8 ms·

Everything we do to manage a business consisting mainly of remote employees is something anyone else could do too. I would modify "anyone else" to "anyone else

by edw519 15y ago

Everything we do to manage a business consisting mainly of remote employees is something anyone else could do too. I would modify "anyone else" to "anyone else enlightened enough". Big difference. It's still amazing how many managers/leaders are so bad at managing/leading that all the tools in the world wouldn't make a bit of difference. You know who they are, the people for whom: perceived activity = progress meetings = progress being there = progress lines of code = progress check marks = completion social skills = competence perception = reality what's on the surface = what's underneath # of tasks completed = an acceptable metric successful testing = quality software smiling customers = satisfaction 90% complete = only 10% more to go Good managers know better. So they can take advantage of OP's tools. The technology for managing remotely is clearly ahead of the people who would most benefit from it. I look forward the the day when managers catch up and "get it".

m_for_monkey 15y ago
> smiling customers = satisfaction I think they are right about this one. What's your problem with this?
- lwhi 15y ago
  Often the customers aren't the end users. I suppose a job can't always be considered to be done well, just because the customer is provided with what they felt they needed. Sometimes the customer is asking for the wrong thing in the first place.
  - doktrin 15y ago
    While I can see the reasoning behind this mentality, I have a hard time supporting it unequivocally. Too many times I've come across what really feels like engineer / developer arrogance vis a vis their end users. The notion that the customer "doesn't know what's good for them" has a bizarrely patronizing air to it. If the customer is happy, then the product has done it's job. Doesn't mean it can't be improved - but perfection comes after the customer has quit bitching.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
sovande 15y ago
Allow me to add to your list. people who makes incomplete and faulty lists of what good leadership consists of = someone we should take serious
arctangent 15y ago
I can't agree with you more. But let me briefly offer an insight about why I think things won't change: management itself exists to perpetuate the things on the left hand side of your equations above. Traditional managers in established (i.e. large) companies are terrified of letting their staff work from home because they perceive (correctly) that if those staff are still productive then there isn't really any reason for them to be employed in their own role. The things on the left hand side of your equations are a proxy for success that the manager can use to justify their own usefulness. As soon as you start measuring "real" progress the need for non-productive members of staff disappears entirely and most middle management instantly becomes surplus to requirements.
- troll24601 15y ago
  The idea that management exists to perpetuate the things on the left is as cynical and generally wrong as the idea that coders exist to increase complexity and guarantee their own necessity. It is true only of the worst of either group of people. The best work hard to make themselves unnecessary.
  - moonchrome 15y ago
    >coders exist to increase complexity and guarantee their own necessity Holds true in more cases than not, at least in my experience in the enterprise. "Writing your own X" when off-the-shelf solution is available is a dominant example of this.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      In many companies the same rigid structures that allow them to operate with average and below-population-average employees reward those who can game them andreduce their own output to the lowest levels toleraed by the structure. I have freed many good programmers from this trap, but not nearly enough and many remain to be saved.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    I've seen the very worst managers a lot more frequently than the very worst programmers. While some structures may reward bad programmers, structures far more frequently reward bad managers and very often prvide them with a place to hide their inadequacies very easily.
mechanical_fish 15y ago
I look forward the the day when managers catch up and "get it". So do I, but telling a corporation whose entire culture is built around facetime to "catch up and get it" is, in the general case, like walking up to a flightless bird and waving your arms and shouting "fly, you fool, fly! Don't you realize that the future is in flying? Your cousins that can fly are made of the same parts as you; rearrange them and fly!" As PG memorably put it: http://www.paulgraham.com/opensource.html http://www.paulgraham.com/opensource.html When I say business can learn from open source, I don't mean any specific business can. I mean business can learn about new conditions the same way a gene pool does. I'm not claiming companies can get smarter, just that dumb ones will die.
- nirvdrum 15y ago
  I look forward for when techies "get it." IRC and iChat are poor replacements for real human interaction. You can certainly work with them and even be successful with them. But rarely do you approach the same team cohesion you get with in-person facetime. I think some mix is good. In the office 2-3 days a week and remote the rest of the time. You get a good social balance and then the freedom to work from home. Incidentally, everyone I've come across that refuses to meet that balance takes on a weird sense of entitlement, illustrating they'd probably be a poor fit anyway. I'm sure there are mitigating circumstances for that, but it is off-putting to the whole idea.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    I've actually found IRC can be a helpful addition even when you're physically in the same place. Supports different kinds of discussions that can be useful, especially asynchronous ones, or ones where one or both people find it useful to refer to documentation while chatting.
    - nirvdrum 15y ago
      Agreed. It's a great way to share reddit links.
j45 15y ago
1000% agree. Taking responsibility is the single hardest quality to find and hire.
bhickey 15y ago
social skills = competence If you haven't got 'em, I don't care how competent you are. One bad apple can poison an entire team. Developing software is a team sport.
- nmcfarl 15y ago
  Interestingly I've found this not to be the case, many very good teams of coders (in my experience) have at least one socially awkward person, and still perform very well. (Sometimes it feels like the manager is little more then "socialable" face of the team.) On the other hand, I find that attitude matters a lot, and one even mildly disgruntled / unmotivated person can really sink a team.
  - bhickey 15y ago
    Oh, I agree -- I had taken social skills to mean "plays well with others." Awkward is just fine. Someone who is mean or lazy is another story.
    - afterburner 15y ago
      That's not social skills, that's attitude/decency and work ethic.
- jebblue 15y ago
  Asking coders to increase social skills is asking them to dilute who they are. Like many actors and singers, they lose who they are because they become mixed up with everyone else. Some don't, I don't imagine seeing Johnny Depp schmoozing in a totally social scene, maybe with a few carefully chosen people he trusts and in a quiet location.
  - MartinCron 15y ago
    Not all programming positions require the same amount of social skills. Some jobs are just fine for the "antisocial software genius" type. Just don't make me work with those guys.
coffeemug 15y ago
This is an unpopular opinion, but I completely disagree. Great people + perceived activity + being there + lines of code + check marks + social skills = happy customers (usually). Mediocre people + perceived activity + being there + lines of code + check marks + social skills = waste of time/money (usually). Great people - (perceived activity + being there + lines of code + check marks + social skills) = happy customers => unicorn scenario (usually). In an ideal world your great people give you acceptable deadlines and consistently deliver high quality software on time. Then you can ignore subjective metrics like time in office, perceived activity, etc. and everyone is happy. This happens once in a blue moon. Most of the time when great things happen people happen to be in office, they look like they're working, and they produce a ton of code. Of course correlation is not causation, so forcing people to produce lots of code and be in the office won't necessarily get you good results. Engineering management is really hard. Please don't trivialize it with feel-good nonsense.
doktrin 15y ago
"social skills = competence" Not to nitpick, but social skills are a form of competence. I know it's not a popular notion in some circles, but communication and the ability to articulate a position is a crucial work skill.

by edw519 15y ago

m_for_monkey 15y ago

> smiling customers = satisfaction I think they are right about this one. What's your problem with this?

lwhi 15y ago
Often the customers aren't the end users. I suppose a job can't always be considered to be done well, just because the customer is provided with what they felt they needed. Sometimes the customer is asking for the wrong thing in the first place.
- doktrin 15y ago
  While I can see the reasoning behind this mentality, I have a hard time supporting it unequivocally. Too many times I've come across what really feels like engineer / developer arrogance vis a vis their end users. The notion that the customer "doesn't know what's good for them" has a bizarrely patronizing air to it. If the customer is happy, then the product has done it's job. Doesn't mean it can't be improved - but perfection comes after the customer has quit bitching.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

sovande 15y ago

Allow me to add to your list. people who makes incomplete and faulty lists of what good leadership consists of = someone we should take serious

arctangent 15y ago

I can't agree with you more. But let me briefly offer an insight about why I think things won't change: management itself exists to perpetuate the things on the left hand side of your equations above. Traditional managers in established (i.e. large) companies are terrified of letting their staff work from home because they perceive (correctly) that if those staff are still productive then there isn't really any reason for them to be employed in their own role. The things on the left hand side of your equations are a proxy for success that the manager can use to justify their own usefulness. As soon as you start measuring "real" progress the need for non-productive members of staff disappears entirely and most middle management instantly becomes surplus to requirements.

troll24601 15y ago
The idea that management exists to perpetuate the things on the left is as cynical and generally wrong as the idea that coders exist to increase complexity and guarantee their own necessity. It is true only of the worst of either group of people. The best work hard to make themselves unnecessary.
- moonchrome 15y ago
  >coders exist to increase complexity and guarantee their own necessity Holds true in more cases than not, at least in my experience in the enterprise. "Writing your own X" when off-the-shelf solution is available is a dominant example of this.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    In many companies the same rigid structures that allow them to operate with average and below-population-average employees reward those who can game them andreduce their own output to the lowest levels toleraed by the structure. I have freed many good programmers from this trap, but not nearly enough and many remain to be saved.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  I've seen the very worst managers a lot more frequently than the very worst programmers. While some structures may reward bad programmers, structures far more frequently reward bad managers and very often prvide them with a place to hide their inadequacies very easily.

mechanical_fish 15y ago

I look forward the the day when managers catch up and "get it". So do I, but telling a corporation whose entire culture is built around facetime to "catch up and get it" is, in the general case, like walking up to a flightless bird and waving your arms and shouting "fly, you fool, fly! Don't you realize that the future is in flying? Your cousins that can fly are made of the same parts as you; rearrange them and fly!" As PG memorably put it: http://www.paulgraham.com/opensource.html http://www.paulgraham.com/opensource.html When I say business can learn from open source, I don't mean any specific business can. I mean business can learn about new conditions the same way a gene pool does. I'm not claiming companies can get smarter, just that dumb ones will die.

nirvdrum 15y ago
I look forward for when techies "get it." IRC and iChat are poor replacements for real human interaction. You can certainly work with them and even be successful with them. But rarely do you approach the same team cohesion you get with in-person facetime. I think some mix is good. In the office 2-3 days a week and remote the rest of the time. You get a good social balance and then the freedom to work from home. Incidentally, everyone I've come across that refuses to meet that balance takes on a weird sense of entitlement, illustrating they'd probably be a poor fit anyway. I'm sure there are mitigating circumstances for that, but it is off-putting to the whole idea.
- _delirium 15y ago
  I've actually found IRC can be a helpful addition even when you're physically in the same place. Supports different kinds of discussions that can be useful, especially asynchronous ones, or ones where one or both people find it useful to refer to documentation while chatting.
  - nirvdrum 15y ago
    Agreed. It's a great way to share reddit links.

j45 15y ago

1000% agree. Taking responsibility is the single hardest quality to find and hire.

bhickey 15y ago

social skills = competence If you haven't got 'em, I don't care how competent you are. One bad apple can poison an entire team. Developing software is a team sport.

nmcfarl 15y ago
Interestingly I've found this not to be the case, many very good teams of coders (in my experience) have at least one socially awkward person, and still perform very well. (Sometimes it feels like the manager is little more then "socialable" face of the team.) On the other hand, I find that attitude matters a lot, and one even mildly disgruntled / unmotivated person can really sink a team.
- bhickey 15y ago
  Oh, I agree -- I had taken social skills to mean "plays well with others." Awkward is just fine. Someone who is mean or lazy is another story.
  - afterburner 15y ago
    That's not social skills, that's attitude/decency and work ethic.
jebblue 15y ago
Asking coders to increase social skills is asking them to dilute who they are. Like many actors and singers, they lose who they are because they become mixed up with everyone else. Some don't, I don't imagine seeing Johnny Depp schmoozing in a totally social scene, maybe with a few carefully chosen people he trusts and in a quiet location.
- MartinCron 15y ago
  Not all programming positions require the same amount of social skills. Some jobs are just fine for the "antisocial software genius" type. Just don't make me work with those guys.

coffeemug 15y ago

This is an unpopular opinion, but I completely disagree. Great people + perceived activity + being there + lines of code + check marks + social skills = happy customers (usually). Mediocre people + perceived activity + being there + lines of code + check marks + social skills = waste of time/money (usually). Great people - (perceived activity + being there + lines of code + check marks + social skills) = happy customers => unicorn scenario (usually). In an ideal world your great people give you acceptable deadlines and consistently deliver high quality software on time. Then you can ignore subjective metrics like time in office, perceived activity, etc. and everyone is happy. This happens once in a blue moon. Most of the time when great things happen people happen to be in office, they look like they're working, and they produce a ton of code. Of course correlation is not causation, so forcing people to produce lots of code and be in the office won't necessarily get you good results. Engineering management is really hard. Please don't trivialize it with feel-good nonsense.

doktrin 15y ago

"social skills = competence" Not to nitpick, but social skills are a form of competence. I know it's not a popular notion in some circles, but communication and the ability to articulate a position is a crucial work skill.