Technically, while each stack might provide similar value proposition, familiarity and experience with a given stack are an organizational value that even given two equals would cause any rational person to pick the known and understood stack. Essentially you nailed the facts with your first line. If everyone is rational and had the same goals these things sort themselves out. Problems arise when people are not acting with the same goals or values, and on occasion they are not acting rationally ( it has been my experience that differing goals and values are so frequently the cause that assuming irrationality is just noise you can ignore ) So given people with differing goals and values they come to different conclusions about how to pursue those goals. Unless you hire sociopaths most of your employees will want the firm to do well and work with functional tech stacks that accomplish the stated goal of the company. However people in tech leadership don't always share that goal. They make decisions based much more on personal utility then the average worker. They might sign that sweetheart deal with a vendor because they see it as an avenue for a career change in the near future, or they might want to make sure no one below them starts to outshine them so they keep the stack something they understand ( knowing full well that someone not in leadership has much more time to persue learning ), or they know if they force an outdated but well known stack they can hire cheap. In general none of those conditions are good for people actually doing the work and they know it which is why they push back. It gets propagated up the stack as naivete or fad chasing, but in general its leadership insulating their position ahead of the company or their co-workers. Those leaders fail and those companies fail. When decisions like this are pushed down from on high look out, its generally a sign of bad culture and a bad company

cookiecaper 10y ago
>Technically, while each stack might provide similar value proposition, familiarity and experience with a given stack are an organizational value that even given two equals would cause any rational person to pick the known and understood stack. This is not at all the case. There are many rational arguments to be made for abandoning an outmoded-but-already-in-place practice or stack, regardless of the knowledge base that already exists in the company. Many people could and would suggest a conversion to a new platform in good faith. Sometimes this would be the right decision, and sometimes it wouldn't; it really depends on the particulars of the organization. > If everyone is rational and had the same goals these things sort themselves out. People are not always going to have the same goals. You can't limit your organization to a subset of people who are all ideologically aligned. Also, people frequently don't understand their motives for something; that is, they ascribe some rational-sounding reason to behaviors they are biologically driven to perform. They may fully believe their goals are aligned, but come to find out, they're not. >Unless you hire sociopaths most of your employees will want the firm to do well and work with functional tech stacks that accomplish the stated goal of the company. Sure, and since there are many tech stacks that would do well, this doesn't mean anything. People can disagree. When they disagree, the subjective judgment on the tradeoff must be passed up to a central authority. >However people in tech leadership don't always share that goal. They make decisions based much more on personal utility then the average worker. You're grossly overestimating the "average worker". The average tech workers wants to keep his job simple and easy so he can browse reddit all day at work. You also assume that these things don't factor into the decisions of average workers. They do. Some workers aspire to be leaders, and, less naive about human nature, are willing to employ some showmanship and artifice to get there. >In general none of those conditions are good for people actually doing the work and they know it which is why they push back. None of the conditions you listed are good, but mature technical leadership, including standardization on a reliable stack (and, of course, a willingness to make rare-but-justified exceptions) is a boon to all. >It gets propagated up the stack as naivete or fad chasing, but in general its leadership insulating their position ahead of the company or their co-workers. There is a great deal of naivete and fad chasing everywhere, inside and outside of leadership. The ability to recognize it is valuable. >Those leaders fail Quite the contrary. Leaders do these things because, as long as one maintains plausible deniability, they are rewarded richly. >and those companies fail. When decisions like this are pushed down from on high look out, its generally a sign of bad culture and a bad company Companies that understand human psychology, both in the public and in their employee base, are extremely successful, because ultimately power comes down to the consent and resources of others. They are also usually the companies people most want to work for.

by dkhenry 10y ago

cookiecaper 10y ago

>Technically, while each stack might provide similar value proposition, familiarity and experience with a given stack are an organizational value that even given two equals would cause any rational person to pick the known and understood stack. This is not at all the case. There are many rational arguments to be made for abandoning an outmoded-but-already-in-place practice or stack, regardless of the knowledge base that already exists in the company. Many people could and would suggest a conversion to a new platform in good faith. Sometimes this would be the right decision, and sometimes it wouldn't; it really depends on the particulars of the organization. > If everyone is rational and had the same goals these things sort themselves out. People are not always going to have the same goals. You can't limit your organization to a subset of people who are all ideologically aligned. Also, people frequently don't understand their motives for something; that is, they ascribe some rational-sounding reason to behaviors they are biologically driven to perform. They may fully believe their goals are aligned, but come to find out, they're not. >Unless you hire sociopaths most of your employees will want the firm to do well and work with functional tech stacks that accomplish the stated goal of the company. Sure, and since there are many tech stacks that would do well, this doesn't mean anything. People can disagree. When they disagree, the subjective judgment on the tradeoff must be passed up to a central authority. >However people in tech leadership don't always share that goal. They make decisions based much more on personal utility then the average worker. You're grossly overestimating the "average worker". The average tech workers wants to keep his job simple and easy so he can browse reddit all day at work. You also assume that these things don't factor into the decisions of average workers. They do. Some workers aspire to be leaders, and, less naive about human nature, are willing to employ some showmanship and artifice to get there. >In general none of those conditions are good for people actually doing the work and they know it which is why they push back. None of the conditions you listed are good, but mature technical leadership, including standardization on a reliable stack (and, of course, a willingness to make rare-but-justified exceptions) is a boon to all. >It gets propagated up the stack as naivete or fad chasing, but in general its leadership insulating their position ahead of the company or their co-workers. There is a great deal of naivete and fad chasing everywhere, inside and outside of leadership. The ability to recognize it is valuable. >Those leaders fail Quite the contrary. Leaders do these things because, as long as one maintains plausible deniability, they are rewarded richly. >and those companies fail. When decisions like this are pushed down from on high look out, its generally a sign of bad culture and a bad company Companies that understand human psychology, both in the public and in their employee base, are extremely successful, because ultimately power comes down to the consent and resources of others. They are also usually the companies people most want to work for.