5 ms·

> Why do giant companies do so many hilariously dumb things? Because as they get bigger and hire more employees you inevitably move back towards the mean. Ther

> Why do giant companies do so many hilariously dumb things? Because as they get bigger and hire more employees you inevitably move back towards the mean. There are only so many good designers and good PMs out there.

throwaway316943 6y ago
I think the mean arrives a lot sooner than that. The situation where PMs and managers and goddamn copy writers start changing the design is commonplace even in smaller orgs. If you hire a competent designer to build an accessible and attractive application, just let them do their job! If you want design by committee instead then just fire the designer and get on with it.
- numpty13 6y ago
  As a designer, feedback from a good "goddamn copy writer" is invaluable. If they can't succinctly describe the thing I've designed to somebody who doesn't already know how to use it, or they can't fit what they need to say into the spaces I've left for them, it's often a sign that I haven't designed it very well.
danjac 6y ago
They might hire the best developers and designers, but the internal politics get in the way of them doing their jobs. UI in particular is prone to antipatterns such as bikeshedding and highest paid person in the room having the final say.
pembrook 6y ago
This is absolutely true. However, I would argue that the level of skill of any individual employee is made irrelevant inside big companies. If Google pays 3X salary to get the best designer in the industry, it's completely wasted, because this person will be hamstrung by the much more powerful forces of bureaucracy and design debt. If you place that same person high enough up in the org chart that they have power to make decisions...then they can't design anything amazing because they're just another manager attending meetings all day and not designing. It's a catch-22. Hence why companies commoditize labor into pay bands. You might as well just hire modestly above-average people at modestly above-average salaries who are easy-going and get along with their peers without drama. This is basically what most company interview processes are optimized for.
- bzzzt 6y ago
  Maybe you shouldn't focus on getting 'the best person' on the correct place, but try to make 'the best process' for evaluating and improving UI/UX and mandate it's followed everywhere. One of the projects at my workplace decided to document every design decision from all viewpoints including the final decision made. Seemed to help a lot against people arguing in circles and/or bikeshedding.
  - blowski 6y ago
    And that way lies large corporate Agile. All work becomes crap, because you can no longer tell the difference between good people encumbered by bureacracy and crap people using the bureaucracy as an excuse. My experience is to manage people effectively, and apply just enough process for each person and job.
    - ryandrake 6y ago
      Process works though, because not everyone on your team is going to be an "A" student, and if you have 500 employees, you simply don't have the time and bandwidth to make a custom process for each person. There's wide ranges of ability at every company, even prestigious FAANGs and investment banks and pretty much everywhere. The great benefit of layering on heavy process and bureaucracy is that you can get homogenized, reliable, reasonable-quality, but not consistently outstanding, output from the A, B, C, and D players, without terrible risk that someone who doesn't know what they are doing (who every company has) fucks everything up. As the saying goes, every process you encounter is scar tissue from a past fuck-up. What you sacrifice with all this bureaucracy is the absolutely brilliant output you could be getting from the A players, but the cost is usually worth mitigating the risk of disaster.
      - blowski 6y ago
        You're absolutely right, and that's the reason large companies end up being so inefficient. Eventually, some nimble whippersnapping startup who only hires "A players" eats the large enterprise's breakfast. But to satisfy the shareholders, the startup takes on more work and to cope with that work, they start hiring B players... and so it goes on the enterprise merrygoround. There's no real solution, just different ways of playing the game.
nipponese 6y ago
And the good designer has to be matched with the good pm.
travisgriggs 6y ago
There are indeed only so many good designers. There are exactly zero good product/project managers out there. There are some really nice and good and capable and kind and talented people who have this label attached to them. There are some good product/project clerks. There are some good product/project directors. There are some good product/project evangelists. But no good product/project manager. The term is a pariah on the well being of teams and productivity and delivering the right product to the right people. Many peers have been placed in this position over the years, in every case, they've become less likable people because of it and we're no longer a net positive collaboration. In every case, they themselves were less happy and felt less about themselves over time. Maybe some of you have experienced a good product/project manager (who wasn't really just masquerading as some other responsibility), but I stand by my assertion. My sampling of this "position" remains at zero good ones.
- anaerobicover 6y ago
  Your assertion is hard to engage without knowing the distinctions you identify between "manager", "clerk", "director", and "evangelist", and what it would mean for a so-called manager to be "just masquerading as some other responsibility".
- duckmysick 6y ago
  > Maybe some of you have experienced a good product/project manager [...], but I stand by my assertion. What would it take to change your mind?
- hellohello1 6y ago
  This attitude is why I insist on having my developers manage at least one small project before moving to a senior role.
ska 6y ago
This is a cop out, I think. Most first class work out in the world was not produced by teams of only extraordinarily talented individuals. Most of it is done by fairly regular teams who take the care and attention to do good work.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > Most first class work out in the world was not produced by teams of only extraordinarily talented individuals. Most of it is done by fairly regular teams who take the care and attention to do good work. What you're describing is an extraordinary team composed of regular individuals.
  - ska 6y ago
    Sure, but the limiting factor isn’t access to extraordinary people; hence the cop out.

throwaway316943 6y ago

I think the mean arrives a lot sooner than that. The situation where PMs and managers and goddamn copy writers start changing the design is commonplace even in smaller orgs. If you hire a competent designer to build an accessible and attractive application, just let them do their job! If you want design by committee instead then just fire the designer and get on with it.

numpty13 6y ago
As a designer, feedback from a good "goddamn copy writer" is invaluable. If they can't succinctly describe the thing I've designed to somebody who doesn't already know how to use it, or they can't fit what they need to say into the spaces I've left for them, it's often a sign that I haven't designed it very well.

danjac 6y ago

They might hire the best developers and designers, but the internal politics get in the way of them doing their jobs. UI in particular is prone to antipatterns such as bikeshedding and highest paid person in the room having the final say.

pembrook 6y ago

This is absolutely true. However, I would argue that the level of skill of any individual employee is made irrelevant inside big companies. If Google pays 3X salary to get the best designer in the industry, it's completely wasted, because this person will be hamstrung by the much more powerful forces of bureaucracy and design debt. If you place that same person high enough up in the org chart that they have power to make decisions...then they can't design anything amazing because they're just another manager attending meetings all day and not designing. It's a catch-22. Hence why companies commoditize labor into pay bands. You might as well just hire modestly above-average people at modestly above-average salaries who are easy-going and get along with their peers without drama. This is basically what most company interview processes are optimized for.

bzzzt 6y ago
Maybe you shouldn't focus on getting 'the best person' on the correct place, but try to make 'the best process' for evaluating and improving UI/UX and mandate it's followed everywhere. One of the projects at my workplace decided to document every design decision from all viewpoints including the final decision made. Seemed to help a lot against people arguing in circles and/or bikeshedding.
- blowski 6y ago
  And that way lies large corporate Agile. All work becomes crap, because you can no longer tell the difference between good people encumbered by bureacracy and crap people using the bureaucracy as an excuse. My experience is to manage people effectively, and apply just enough process for each person and job.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    Process works though, because not everyone on your team is going to be an "A" student, and if you have 500 employees, you simply don't have the time and bandwidth to make a custom process for each person. There's wide ranges of ability at every company, even prestigious FAANGs and investment banks and pretty much everywhere. The great benefit of layering on heavy process and bureaucracy is that you can get homogenized, reliable, reasonable-quality, but not consistently outstanding, output from the A, B, C, and D players, without terrible risk that someone who doesn't know what they are doing (who every company has) fucks everything up. As the saying goes, every process you encounter is scar tissue from a past fuck-up. What you sacrifice with all this bureaucracy is the absolutely brilliant output you could be getting from the A players, but the cost is usually worth mitigating the risk of disaster.
    - blowski 6y ago
      You're absolutely right, and that's the reason large companies end up being so inefficient. Eventually, some nimble whippersnapping startup who only hires "A players" eats the large enterprise's breakfast. But to satisfy the shareholders, the startup takes on more work and to cope with that work, they start hiring B players... and so it goes on the enterprise merrygoround. There's no real solution, just different ways of playing the game.

nipponese 6y ago

And the good designer has to be matched with the good pm.

travisgriggs 6y ago

There are indeed only so many good designers. There are exactly zero good product/project managers out there. There are some really nice and good and capable and kind and talented people who have this label attached to them. There are some good product/project clerks. There are some good product/project directors. There are some good product/project evangelists. But no good product/project manager. The term is a pariah on the well being of teams and productivity and delivering the right product to the right people. Many peers have been placed in this position over the years, in every case, they've become less likable people because of it and we're no longer a net positive collaboration. In every case, they themselves were less happy and felt less about themselves over time. Maybe some of you have experienced a good product/project manager (who wasn't really just masquerading as some other responsibility), but I stand by my assertion. My sampling of this "position" remains at zero good ones.

anaerobicover 6y ago
Your assertion is hard to engage without knowing the distinctions you identify between "manager", "clerk", "director", and "evangelist", and what it would mean for a so-called manager to be "just masquerading as some other responsibility".
duckmysick 6y ago
> Maybe some of you have experienced a good product/project manager [...], but I stand by my assertion. What would it take to change your mind?
hellohello1 6y ago
This attitude is why I insist on having my developers manage at least one small project before moving to a senior role.

ska 6y ago

This is a cop out, I think. Most first class work out in the world was not produced by teams of only extraordinarily talented individuals. Most of it is done by fairly regular teams who take the care and attention to do good work.

webmaven 6y ago
> Most first class work out in the world was not produced by teams of only extraordinarily talented individuals. Most of it is done by fairly regular teams who take the care and attention to do good work. What you're describing is an extraordinary team composed of regular individuals.
- ska 6y ago
  Sure, but the limiting factor isn’t access to extraordinary people; hence the cop out.