5 ms·

I like your comment; I liked the Humility, Respect and Trust Framework from “Debugging Teams” a lot as well. However, what I also found is: geeks don’t care ab

I like your comment; I liked the Humility, Respect and Trust Framework from “Debugging Teams” a lot as well. However, what I also found is: geeks don’t care about the value they are creating/not creating all too often. If you are on the “other side of the table tasked to extract value from an engineering/science team” the amount of disrespect that you are facing from geeks is sometimes almost unbearable. As much as I hear things like “education or opinions do not matter - but facts and data and demonstrated competency” this only lasts as long as the people saying it feel it’s a waiver to demonstrate some “tolerance and openness as long as it means they got to do what they want”. What a lot of geeks don’t understand: yes, management also figures out “who is more results and product driven” and will shy away giving the “most impactful tasks” to the condescending folks... A lot of managers would enjoy their work more having a bit more technical expertise; but the same is true - and even more so - for geeks.

perl4ever 7y ago
"geeks don’t care about the value they are creating/not creating all too often." This is a two way street - mostly you don't actually want to hire someone who cares about the business, because they're not as easily exploited. I'm saying, yes, not caring about business value is a negative from one perspective, but culturally organizations have adapted to that and the person best suited to being plugged in to a position is someone who will work tirelessly on whatever you give them without caring one way or the other about the big picture. If they actually are interested in value, then they are going to be demotivated on a doomed or dysfunctional or immoral project.
- looping__lui 7y ago
  This sounds like a dysfunctional company to me. If somebody is a kick-ass programmer AND understands what value he is adding - he will be very successful at the company I am working right now. If he disagrees with his manager AND is right even more so. But the experience I made is that the “feedback and speaking” up is more driven by personal preference and “what do I want to work on” instead of business and customer need.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "This sounds like a dysfunctional company to me." Well, I hesitate to call something "dysfunctional" if it works. It becomes a subjective value judgment. Different companies have succeeded in different ways.
    - looping__lui 7y ago
      This does sound dysfunctional in a way that decision making is obviously happening more compartmentalized and individual ownership is severely limited. There is a reason why many super successful companies have values/culture: shift ownership and decision making as much to the people at the forefront as possible to avoid “managing them from the top”. Empowering engineers and scientists to develop a sense and say in product priorities is great, extremely difficult but speaks for a company that values contributions beyond a “specialization/niche”
- NikolaNovak 7y ago
  I've been a hands-on, reasonably respected and successful sysadmin/infra-architect type techie for almost two decades; and have then somehow ended up in what can best (and worst:P) be described as middle-management last couple of years. I spend inordinate amount of time trying to instill business sense into my team members; help them be aware of how their actions contribute to the good/bad/ugly outcomes; encourage both a sense of pride and responsibility; awareness of client priorities and position; etc. At the end of the day, I'm responsible for achieving business objectives. If all my team is aware of them, then all my team can strive towards them individually and collectively - without constant micromanaging from myself or anybody else. Now, different places work differently; but I've hated being treated as an "exchangeable resource" when I was a techie; I hate treating people as "exchangeable resources" now (or even calling them "resources":); and have explicitly taught project management intro class that in our culture we believe motivated, aware team members in good morale are for more productive. >> best suited to being plugged in to a position is someone who will work tirelessly on whatever you give them without caring one way or the other about the big picture Such a person would have to be monitored every second of their work to ensure they "work tirelessly" to something valuable and productive. Which means we now have 2+ people accomplishing the work of one - the "person working tirelessly" and the person "monitoring tirelessly". I am deeply, profoundly sympathetic if you've worked most of your career in a place that built that kind of cynicism. Certainly, I've built my own share of cynicism - I've worked at large enterprises 90% of my career and it's fascinating at times to witness the startup-oriented zeitgeist of HN. But never quite at the level where I believe it's actually better that my colleagues or team members don't have / don't care about business outcomes, or that my management is seeking such employees :<
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "I am deeply, profoundly sympathetic if you've worked most of your career in a place that built that kind of cynicism" My post wasn't really prompted by my past employment nearly as much as my interviews and phone screens in the past couple of years. I'm inferring what the norm is based on what people seem to be looking for. Specifically, an interest in technology for its own sake.

perl4ever 7y ago

"geeks don’t care about the value they are creating/not creating all too often." This is a two way street - mostly you don't actually want to hire someone who cares about the business, because they're not as easily exploited. I'm saying, yes, not caring about business value is a negative from one perspective, but culturally organizations have adapted to that and the person best suited to being plugged in to a position is someone who will work tirelessly on whatever you give them without caring one way or the other about the big picture. If they actually are interested in value, then they are going to be demotivated on a doomed or dysfunctional or immoral project.

looping__lui 7y ago
This sounds like a dysfunctional company to me. If somebody is a kick-ass programmer AND understands what value he is adding - he will be very successful at the company I am working right now. If he disagrees with his manager AND is right even more so. But the experience I made is that the “feedback and speaking” up is more driven by personal preference and “what do I want to work on” instead of business and customer need.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "This sounds like a dysfunctional company to me." Well, I hesitate to call something "dysfunctional" if it works. It becomes a subjective value judgment. Different companies have succeeded in different ways.
  - looping__lui 7y ago
    This does sound dysfunctional in a way that decision making is obviously happening more compartmentalized and individual ownership is severely limited. There is a reason why many super successful companies have values/culture: shift ownership and decision making as much to the people at the forefront as possible to avoid “managing them from the top”. Empowering engineers and scientists to develop a sense and say in product priorities is great, extremely difficult but speaks for a company that values contributions beyond a “specialization/niche”
NikolaNovak 7y ago
I've been a hands-on, reasonably respected and successful sysadmin/infra-architect type techie for almost two decades; and have then somehow ended up in what can best (and worst:P) be described as middle-management last couple of years. I spend inordinate amount of time trying to instill business sense into my team members; help them be aware of how their actions contribute to the good/bad/ugly outcomes; encourage both a sense of pride and responsibility; awareness of client priorities and position; etc. At the end of the day, I'm responsible for achieving business objectives. If all my team is aware of them, then all my team can strive towards them individually and collectively - without constant micromanaging from myself or anybody else. Now, different places work differently; but I've hated being treated as an "exchangeable resource" when I was a techie; I hate treating people as "exchangeable resources" now (or even calling them "resources":); and have explicitly taught project management intro class that in our culture we believe motivated, aware team members in good morale are for more productive. >> best suited to being plugged in to a position is someone who will work tirelessly on whatever you give them without caring one way or the other about the big picture Such a person would have to be monitored every second of their work to ensure they "work tirelessly" to something valuable and productive. Which means we now have 2+ people accomplishing the work of one - the "person working tirelessly" and the person "monitoring tirelessly". I am deeply, profoundly sympathetic if you've worked most of your career in a place that built that kind of cynicism. Certainly, I've built my own share of cynicism - I've worked at large enterprises 90% of my career and it's fascinating at times to witness the startup-oriented zeitgeist of HN. But never quite at the level where I believe it's actually better that my colleagues or team members don't have / don't care about business outcomes, or that my management is seeking such employees :<
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "I am deeply, profoundly sympathetic if you've worked most of your career in a place that built that kind of cynicism" My post wasn't really prompted by my past employment nearly as much as my interviews and phone screens in the past couple of years. I'm inferring what the norm is based on what people seem to be looking for. Specifically, an interest in technology for its own sake.