3 ms·

Interesting tone. The tone says, all these people are idiots, and they failed to understand my beautiful creations. But he then outlines all his failings at th

Interesting tone. The tone says, all these people are idiots, and they failed to understand my beautiful creations. But he then outlines all his failings at the bottom, which I agree with, so he clearly knows better. It's it possible that this tone deaf attitude was a primary culprit in the downfall of the organization he and his handpicked successor built?

marcinzm 5y ago
You can't build something in a vacuum when there's other people with power in the organization. You need to treat the system as a whole including the politics involved. Sometimes that mean a less optimal solution to gain some influence with key stakeholders. This is one reason technologists can make bad managers. They don't think about the politics or don't want to play it.
rocqua 5y ago
His tone isn't "you are all idiots". His tone is "you all don't care about real progress, just selfish politics". The exasperation comes from total breakdown of the internal story "we are all here to make the company better". Whilst at the same time people keep repeating that line.
- darkerside 5y ago
  Yes, you state it better, and my characterization was a bit facetious. The common thread is that, he implies, or explicitly states, that he has the organization's best interests at heart and others don't. That might be true or not, but you can't operate with that mindset and expect people to come along with you. Whether or not it's true, you need to presume positive intent. Perhaps they see aspects of their jobs that won't automate well that you do not. Is that stubborn self interest, or standing up to a naive new leader who doesn't get it?
  - mkr-hn 5y ago
    The hardest and most important mindset shift for me was when I realized almost every person who supports terrible policies/politicians does so thinking they do it because they care, and they do from their particular perspective. I can't usually bridge the gap with someone who commits or supports horrors out of "concern for souls[like mine!]," for example, but most situations aren't at such a timeless impasse. Every family member who ever turned into a whiny baby while trying to do free IT for them saw themselves as the victim, or the person under threat. That's the kind of person with power in most organizations, and you have to find some way to meet them in the middle without compromising everything to get anything done. It's not enough to be right.
    - rocqua 5y ago
      I believe this for a lot of the people who support policies or politicians. I doubt whether this extends to the politicians / executives enacting those policies. They will certainly frame it like that, but for a lot of them, their underlying thinking is going to be much more self-serving and about manipulating the narrative.
jrochkind1 5y ago
Huh, I had a different reaction, I think his conclusion is: Technical correctness isn't enough, the enterprise is a social organism and you need to get people on board to come with you seeing how it will achieve their own goals and include them, and that's the lesson I learned from this experience.
- darkerside 5y ago
  Yes, and I agree with that conclusion. But your comment demonstrates an empathy and understanding that the blog post did not. I don't think it was quite a rant, but it had that "I was right" tone to it the whole time. An awkward fit with the lessons learned at the end, and coincidentally, another possible explanation for why things went so off the rails.
  - mbrodersen 5y ago
    Not how I read it at all. To me it reads like a story of somebody thinking he is doing the right thing only later realising that it doesn’t matter if you don’t get buy in from the people who have the real power in the enterprise.
brazzy 5y ago
Sounds to me more like a failure of upper management. The CEO at least should have realized that such a change needed buy-in from everyone and creating that "digital business unit" was going to achieve the opposite.
- darkerside 5y ago
  Always plenty of blame to go around in situations like these, and CEO operates like the goodwill line item on a spreadsheet. He takes the blame so we can all move forward.
mbrodersen 5y ago
Not at all. He clearly points out that he underestimated the power of internal politics. And that creating working solutions is not enough to be successful. That’s a lesson we can all learn from.
- darkerside 5y ago
  I reread and I think you're right about most of it. But the scare quotes in Gaining Momentum really frame this as a battle between good guys and bad guys, which isn't a productive framework to think about politics. (Not productive, but can be effective depending on your goals, unfortunately).
  - mbrodersen 5y ago
    Yep good point. Thinking in good/bad guy term makes everything a zero sum game. Finding ways to turn it into a win-win situation makes a huge difference. And often it all comes down to how a solution is presented to a decision maker and how much the decision maker feels that he/she is in control. The perception of the solution is often more important than the technical details of the solution.

marcinzm 5y ago

You can't build something in a vacuum when there's other people with power in the organization. You need to treat the system as a whole including the politics involved. Sometimes that mean a less optimal solution to gain some influence with key stakeholders. This is one reason technologists can make bad managers. They don't think about the politics or don't want to play it.

rocqua 5y ago

His tone isn't "you are all idiots". His tone is "you all don't care about real progress, just selfish politics". The exasperation comes from total breakdown of the internal story "we are all here to make the company better". Whilst at the same time people keep repeating that line.

darkerside 5y ago
Yes, you state it better, and my characterization was a bit facetious. The common thread is that, he implies, or explicitly states, that he has the organization's best interests at heart and others don't. That might be true or not, but you can't operate with that mindset and expect people to come along with you. Whether or not it's true, you need to presume positive intent. Perhaps they see aspects of their jobs that won't automate well that you do not. Is that stubborn self interest, or standing up to a naive new leader who doesn't get it?
- mkr-hn 5y ago
  The hardest and most important mindset shift for me was when I realized almost every person who supports terrible policies/politicians does so thinking they do it because they care, and they do from their particular perspective. I can't usually bridge the gap with someone who commits or supports horrors out of "concern for souls[like mine!]," for example, but most situations aren't at such a timeless impasse. Every family member who ever turned into a whiny baby while trying to do free IT for them saw themselves as the victim, or the person under threat. That's the kind of person with power in most organizations, and you have to find some way to meet them in the middle without compromising everything to get anything done. It's not enough to be right.
  - rocqua 5y ago
    I believe this for a lot of the people who support policies or politicians. I doubt whether this extends to the politicians / executives enacting those policies. They will certainly frame it like that, but for a lot of them, their underlying thinking is going to be much more self-serving and about manipulating the narrative.

jrochkind1 5y ago

Huh, I had a different reaction, I think his conclusion is: Technical correctness isn't enough, the enterprise is a social organism and you need to get people on board to come with you seeing how it will achieve their own goals and include them, and that's the lesson I learned from this experience.

darkerside 5y ago
Yes, and I agree with that conclusion. But your comment demonstrates an empathy and understanding that the blog post did not. I don't think it was quite a rant, but it had that "I was right" tone to it the whole time. An awkward fit with the lessons learned at the end, and coincidentally, another possible explanation for why things went so off the rails.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  Not how I read it at all. To me it reads like a story of somebody thinking he is doing the right thing only later realising that it doesn’t matter if you don’t get buy in from the people who have the real power in the enterprise.

brazzy 5y ago

Sounds to me more like a failure of upper management. The CEO at least should have realized that such a change needed buy-in from everyone and creating that "digital business unit" was going to achieve the opposite.

darkerside 5y ago
Always plenty of blame to go around in situations like these, and CEO operates like the goodwill line item on a spreadsheet. He takes the blame so we can all move forward.

mbrodersen 5y ago

Not at all. He clearly points out that he underestimated the power of internal politics. And that creating working solutions is not enough to be successful. That’s a lesson we can all learn from.

darkerside 5y ago
I reread and I think you're right about most of it. But the scare quotes in Gaining Momentum really frame this as a battle between good guys and bad guys, which isn't a productive framework to think about politics. (Not productive, but can be effective depending on your goals, unfortunately).
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  Yep good point. Thinking in good/bad guy term makes everything a zero sum game. Finding ways to turn it into a win-win situation makes a huge difference. And often it all comes down to how a solution is presented to a decision maker and how much the decision maker feels that he/she is in control. The perception of the solution is often more important than the technical details of the solution.