3 ms·
In some previous team, I realized that some people working on very long tasks just gave bullshit updates. What they explained was interesting, it gave a sense o
by hrktb 8y ago
In some previous team, I realized that some people working on very long tasks just gave bullshit updates. What they explained was interesting, it gave a sense of progress, and they communicated well.
Too well perhaps, their small talk was on super minor or even unrelated stuff that they saw the previous day.
They were doing mainly exploratory work, and it made no sense to bring on board other people before they settled on a direction themselves.
I think ultimately a one size fits them all approach only “works” when the people on the fringe also play the game and bullshit (in a good light) their way around.
- still_grokking 8y agoIt's a good idea to waste valuable engineering time with "bullshit" (in a good light) small talk? OK… I likely will never understand the great minds behind management.
- jrumbut 8y agoIt's a trade off. Some of the communication is very valuable, and needs to happen for coordination, knowledge sharing, etc. The potential harm of that communication not happening is great, the risk of having a meeting go 15 minutes longer is worth trying to avoid (hence the article) but much smaller. However, if only some people speak that can create divisions in the team, or make it look like the speakers are the leading members when that may or may not be true. So to prevent that dynamic everyone says something, and people can help the team function better by coming up with a nifty one minute oration. Ultimately making software is a human endeavor. Sometimes a little small talk prevents the humans from feeling bad and not making software. Sometimes it has the opposite effect. The best managers figure out which case is true at a specific time and place and adapt. Good managers just have to pick what risks to take and live with the outcome.