3 ms·
That is half true. There absolutely is a cost to initiating any change, but that is a one time cost. Some changes can yield dramatic increases in productivity
by austin-cheney 3y ago
That is half true. There absolutely is a cost to initiating any change, but that is a one time cost. Some changes can yield dramatic increases in productivity or reductions to costs further down stream. If there exists proper discourse that takes this into consideration then in all fairness any veto presented is certainly not toxic.
When internal initiatives are killed or directed for purely selfish motivations, such as comfort attainment then it certainly becomes toxic. This is why I believe the scenario is exceedingly pervasive, especially in software, because comfort attainment is typically not just the primary consideration, but the only consideration.
- rewmie 3y ago> That is half true. There absolutely is a cost to initiating any change, but that is a one time cost. Some changes can yield dramatic increases in productivity or reductions to costs further down stream. If there exists proper discourse that takes this into consideration then in all fairness any veto presented is certainly not toxic. I'm sorry, I didn't understood a word of what you tried to say. I'm even suspecting this is machine-generated word salad.
- DangitBobby 3y agoTranslation: there are times when a veto is warranted, but other times the effort to build software custom fit to your problems is worth spending the time to make. More often than vetoing for any valid reason, they do it so they don't have to give up software they are comfortable with.