4 ms·

The profession of "management" has a problem similar to one a lot of tech companies have: if you reward the generation of new ideas, you get a huge proliferatio

The profession of "management" has a problem similar to one a lot of tech companies have: if you reward the generation of new ideas, you get a huge proliferation of them that aren't necessarily better and make everything more complicated. It's like these people are thinking, "Humans are messy and difficult? Better come up with a management technique that gives the illusion of control." But a piece of art is often finished once there's nothing left to remove. I once saw someone on Twitter whose bio said "deeply passionate about Agile." That made me low-key angry, because the last thing programmers need is a person who has dedicated their career to creating more process. If it works or makes things worse it doesn't matter -- their career is invested in creating process.

andor 5y ago
I agree, but the "agile" I know is actually about less process and more communication to deal with reality.
bartread 5y ago
> "deeply passionate about Agile" It makes me low key angry because I simply don't believe that Agile is anywhere near interesting enough to justify being "deeply passionate" about: it comes off as phoney. Beyond this it's just so narrow that it makes no sense. I can absolutely understand somebody who wants to find ways to make a company run better (more revenue, profit, more efficiency, better products, whatever), which will inevitably involve some amount of engineering processes. Somebody like the late Andy Grove would probably fit into this category, and that I can absolutely get on board with. But Agile is so far from the be-all-end-all of good process that to be "deeply passionate" about it is almost beyond satire. Good process should make things more effective, should make teams more effective, should make you more effective. Note: effective not productive. It's far too easy to be uselessly busy. As an executive a substantial proportion of my time is spent on "bullshit elimination"[0]: stopping things from happening that create unnecessary work, ideally before they start to cause serious issues. Instead, allow people to focus on the things that we employ them for and that, for the most part, they want to be doing (all jobs have some elements that we don't like, of course). And, importantly, instilling a culture of "bullshit elimination" in my teams. Sometimes that involves creating, modifying, or even killing processes - and enabling those in our teams to do so when they need to. The key is that process should be malleable and simplify rather than complicate. Formalised processes can often look complex even when they are a simplification because what happened before, ad hoc, was a large amount of unnecessary thrashing that was never captured. [0] Honestly, I'd rather be programming but SOMEBODY needs to do this, and it turns out I have some aptitude - and possibly the right temperament (thoughtful but just impatient enough; not actually rabid) - for it.
- asdfman123 5y ago
  > It makes me low key angry because I simply don't believe that Agile is anywhere near interesting enough to justify being "deeply passionate" about: it comes off as phoney. Exactly. It's like saying you're passionate about paperwork. Everyone thinks it sucks and we should do less of it. Lots of people have to pretend to be more passionate than they are, but please pick anything other than business process.
i_haz_rabies 5y ago
Whenever I see "passionate about x," I read it as "passionate about making money by pretending to care about x."
skybrian 5y ago
Believe it or not, in the early days we actually were pretty enthusiastic about things like Extreme Programming. It seemed like an improvement over document-heavy processes you’d see a some places, or the complete lack of process you’d see at others. I still think pair programming is better than code review when feasible.
- asdfman123 5y ago
  There's absolutely a place for creating new procedures or practices. The problem is when the process gains consciousness and ego and fights for its own limitless expansion.
herval 5y ago
> the last thing programmers need is a person who has dedicated their career to creating more process not ALL developers crave this. I've been through companies where process is scoffed at (some developers burn out trying to manage their own stuff, others love it) and companies where everything has a process - eg Pivotal Labs, the extreme example of agile by the book (some developers burn out with all the inflexibility, others love it). I don't love "agile", but for what it's worth, it's a reasonable starting point to create a sustainable culture where the company can try to 1) remain agile (adjective) as it grows, and 2) keep developers reasonably in control of their work schedule. There's worse alternatives, I guess?
BeetleB 5y ago
> I once saw someone on Twitter whose bio said "deeply passionate about Agile." That made me low-key angry, because the last thing programmers need is a person who has dedicated their career to creating more process. I agree with you, but Oh, the irony! From the Agile Manifesto: > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

andor 5y ago

I agree, but the "agile" I know is actually about less process and more communication to deal with reality.

bartread 5y ago

> "deeply passionate about Agile" It makes me low key angry because I simply don't believe that Agile is anywhere near interesting enough to justify being "deeply passionate" about: it comes off as phoney. Beyond this it's just so narrow that it makes no sense. I can absolutely understand somebody who wants to find ways to make a company run better (more revenue, profit, more efficiency, better products, whatever), which will inevitably involve some amount of engineering processes. Somebody like the late Andy Grove would probably fit into this category, and that I can absolutely get on board with. But Agile is so far from the be-all-end-all of good process that to be "deeply passionate" about it is almost beyond satire. Good process should make things more effective, should make teams more effective, should make you more effective. Note: effective not productive. It's far too easy to be uselessly busy. As an executive a substantial proportion of my time is spent on "bullshit elimination"[0]: stopping things from happening that create unnecessary work, ideally before they start to cause serious issues. Instead, allow people to focus on the things that we employ them for and that, for the most part, they want to be doing (all jobs have some elements that we don't like, of course). And, importantly, instilling a culture of "bullshit elimination" in my teams. Sometimes that involves creating, modifying, or even killing processes - and enabling those in our teams to do so when they need to. The key is that process should be malleable and simplify rather than complicate. Formalised processes can often look complex even when they are a simplification because what happened before, ad hoc, was a large amount of unnecessary thrashing that was never captured. [0] Honestly, I'd rather be programming but SOMEBODY needs to do this, and it turns out I have some aptitude - and possibly the right temperament (thoughtful but just impatient enough; not actually rabid) - for it.

asdfman123 5y ago
> It makes me low key angry because I simply don't believe that Agile is anywhere near interesting enough to justify being "deeply passionate" about: it comes off as phoney. Exactly. It's like saying you're passionate about paperwork. Everyone thinks it sucks and we should do less of it. Lots of people have to pretend to be more passionate than they are, but please pick anything other than business process.

i_haz_rabies 5y ago

Whenever I see "passionate about x," I read it as "passionate about making money by pretending to care about x."

skybrian 5y ago

Believe it or not, in the early days we actually were pretty enthusiastic about things like Extreme Programming. It seemed like an improvement over document-heavy processes you’d see a some places, or the complete lack of process you’d see at others. I still think pair programming is better than code review when feasible.

asdfman123 5y ago
There's absolutely a place for creating new procedures or practices. The problem is when the process gains consciousness and ego and fights for its own limitless expansion.

herval 5y ago

> the last thing programmers need is a person who has dedicated their career to creating more process not ALL developers crave this. I've been through companies where process is scoffed at (some developers burn out trying to manage their own stuff, others love it) and companies where everything has a process - eg Pivotal Labs, the extreme example of agile by the book (some developers burn out with all the inflexibility, others love it). I don't love "agile", but for what it's worth, it's a reasonable starting point to create a sustainable culture where the company can try to 1) remain agile (adjective) as it grows, and 2) keep developers reasonably in control of their work schedule. There's worse alternatives, I guess?

BeetleB 5y ago

> I once saw someone on Twitter whose bio said "deeply passionate about Agile." That made me low-key angry, because the last thing programmers need is a person who has dedicated their career to creating more process. I agree with you, but Oh, the irony! From the Agile Manifesto: > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools