5 ms·

All these frameworks for managing people matter much less than creating a team of quality people. Think of it like sports. Sure a good manager or coach can get

All these frameworks for managing people matter much less than creating a team of quality people. Think of it like sports. Sure a good manager or coach can get the most of the players on the team. They might even add tactics and play above their level. But when it comes down to it, what matters the most in the skill set of the players. The best coaching in the world isn’t going to help me and my friends beat a pro sports team. Same thing for teams inside companies. Strategy does matter, but quality matters much more.

gitfan86 4y ago
Yes but the MBA, Management Consulting, Agile Coaching industries are based on this not being true. So there will be an endless stream of propaganda to convince people otherwise.
zeroonetwothree 4y ago
Strategy can matter a lot. Tactics is mostly irrelevant. Unfortunately the latter is much easier to change so leaders like to modify it constantly to seem like they are adding value. And since it’s mostly irrelevant it’s hard to prove that this is bad.
- mattbuilds 4y ago
  I was using tactics and strategy interchangeably, as in the sports sense. Probably should have been more clear, but I agree with your point. Also business is much more complicated than sports, where the rules are concrete. I was just using it as an example that what matters is using the talents of the team instead of a framework for management.
zemvpferreira 4y ago
In my experience you have it right but backwards: These frameworks exist to help management manage teams without quality people. Scrum/agile is exactly the same thing. The stricter and more documented the process, the more fungible actual team-members are. That's important in places like bodyshops and non-software business where no self-respecting engineer with options would want to work, and places where monotonous quality matters more than brilliance. Keep em as far as I'm concerned.
- LambdaComplex 4y ago
  > Scrum/agile is exactly the same thing. The stricter and more documented the process The Agile manifesto specifically says "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools." If teams are forced to work in a certain way (e.g. scrum) then your organization isn't actually doing Agile.
  - naijaboiler 4y ago
    I am tired of "you are doing Agile wrong" arguments. I hear it all the time. What's the point of a manifesto that only works when done perfectly right. A manifesto/process that isn't robust to imperfections has no role in a real world, which is always going to be imperfect
    - LambdaComplex 4y ago
      There's a difference between "doing something poorly" and "doing the exact opposite of something and claiming that you're doing it" Agile is robust because it ISN'T a strict process.
      - rzzzt 4y ago
        > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools - and we have mandatory processes and tools to control how those individuals interact https://www.halfarsedagilemanifesto.org/ https://www.halfarsedagilemanifesto.org/
    - Jenk 4y ago
      It's literally not a process yet you keep referring to it as one.
    - xboxnolifes 4y ago
      What's the point of defining something that only works when you follow the definition? Are you really asking that? The problem with most uppercase Agile implementations isn't that they are slightly off from the manifesto, but because they completely ignore what the manifesto is trying to say.
kerpotgh 4y ago
[dead]
crazygringo 4y ago
I deeply disagree. If you have a team of quality people but they're all running around in their own direction doing their uncoordinated thing, they add up to basically zero. While if they're all working towards the same thing in the same direction, their efforts reinforce each other so the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. The expertise of people on a team provides a ceiling for what they can accomplish, that's true. And so you need to make sure that if you've got a task to achieve by a certain date, that it's below their ceiling. The best manager can't raise that ceiling. But you still absolutely need to manage them in order for them to get anywhere even close to that ceiling. And to go back to your sports metaphor, when an amazing coach replaces a terrible one on a sports team, it's astonishing the difference it makes -- you almost can't believe it's the same team. It's astonishing what happens when a sports team plays "as one" instead of each player doing their own thing no matter how great they are. But that simply doesn't happen organically. It requires a coach, the same as a great team of employees doesn't get there without a great manager. So ultimately it's not that either matters more than the other. You need both individual expertise and management. Think of the total resulting effectiveness as a multiplication of those two values.
- mattbuilds 4y ago
  I actually agree with you a good amount. I was never saying that you don't need management, just that first you need quality people. I do think you can have a good team with poor managers that still preforms, but I can't think of any examples of great managers with bad teams that excel. Well first I would say that a team of quality people wouldn't all run in their own direction. They would know they need to coordinate to achieve a goal. Quality doesn't just mean being good at programming, it means the whole process of delivering software. The sports metaphor is starting to break down, but just to have a one more go. Sports is different because the top teams all have top 1000 players in the world. This won't really happen in software. So with software it's more about putting together the right team. One where people enhance the whole, and that's what I think the biggest role of management is about. It's helping coordinate quality people. The thing I was speaking out against was that you could have a good manager with a good process and not great people. The idea that the process can hide the problems of the team is something I don't believe. It doesn't matter how you organize if thats the case, nothing of real value will get made. I do like the idea that the total result is a multiplayer of the two values. I just think the team quality is a little more of a multiplier than the other :)
ericalexander0 4y ago
Getting the right people on the bus is only one component. See Jim Collins' map for the others. https://www.jimcollins.com/concepts.html https://www.jimcollins.com/concepts.html
canes123456 4y ago
In small companies, I agree with you. However, in a big company the quality of individual work doesn't matter much at all. Most of the time will be spent on communication, prioritization, compliance, and oversight overhead. On top of that you have everyone just performing for a promotion instead of what actually helps the company. Improvements to reduce any of this overhead will dominate how good the team is.
xivzgrev 4y ago
Sounds like you have never worked in a bigger company. Despite having great people, coordination challenges greatly increase over time. This is a good summary: https://komoroske.com/slime-mold/ https://komoroske.com/slime-mold/
IMTDb 4y ago
> The best coaching in the world isn’t going to help me and my friends beat a pro sports team No, but a good coach will start with you team, replace single player and get slightly better results. Replace another player and get better results. Rince and repeat until you and all your friends are long gone but your team plays in the NFL. Being able to detect, attract, nurture and retain talents is exactly what the coach is doing on a daily basis.

gitfan86 4y ago

Yes but the MBA, Management Consulting, Agile Coaching industries are based on this not being true. So there will be an endless stream of propaganda to convince people otherwise.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago

Strategy can matter a lot. Tactics is mostly irrelevant. Unfortunately the latter is much easier to change so leaders like to modify it constantly to seem like they are adding value. And since it’s mostly irrelevant it’s hard to prove that this is bad.

mattbuilds 4y ago
I was using tactics and strategy interchangeably, as in the sports sense. Probably should have been more clear, but I agree with your point. Also business is much more complicated than sports, where the rules are concrete. I was just using it as an example that what matters is using the talents of the team instead of a framework for management.

zemvpferreira 4y ago

In my experience you have it right but backwards: These frameworks exist to help management manage teams without quality people. Scrum/agile is exactly the same thing. The stricter and more documented the process, the more fungible actual team-members are. That's important in places like bodyshops and non-software business where no self-respecting engineer with options would want to work, and places where monotonous quality matters more than brilliance. Keep em as far as I'm concerned.

LambdaComplex 4y ago
> Scrum/agile is exactly the same thing. The stricter and more documented the process The Agile manifesto specifically says "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools." If teams are forced to work in a certain way (e.g. scrum) then your organization isn't actually doing Agile.
- naijaboiler 4y ago
  I am tired of "you are doing Agile wrong" arguments. I hear it all the time. What's the point of a manifesto that only works when done perfectly right. A manifesto/process that isn't robust to imperfections has no role in a real world, which is always going to be imperfect
  - LambdaComplex 4y ago
    There's a difference between "doing something poorly" and "doing the exact opposite of something and claiming that you're doing it" Agile is robust because it ISN'T a strict process.
    - rzzzt 4y ago
      > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools - and we have mandatory processes and tools to control how those individuals interact https://www.halfarsedagilemanifesto.org/ https://www.halfarsedagilemanifesto.org/
  - Jenk 4y ago
    It's literally not a process yet you keep referring to it as one.
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    What's the point of defining something that only works when you follow the definition? Are you really asking that? The problem with most uppercase Agile implementations isn't that they are slightly off from the manifesto, but because they completely ignore what the manifesto is trying to say.

kerpotgh 4y ago

[dead]

crazygringo 4y ago

I deeply disagree. If you have a team of quality people but they're all running around in their own direction doing their uncoordinated thing, they add up to basically zero. While if they're all working towards the same thing in the same direction, their efforts reinforce each other so the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. The expertise of people on a team provides a ceiling for what they can accomplish, that's true. And so you need to make sure that if you've got a task to achieve by a certain date, that it's below their ceiling. The best manager can't raise that ceiling. But you still absolutely need to manage them in order for them to get anywhere even close to that ceiling. And to go back to your sports metaphor, when an amazing coach replaces a terrible one on a sports team, it's astonishing the difference it makes -- you almost can't believe it's the same team. It's astonishing what happens when a sports team plays "as one" instead of each player doing their own thing no matter how great they are. But that simply doesn't happen organically. It requires a coach, the same as a great team of employees doesn't get there without a great manager. So ultimately it's not that either matters more than the other. You need both individual expertise and management. Think of the total resulting effectiveness as a multiplication of those two values.

mattbuilds 4y ago
I actually agree with you a good amount. I was never saying that you don't need management, just that first you need quality people. I do think you can have a good team with poor managers that still preforms, but I can't think of any examples of great managers with bad teams that excel. Well first I would say that a team of quality people wouldn't all run in their own direction. They would know they need to coordinate to achieve a goal. Quality doesn't just mean being good at programming, it means the whole process of delivering software. The sports metaphor is starting to break down, but just to have a one more go. Sports is different because the top teams all have top 1000 players in the world. This won't really happen in software. So with software it's more about putting together the right team. One where people enhance the whole, and that's what I think the biggest role of management is about. It's helping coordinate quality people. The thing I was speaking out against was that you could have a good manager with a good process and not great people. The idea that the process can hide the problems of the team is something I don't believe. It doesn't matter how you organize if thats the case, nothing of real value will get made. I do like the idea that the total result is a multiplayer of the two values. I just think the team quality is a little more of a multiplier than the other :)

ericalexander0 4y ago

Getting the right people on the bus is only one component. See Jim Collins' map for the others. https://www.jimcollins.com/concepts.html https://www.jimcollins.com/concepts.html

canes123456 4y ago

In small companies, I agree with you. However, in a big company the quality of individual work doesn't matter much at all. Most of the time will be spent on communication, prioritization, compliance, and oversight overhead. On top of that you have everyone just performing for a promotion instead of what actually helps the company. Improvements to reduce any of this overhead will dominate how good the team is.

xivzgrev 4y ago

Sounds like you have never worked in a bigger company. Despite having great people, coordination challenges greatly increase over time. This is a good summary: https://komoroske.com/slime-mold/ https://komoroske.com/slime-mold/

IMTDb 4y ago

> The best coaching in the world isn’t going to help me and my friends beat a pro sports team No, but a good coach will start with you team, replace single player and get slightly better results. Replace another player and get better results. Rince and repeat until you and all your friends are long gone but your team plays in the NFL. Being able to detect, attract, nurture and retain talents is exactly what the coach is doing on a daily basis.