5 ms·

As a counterpoint: stand-ups can be a great way to operate a team without a managers, tech leads, or assigned work: http://deliberate-software.com/self-organizi

As a counterpoint: stand-ups can be a great way to operate a team without a managers, tech leads, or assigned work: http://deliberate-software.com/self-organizing-balance/ http://deliberate-software.com/self-organizing-balance/ I think "bad stand-ups" is a symptom you are using a self-organizing practice in a command-and-control team.

js8 9y ago
This is nice in theory, but I am afraid it fails quickly in practice. I am a leftist, but I don't believe self-organizing works in situations where there is some higher level of control. People don't have incentive to self-organize in small scale, if there is some other big beneficiary outside their control. This is very abstract, so let me give two examples of what I mean. 1. In communist countries, sometimes, self-organization was tried on the level of individual state-owned companies (basically they were supposed to run as worker-owned cooperatives). It mostly failed horribly. But all of these countries were dictatorships with top-level, directive planning of the economy. So these "cooperatives" were still subject to larger plans, and that broke the incentive (or will) to self-organize. 2. Similarly, even though many companies try to have people self-organize, it falls flat because of the basic capitalistic premise - that there is an owner (or multiple owners) to the whole enterprise. This owner takes in a large amount of economic profit, which, if the team was truly self-organizing, would stay within the team. This breaks the incentive to self-organize. Why make something more efficient (even as a group) if some other people are going to decide how much you benefit? So I think, taken my and your conclusions together, bad stand-ups are inevitable, except maybe in worker cooperatives (which are actually very efficient in capitalist economy, that is, if they operate entirely for the benefits of their own members).
- JackMorgan 9y ago
  I disagree with the premise that self-organization can only work when people are motivated by money. I believe that money is only a component of motivation, and sometimes a negative one. Intrinsic motivations like mastery and a job well done are much more effective in my opinion. You should check out the book "Reinventing Organizations" which is a case study of 12 successful self-organizing companies and how they do it. Also I'd like to hear your feedback to my post that shows how my team has accomplished it for over a decade and counting.
  - js8 9y ago
    Thanks for the book recommendation. It's not really that much about money, as it is about that you cannot built a non-hierarchy at the bottom of hierarchy. The non-hierarchy must come from the top. Maybe there are some outliers for which it works out, because the top level management buys into it, but I don't see it happening in most normal organizations.
watwut 9y ago
Self organization means that multiple wanna be dominant devs will attempt to make themselves leads - leading to ugly politics and constant attempts to micromanage other team members. Single clear and accountable leader is much better way.
- JackMorgan 9y ago
  You've shown one way self-organizing teams can fail. That is not true for all teams. I can similarly show a way a clear, accountable leader can fail: they can be good enough at politics to make a huge, micromanaged mess yet have all the blame placed on their team and get promoted. Just because sometimes it does happen, it doesn't mean it always happens ;)
  - watwut 9y ago
    Self organization witout accountability works when all of you are perfect and there is no pressure or blame game going on. It works only rarely. There are bad and good managers obviously, but most bad managers basically force team to self organize. In any case, it takes only one team member to be aggressive micromanager in order to blow self organization in hell.
- js8 9y ago
  Alternatively, you can have democracy (either direct or representative). That solves precisely this problem. No matter what politics is played, in democracy, you always have the same vote. So fighting for power becomes meaningless (actually, not quite so, but it becomes possible for you not to get hurt even if you don't do it as a full time job). There indeed are self-managed enterprises which use democratic principles (worker cooperatives), and they work quite well. However, I understand that people who try to sell "self-management" to companies avoid mentioning democracy, because, as I said, there is an elephant in the room and that is that the capitalist organizations (capital-owned) are fundamentally not democratic from the workers perspective.

js8 9y ago

This is nice in theory, but I am afraid it fails quickly in practice. I am a leftist, but I don't believe self-organizing works in situations where there is some higher level of control. People don't have incentive to self-organize in small scale, if there is some other big beneficiary outside their control. This is very abstract, so let me give two examples of what I mean. 1. In communist countries, sometimes, self-organization was tried on the level of individual state-owned companies (basically they were supposed to run as worker-owned cooperatives). It mostly failed horribly. But all of these countries were dictatorships with top-level, directive planning of the economy. So these "cooperatives" were still subject to larger plans, and that broke the incentive (or will) to self-organize. 2. Similarly, even though many companies try to have people self-organize, it falls flat because of the basic capitalistic premise - that there is an owner (or multiple owners) to the whole enterprise. This owner takes in a large amount of economic profit, which, if the team was truly self-organizing, would stay within the team. This breaks the incentive to self-organize. Why make something more efficient (even as a group) if some other people are going to decide how much you benefit? So I think, taken my and your conclusions together, bad stand-ups are inevitable, except maybe in worker cooperatives (which are actually very efficient in capitalist economy, that is, if they operate entirely for the benefits of their own members).

JackMorgan 9y ago
I disagree with the premise that self-organization can only work when people are motivated by money. I believe that money is only a component of motivation, and sometimes a negative one. Intrinsic motivations like mastery and a job well done are much more effective in my opinion. You should check out the book "Reinventing Organizations" which is a case study of 12 successful self-organizing companies and how they do it. Also I'd like to hear your feedback to my post that shows how my team has accomplished it for over a decade and counting.
- js8 9y ago
  Thanks for the book recommendation. It's not really that much about money, as it is about that you cannot built a non-hierarchy at the bottom of hierarchy. The non-hierarchy must come from the top. Maybe there are some outliers for which it works out, because the top level management buys into it, but I don't see it happening in most normal organizations.

watwut 9y ago

Self organization means that multiple wanna be dominant devs will attempt to make themselves leads - leading to ugly politics and constant attempts to micromanage other team members. Single clear and accountable leader is much better way.

JackMorgan 9y ago
You've shown one way self-organizing teams can fail. That is not true for all teams. I can similarly show a way a clear, accountable leader can fail: they can be good enough at politics to make a huge, micromanaged mess yet have all the blame placed on their team and get promoted. Just because sometimes it does happen, it doesn't mean it always happens ;)
- watwut 9y ago
  Self organization witout accountability works when all of you are perfect and there is no pressure or blame game going on. It works only rarely. There are bad and good managers obviously, but most bad managers basically force team to self organize. In any case, it takes only one team member to be aggressive micromanager in order to blow self organization in hell.
js8 9y ago
Alternatively, you can have democracy (either direct or representative). That solves precisely this problem. No matter what politics is played, in democracy, you always have the same vote. So fighting for power becomes meaningless (actually, not quite so, but it becomes possible for you not to get hurt even if you don't do it as a full time job). There indeed are self-managed enterprises which use democratic principles (worker cooperatives), and they work quite well. However, I understand that people who try to sell "self-management" to companies avoid mentioning democracy, because, as I said, there is an elephant in the room and that is that the capitalist organizations (capital-owned) are fundamentally not democratic from the workers perspective.