3 ms·

Im sure if you are higher up in this Ponzi Scheme you have all the time for a sophisticated justification. But where i am, we need our attention on problem sol

Im sure if you are higher up in this Ponzi Scheme you have all the time for a sophisticated justification. But where i am, we need our attention on problem solving, attention on important (often cross-department) details - we do not have the time and resources for procedure-obsessed bureaucrats, leeching initiative and resources into there little Japanese gardens of power, while the project as a whole suffers- and all that ever returns from your proposed silod departments is excuses, blame-shifting and informal orders to not reveal information to other departments working on the same project. I understand that this is human nature and it must run its course, because those who could actually fight it - are actually fighting for it. Still, if you are in a company to innovate and push the boundaries of tech (which usually needs short com-paths, teamwork and the ability to bounce ideas informal), this is the end of your path in this company. Oh, and before you try to wriggle out by pointing at the "innovation" initiatives started by CEOs noticing the absence of exactly this- which becomes just another shiny hot powerpoint potato being pin balled from department to department. No, that is not it. Finally something positive- sometimes.. power aggregates, and some control freak snatches too much of it, merging departments, and this one guy, running hierarchical amok, breaks the spell for a time. He basically destroys the attempts of the hierarchy to sabotage communication, by directly sampling data and pushing worthwhile endeavors against the resistance of the apparatus. You should hear middle-management hiss at the employees, after the manager-type (lets call him the boar), just casually talks to the people involved and gets Information and Ideas, that where "NOT-SUPPOSED-TO-BE-COMMUNICATED", enabling work to be done and problems to be solved. Subversion saves the day and nobody admits it. So here is, though i detest the personality type when in personal contact, a toast to the likes of Steve - who at least get things done after the calcification sets in.

lostcolony 9y ago
I have 5 years as a dev, and two as a lead dev/architect. I am only recently taking on management tasks. My comment is not biased because I am "higher up in this ponzi scheme", it is predicated on -what I have seen-. You are living in the happy little world I got to live in before my current job (when I was simply a senior dev), where there was enough protection of the dev team that I didn't need to concern myself about the business (beyond the occasional clarification of a story), didn't need to concern myself with departmental and organizational 'politics', and when I saw it I rolled my eyes at it, hated it, decided I'd never deal with that sort of thing, etc. But even at the dev team level there were 'politics'; technical decisions would oftentimes be made based on who had the most clout. Now, that clout was usually due to, de facto, speaking to what the rest of the team cared about, understood, etc (i.e., technical language and priorities). But once you go inter-disciplinary, that stops being true. Fundamentally, most people want to succeed, and they recognize that the way to do that is delivering results. Sometimes there are leeches, who learn to abuse the system and take credit while not helping deliver. It's abuses like this that deserve our condemnation. But the fact is that in an organization there are multiple roles, with differing priorities, and differing definitions of 'success', and fundamentally the way you deal with that -requires- a level of empathy and influence. You can decry it all you like, but that's reality, and something you'd benefit from adapting to rather than objecting to. I'd love it if everyone was technical, even those whose roles are solely focused on business direction and strategy. I'd love it if everyone thought like me, prioritized like me, and was completely objective in making decisions. But that's simply not the world we live in, and, I suspect, that would actually lead to a worse outcome (I'm not good at sales, for instance, and I don't have the insight into how best to sell something, even if it's technically superior and the UX is better than any competitors). You don't have to like it (and again, I -don't- like it), but that's the truth. Please note, I'm not saying that every org is healthy. But I -am- saying that regardless of the health, understanding what people's motivations are, and how best to disseminate, discuss, debate, and prioritize information given the context you're in will help you tremendously.

lostcolony 9y ago

I have 5 years as a dev, and two as a lead dev/architect. I am only recently taking on management tasks. My comment is not biased because I am "higher up in this ponzi scheme", it is predicated on -what I have seen-. You are living in the happy little world I got to live in before my current job (when I was simply a senior dev), where there was enough protection of the dev team that I didn't need to concern myself about the business (beyond the occasional clarification of a story), didn't need to concern myself with departmental and organizational 'politics', and when I saw it I rolled my eyes at it, hated it, decided I'd never deal with that sort of thing, etc. But even at the dev team level there were 'politics'; technical decisions would oftentimes be made based on who had the most clout. Now, that clout was usually due to, de facto, speaking to what the rest of the team cared about, understood, etc (i.e., technical language and priorities). But once you go inter-disciplinary, that stops being true. Fundamentally, most people want to succeed, and they recognize that the way to do that is delivering results. Sometimes there are leeches, who learn to abuse the system and take credit while not helping deliver. It's abuses like this that deserve our condemnation. But the fact is that in an organization there are multiple roles, with differing priorities, and differing definitions of 'success', and fundamentally the way you deal with that -requires- a level of empathy and influence. You can decry it all you like, but that's reality, and something you'd benefit from adapting to rather than objecting to. I'd love it if everyone was technical, even those whose roles are solely focused on business direction and strategy. I'd love it if everyone thought like me, prioritized like me, and was completely objective in making decisions. But that's simply not the world we live in, and, I suspect, that would actually lead to a worse outcome (I'm not good at sales, for instance, and I don't have the insight into how best to sell something, even if it's technically superior and the UX is better than any competitors). You don't have to like it (and again, I -don't- like it), but that's the truth. Please note, I'm not saying that every org is healthy. But I -am- saying that regardless of the health, understanding what people's motivations are, and how best to disseminate, discuss, debate, and prioritize information given the context you're in will help you tremendously.