4 ms·
No. There’s a third option where people accept responsibility and are rewarded for that rather than hide from it one way or another. I have a modicum of respe
by qz2 6y ago
No.
There’s a third option where people accept responsibility and are rewarded for that rather than hide from it one way or another.
I have a modicum of respect for people who do that. I don’t for people who shovel it under a rug or point a finger which are the points you are referring to. I’ve been in both environments and neither end up with a positive outcome.
If I fuck up I’m the first person to put my hand up. Call it responsibility culture.
- corobo 6y agoSee that leading with a "No." there That's what we're talking about. I hope you don't have direct reports. Next time be honest "Just shut the conversation down, everyone's a dumbass, I'm right, you're dumb" it'll be quicker than all this back and forth actually trying to get to a stable middle ground :)
- qz2 6y agoThat's a tad ironic is it not? All I am calling for is people to take responsibility.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rawoke083600 6y agoWhat is the future value in that ? From a system and reliability point of view ? Genuine question - not trying to be a dk
- qz2 6y agoThe point is that if you take responsibility then you're taking pride in your work, are invested in it and willing to invest in self-improvement and introspection rather than doing the minimum to get to a minimum viable solution. The outcome of this is an increase in quality and a decrease in risk.
- rawoke083600 6y agoWow - "...invest in self-improvement and introspection.." I would hate for that to be our system reliability improvement methodology. Ok fine now I'm being slightly a "dk" but really ?
- qz2 6y agoWell you can also apply a QMS if you want but all that does is generate paperwork full of accepted risks...
- rawoke083600 6y agoI think you missing point, I love the idea about "bringing aviation methodology" to lower error/f-up-rates" for the software industry. No one is not saying don't take responsibility, they are saying - as I understood it: Have a "systematic-approach" to the problem, the current system for preventing "drunk pilots or the wiping of production db's are not sufficient" - improve the system ! ! All the "taking responsibilities and "falling on one's own sword" won't improve the process for the future. If we take the example of the Space-Industry where having 3x Backups Systems are common (like life support) It seems some people's view in the comments stream is: "No bugger that, the life-support systems engineers and co should just 'take responsibility' and produce flawless products. No need for this 3 x backups systems" The "system" approach is that there is x-rates of failures by having 2 backups we have now reduce the possibility of error by y amount. Or in the case of production-dbs: If I were the CEO and the following happens: CTO-1: "Worker A, has deleted the production DB, I've scolded him, he is sorry and got dock a months pay and is feeling quite bad and has taken full responsibility for his stupid action this probably won't happen again !" VS CTO-2: "Worker A, has deleted the production DB, We Identified that our process/system for allowing dev-machines to access production db's was a terrible idea and oversight, we now have measures abc in place to prevent that in the future" I'd go with CTO-2 EVERY day of the week !
- qz2 6y agoYes. CTO-2 is my approach. As the CTO I fucked up because I didn't have that process in place to start with. To buck stops at me. CTO-2 also has the responsibility of making sure that everyone is educated on this issue and can communicate those issues and worries (fears) to his/her level effectively because prevention is better than cure. Which is my other point.