4 ms·

TL;DR: fix hiring (well he doesn't even say that, just "pick the right people" which sadly most of us have only some control over).

Fannon 6y ago
But how could "pick the right" people possibly work out for everyone? Maybe some higher paying / more prestigious companies can do that. But that would still leave the other companies with the original problem and not change anything about the industry wide statistics / problem? However, the author also points out training. So changing the quality of education and the culture around the people can drive this into a better direction.
- anotheryou 6y ago
  The two "under-performing" types I encountered where "hard to work with" and unskilled. Unskilled but smart is not a big problem as long es there are some more senior people. They might not get that much done, but they are still net positive :). And of course they improve if you can hold them for a longer time. People really hard to work with on the other hand are a tough nut and can hold back projects. I think this is often bad hiring. At least a company I worked for hired because they couldn't find anyone better (for the budget) and it turned out to be a big mistake. Either way, you have to live and calculate with what you have. If you do product work however I don't see why deadlines are all that important and would rather focus on the small, most impactful next iteration.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Hard to work with may dissolve if management set a good culture where everyone meet on even terms. Having a few hold all the keys to the kingdom scales badly.
    - anotheryou 6y ago
      Haven't made that experience. I worked in really good cultures where I loved the teams, but that can't always remedy the situation. It's just a drag on everyone: Nobody wants to work with that person, they fail to communicate important things, there are pointless discussions. Even honest communication, mutually agreed on workflows and so on can't always fix things.
  - jon-wood 6y ago
    If you’re doing software product work I’m totally with you on small impactful iterations. When you’re delivering a hardware product this is a lot more difficult to pull off. There are definitely ways to take an agile approach to hardware development, even if you’re working with an OEM, but the outcomes look a lot more like waterfall than your typical Agile with a big A people are comfortable with. The outcome of your iterations are long specification documents (which you’ve already got feedback on from your OEM), and a lot more detail than you’d typically go into development for on the software side since it has to integrate with the actual hardware.
    - anotheryou 6y ago
      Right, I also like waterfall for bigger projects with fix requirements at the end. In fact I also mix agile with waterfall. So much easier to keep adjusting your requirements for a few milestones ahead than to scramble together stories to fill the next sprint every other week.
ccortes 6y ago
I still don't get why most of the recruiting process is left to the HR department. I get they objective is to minimize your distraction as a manager, but it's such an important part of building a good team and it feels that in many cases you (the manager, not necessarily PM) contribute like 20% of the whole process.
- anotheryou 6y ago
  I recently was part of the hiring process for the first time and it was 80% the team, 10% me and 10% HR/boss doing the decision. The person we hired is absolutely awesome :)

Fannon 6y ago

But how could "pick the right" people possibly work out for everyone? Maybe some higher paying / more prestigious companies can do that. But that would still leave the other companies with the original problem and not change anything about the industry wide statistics / problem? However, the author also points out training. So changing the quality of education and the culture around the people can drive this into a better direction.

anotheryou 6y ago
The two "under-performing" types I encountered where "hard to work with" and unskilled. Unskilled but smart is not a big problem as long es there are some more senior people. They might not get that much done, but they are still net positive :). And of course they improve if you can hold them for a longer time. People really hard to work with on the other hand are a tough nut and can hold back projects. I think this is often bad hiring. At least a company I worked for hired because they couldn't find anyone better (for the budget) and it turned out to be a big mistake. Either way, you have to live and calculate with what you have. If you do product work however I don't see why deadlines are all that important and would rather focus on the small, most impactful next iteration.
- loopz 6y ago
  Hard to work with may dissolve if management set a good culture where everyone meet on even terms. Having a few hold all the keys to the kingdom scales badly.
  - anotheryou 6y ago
    Haven't made that experience. I worked in really good cultures where I loved the teams, but that can't always remedy the situation. It's just a drag on everyone: Nobody wants to work with that person, they fail to communicate important things, there are pointless discussions. Even honest communication, mutually agreed on workflows and so on can't always fix things.
- jon-wood 6y ago
  If you’re doing software product work I’m totally with you on small impactful iterations. When you’re delivering a hardware product this is a lot more difficult to pull off. There are definitely ways to take an agile approach to hardware development, even if you’re working with an OEM, but the outcomes look a lot more like waterfall than your typical Agile with a big A people are comfortable with. The outcome of your iterations are long specification documents (which you’ve already got feedback on from your OEM), and a lot more detail than you’d typically go into development for on the software side since it has to integrate with the actual hardware.
  - anotheryou 6y ago
    Right, I also like waterfall for bigger projects with fix requirements at the end. In fact I also mix agile with waterfall. So much easier to keep adjusting your requirements for a few milestones ahead than to scramble together stories to fill the next sprint every other week.

ccortes 6y ago

I still don't get why most of the recruiting process is left to the HR department. I get they objective is to minimize your distraction as a manager, but it's such an important part of building a good team and it feels that in many cases you (the manager, not necessarily PM) contribute like 20% of the whole process.

anotheryou 6y ago
I recently was part of the hiring process for the first time and it was 80% the team, 10% me and 10% HR/boss doing the decision. The person we hired is absolutely awesome :)