4 ms·
> No, the first thing should be to assess your situation: what are the goals, who are the players, how are they feeling, what are the major challenges, etc. Onl
by vosper 5y ago
> No, the first thing should be to assess your situation: what are the goals, who are the players, how are they feeling, what are the major challenges, etc. Only from that starting point can you have any hope of putting together a sane process. And once you do you should not settle too deeply into the comfort of a familiar rhythm—yes regular cadences and rituals can be a huge boon for your team's productivity, but as manager your job is to be constantly surveying the landscape and seeing if there's a way to do better.
This is great, but you also don't want to keep changing things. A predictable, well-understood process can be valuable even if it's not optimal, because the people involved don't have to think, and everyone understands where something came from and can have reasonable expectations about where it's going to.
- tharkun__ 5y agoI simultaneously agree and disagree with you :) I can attest to the fact that established processes can be really great to deter obnoxious behavior and shut people up that are annoyingly trying to just push their own agenda on you. "there's a process for this, use it and stop bothering me". Processes can also help with repeating tasks that benefit from being done the same way over and over but that can't be fully automated. Like a release process (not the very automatable parts of it, those should just be fully automated obviously). Having a non changeable process in changing situations is horrible. Especially if the process actively works against you or how you do your work best. The process needs to be flexible. People and interactions over processes and tools.