3 ms·

If as an individual contributor you produce 8 points per week, as a manager you're not going to get other team members to produce 12 - unless they are much bett

If as an individual contributor you produce 8 points per week, as a manager you're not going to get other team members to produce 12 - unless they are much better developers than you were in the first place. What you can do, instead, is allowing your devs to stay at the maximum of their productivity even as the team grows - which is a challenge. And, even more importantly, you should ensure that those "points" that they develop actually contribute to the team's goals.

burlesona 8y ago
I agree with what you’re saying. When trying to coin an example I was imagining a team of ten with little in the way of focus and leadership, which means a lot of interrupts, conflicts, and changes in direction (ie lost points), compared to the same team with an effective leader clearing the way for them operate as you describe. It’s admittedly a contrived example. The interesting thing is that at that team size you really only need to have each team member “gain 1 point” for the “manager switch” to be “worth it” since 9x9 > 10x8. The point being that as the number of humans, good leadership is increasingly valuable.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  > The interesting thing is that at that team size you really only need to have each team member “gain 1 point” for the “manager switch” to be “worth it” since 9x9 > 10x8. "Wow, only 1" isn't a good way of looking at it, since the points aren't measuring anything and therefore don't have any meaning in the example. At this team size, you need to have each team member increase their productivity by about 11%, 1 / (10 - 1). If we're calling their output "8 points", then the increase you need is just one point. If their output stays exactly the same, but we call it "a million points" instead of "8 points", then it's more than one point. Is achieving the 100,000+ point gain in the second scenario more difficult than achieving the 1-point gain in the first scenario? No.
- danmaz74 8y ago
  Ok, I got what you meant now :)

burlesona 8y ago

I agree with what you’re saying. When trying to coin an example I was imagining a team of ten with little in the way of focus and leadership, which means a lot of interrupts, conflicts, and changes in direction (ie lost points), compared to the same team with an effective leader clearing the way for them operate as you describe. It’s admittedly a contrived example. The interesting thing is that at that team size you really only need to have each team member “gain 1 point” for the “manager switch” to be “worth it” since 9x9 > 10x8. The point being that as the number of humans, good leadership is increasingly valuable.

thaumasiotes 8y ago
> The interesting thing is that at that team size you really only need to have each team member “gain 1 point” for the “manager switch” to be “worth it” since 9x9 > 10x8. "Wow, only 1" isn't a good way of looking at it, since the points aren't measuring anything and therefore don't have any meaning in the example. At this team size, you need to have each team member increase their productivity by about 11%, 1 / (10 - 1). If we're calling their output "8 points", then the increase you need is just one point. If their output stays exactly the same, but we call it "a million points" instead of "8 points", then it's more than one point. Is achieving the 100,000+ point gain in the second scenario more difficult than achieving the 1-point gain in the first scenario? No.
danmaz74 8y ago
Ok, I got what you meant now :)