4 ms·
It is kinda interesting, that these rants about corporate life that are filled with little substance but with lots of swearing are so popular here. Is there one
by _tk_ 3y ago
It is kinda interesting, that these rants about corporate life that are filled with little substance but with lots of swearing are so popular here. Is there one interesting takeaway here? Big organizations tend to grow in weird ways, opaque to the folks on the ground. They sometimes make big mistakes and spend money where they shouldn’t. But because of their size, that doesn’t mean the end for them.
- fallingknife 3y agoThis is why it's a major red flag when your org starts doing things "because big company X does it." And they never stop to think whether they do it because it works or that it's a failure and they are getting away with it because they are big.
- RamblingCTO 3y agoFull of swearing? Have we read different articles?
- ludicity 3y agoTo be fair, my other stuff is full of swearing. He's got me there. Although I started writing at 6PM on a random day after a stupid meeting, and actually tend to agree that there's worthier stuff to be popular - but people click on what they want. I have a whole bunch of more boring stuff around, with much less swearing, and I think I'm more comfortable with the low level of attention that gets.
- RamblingCTO 3y agoWell, I don't mind the more flippant writing style anyway ;) I liked your writing and it reminded me of the phoenix project, not in writing but in content. I'll be sure to check out your more boring stuff!
- gniv 3y agoThere are four instances of the f-word and a few religious references, including in the title.
- RamblingCTO 3y agoThis American fear of supposed swear words always weirded me out. What's the problem will hell?
- braza 3y ago> Big organizations tend to grow in weird ways, opaque to the folks on the ground. They sometimes make big mistakes and spend money where they shouldn’t. The article is good and at the end of the day, it's a... rant. The core issue that substance the main point of the author is that we do not have a scientific and empirically validated method for management in technology (IT). This is expected since tech is a quite new industry that surged after the late 90's. On top of it, we do not have established literature related to the economics of IT to calculate the opportunity costs, average acceptable waste, association between cloud costs x productivity and delivery value, and so on. Most leaders and managers are using methods that can or cannot work, but it's a discovery phase now in how to establish a management method that covers inefficiencies, opportunity costs, and value.
- RandomLensman 3y agoNot sure tech is fundamentally so different. There is typically a lot commonality between management practices of high performance companies across industries. There is also no reason to assume certain microeconomics don't apply. Some benchmarks might be different or perhaps still patchy, but I don't think that is really holding things back.