4 ms·

I think one problem is that it is a vicious circle: it is not always that the PM cannot involve devs early and trust them to make technical decisions, it's that

by cauch 4y ago

I think one problem is that it is a vicious circle: it is not always that the PM cannot involve devs early and trust them to make technical decisions, it's that sometimes, devs are not trustworthy because they are not understanding people. Why would a PM involves devs early if the dev team has demonstrated that they are not interested in understanding the rest of the business? I'm not saying it's always the case, but I have the feeling that in these conversations, the discussion is often a one-way street: a lot of devs are talking a lot about how they wish their PM is more technical or gives them more trust or freedom of decision, but a lot of them seems at the same time totally uninterested or oblivious in the possibility of changing themselves to satisfy the PM's wish. Why should the PM change to please the dev when the idea of changing to please the PM is so remote from all dev's considerations?

dgb23 4y ago
It's really a two way street and both sides need to grow into earning each other's respect and trust. > Why would a PM involves devs early if the dev team has demonstrated that they are not interested in understanding the rest of the business? They wouldn't. Because in order to really trust someone to take more responsibility this interest is a prerequisite. In the ideal case the developer _wants_ to hear about the problems that need solving, not be assigned specific tasks. And a PM _wants_ to leave technical responsibility and agency in the hands of the developer, shield them from politics and trust their decisions. Mistakes happen and there are ups and downs to these relationships. But it has to start with building mutual trust.
- cauch 4y ago
  I agree and I think it's the point of this article: the ideal case is when the developer want to hear about the problems that need solving, aka need to understand people rather than focusing on understanding technology. I still feel that there is a lot of developers expecting that everything should revolve around them without caring about the other members of the company. At least more than PM not caring about the developers needs. I feel that I can see this behavior in the comments here, for example in some comments criticizing the article that show that their author really don't care about reaching a two way street situation.

by cauch 4y ago

dgb23 4y ago

It's really a two way street and both sides need to grow into earning each other's respect and trust. > Why would a PM involves devs early if the dev team has demonstrated that they are not interested in understanding the rest of the business? They wouldn't. Because in order to really trust someone to take more responsibility this interest is a prerequisite. In the ideal case the developer _wants_ to hear about the problems that need solving, not be assigned specific tasks. And a PM _wants_ to leave technical responsibility and agency in the hands of the developer, shield them from politics and trust their decisions. Mistakes happen and there are ups and downs to these relationships. But it has to start with building mutual trust.

cauch 4y ago
I agree and I think it's the point of this article: the ideal case is when the developer want to hear about the problems that need solving, aka need to understand people rather than focusing on understanding technology. I still feel that there is a lot of developers expecting that everything should revolve around them without caring about the other members of the company. At least more than PM not caring about the developers needs. I feel that I can see this behavior in the comments here, for example in some comments criticizing the article that show that their author really don't care about reaching a two way street situation.