3 ms·

> I've never once had a manager say anything along the lines of "I just think we're building a bad experience if we release this early." Then perhaps you had l

> I've never once had a manager say anything along the lines of "I just think we're building a bad experience if we release this early." Then perhaps you had less-than-great managers, and I could think of a variety of reasons for that. Maybe it was as simple as you claim: no consideration was made to introducing an undercooked user experience. But if a software development manager is green lighting that, likely causing more work for customer service and perhaps sales, I would hope there’s more to the story than that. Maybe this manager didn’t communicate why releasing a bad experience by a specific date was, perhaps, mandatory to fulfill a contractual obligation. Or maybe you were not able to sort that out from the limited amount of information they gave you. Maybe they didn’t see the bad UX as truly as bad as you, and perhaps your team, thought it was. Maybe where you thought the feature’s UX passed the 80/20 rule was different than many customers. I’ve had (product and project, not as often people) managers who have pushed to hold on delivering a half-baked implementation. And I’ve been a manager who has done that. Those better managers exist Did you ever get feedback or do something to reevaluate why the bad experience was shipped? The experiences you describe do sound like clueless folks making calls, but know that there are folks in management positions not just wildly flailing about.

Aeolun 4y ago
These are all possible of course, but I’m reminded of the adage that: “The simplest explanation is often the right one.”
ownagefool 4y ago
Problem is with this argument is both sides are aruging their group is better. I find whether not you care about outcome usually irrelevant to the title / role. There's a couple of things going on here: - Personal ambition. Usually this is about money, especially the higher up the org you are, but it might also be about becoming a better at tech, or keeping a stable job to pay your mortgage. - Incentives. How the company rewards things it wants. This might be shares, commission, salary, or bonuses. But it's also about how the company measures and manages those things. - Ethics. What you're willing to do to achieve your goals. Both individually, and at an org level. It doesn't take long industry to realise that the few people are actually interested in helping orgs make money. This is shown by developers focusing on irrelevant shit all day long, and it's shown by the lack of incentives and rewards that drive the correct behaviour, so all you get is a whole bunch of personal ambition. Of course, some people do, but when faced with a company that allows people to focus on short sighted personal ambition, they'll either fall in-line or move along.
- cutemonster 4y ago
  > both sides are aruging their group is better. And/or that the personal work experience they themselves have had, would be representative for people in general. (Not saying that the posters above necessarily did now) > couple of things going on here ... few people are actually interested in helping orgs make mone ... Yes, nicely written :-) Maybe in many cases they are "right" not to care, if the company doesn't contribute meaningfully to society anyway

Aeolun 4y ago

These are all possible of course, but I’m reminded of the adage that: “The simplest explanation is often the right one.”

ownagefool 4y ago

Problem is with this argument is both sides are aruging their group is better. I find whether not you care about outcome usually irrelevant to the title / role. There's a couple of things going on here: - Personal ambition. Usually this is about money, especially the higher up the org you are, but it might also be about becoming a better at tech, or keeping a stable job to pay your mortgage. - Incentives. How the company rewards things it wants. This might be shares, commission, salary, or bonuses. But it's also about how the company measures and manages those things. - Ethics. What you're willing to do to achieve your goals. Both individually, and at an org level. It doesn't take long industry to realise that the few people are actually interested in helping orgs make money. This is shown by developers focusing on irrelevant shit all day long, and it's shown by the lack of incentives and rewards that drive the correct behaviour, so all you get is a whole bunch of personal ambition. Of course, some people do, but when faced with a company that allows people to focus on short sighted personal ambition, they'll either fall in-line or move along.

cutemonster 4y ago
> both sides are aruging their group is better. And/or that the personal work experience they themselves have had, would be representative for people in general. (Not saying that the posters above necessarily did now) > couple of things going on here ... few people are actually interested in helping orgs make mone ... Yes, nicely written :-) Maybe in many cases they are "right" not to care, if the company doesn't contribute meaningfully to society anyway