5 ms·

All of the bad stuff in the article is a consequence of the CTO not being able to call technical bullshit and encouraging a culture of yes-reports. If you ever

by ethbr1 3y ago

All of the bad stuff in the article is a consequence of the CTO not being able to call technical bullshit and encouraging a culture of yes-reports. If you ever find yourself in a company like this, start looking for a new job. It's impossible to fix rot that bad at the top, and they're not going to make you CTO.

fendy3002 3y ago
The worst problem is, every success will be credited to CTO and every failure will be aimed towards the manager because it's a disobedience. In this case, the CTO also reward the credit to his friend because he/she doesn't know the backend. In the short time you may save the company, in the long time you'll lose and the company will lose too.
dheera 3y ago
> encouraging a culture of yes-reports I get the impression that most large corps are of this culture at this point
- StressedDev 3y ago
  Nope - Well run companies want to know the truth, expect mistakes, and want people to learn from them. In most of the teams I have been on, being a yes person is no t rewarded because yes people cannot deliver.
  - Log_out_ 3y ago
    They deliver pressure, crunch and obedience. There are no well run companies. The defunct is part of the process as a load bearing pillar.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    What is the size of your company?
    - orwin 3y ago
      Mine has 1.2k people and is the same. Very unionized, it's the IT part of a big energy company.
  - rezonant 3y ago
    Most large companies aren't particularly well run.
    - itsoktocry 3y ago
      >Most large companies aren't particularly well run. What does it mean to be "well run" if our largest and most successful companies are not that?
      - marcosdumay 3y ago
        Well, I'd suggest you start by reviewing your idea of "success" and how companies achieve it.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        They were well run when they were small, then as they grew large they could live on just being large and dominant and started to accrue organizational debt like this. After a couple of decades almost no company is particularly well run, they grow until they are no longer well run or until they captured the entire market.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  Even small ones. I have run into many people that work for companies, where vendor relationships are based on That Guy With the Really Good Coke at Burning Man, or, in more staid organizations, That Guy With the Prada Pimp Suit at the Country Club. Many times, the higher-level managers are working on a culture, where they are The Big Decision-Makers, With A True Knowledge of The Big Picture, and everyone else is an interchangeable peon. This is usually reinforced by their peers, and the culture is embedded like a tick. Pretty much impossible to dislodge, without damaging the entire company.
  - itsoktocry 3y ago
    >I have run into many people that work for companies, where vendor relationships are based on That Guy With the Really Good Coke at Burning Man This is the cynical view, but you're right. But why does this surprise developers? The more optimistic view is: people want to work with people they like. I want to work with people I like. There's a trope in the tech world of the ornery IT guy that everyone tolerates because he's smart. Well, a lot of times these people aren't as smart as they think they are, and will be the first to be replaced when it's possible. Life is too short to work with these kinds of people.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
      I believe in teams. I was a manager, for many years, and having a strong, healthy team was of paramount importance. My team was pretty damn good. Almost everyone in it had decades of software development experience, but it was also difficult to manage. I had to deal with every member, individually, and had to sometimes be Bad Cop, but it worked. When I interviewed candidates, I don't think I ever made a technical mistake, but I did hire people that broke the team, and they didn't last. Teams are how we do big stuff. Individuals can be extremely productive, but there's an upper limit to how much they can do. If you can get a good team working, there's really no limit.
      - yw3410 3y ago
        Could you elaborate what you mean when you say they broke the team?
lukan 3y ago
The CTO certainly seems not the most competent. "Because the CTO had a yearly turnover of his direct reports, every status call about the project took some variation of “great idea, boss” even though literally no one involved thought it was even a good idea. Or even a mediocre idea. It was a bad idea" But if everyone confirms his bad decisions instead of pointing flaws out, then they are all part of the problem.
- atoav 3y ago
  That is true, but the times I have seen such dynamics happen it was usually do to... emotional instability. If every time a subordinate brings you anything other than stellar news you get all emotional, angry and start blaming people guess what: Nobody is going to give you the truth anymore — as A) it seems you can't handle it anyways and B) there is no incentive for them to give you the truth while there are many incentives to not give you the truth. This is just bad leadership. The most important thing to make good decisions is correct and meaningful information. If you punish people for telling you things that you don't want to see, you will from now on never have a good picture of what is going on. Good luck making decisions that way. And this isn't even rocket science, it is basic common sense.
  - lukan 3y ago
    Yes, that is bad leadership. But the article does not say that this CTO did this: "If you punish people for telling you things that you don't want to see" It is implied, but I rather see direct evidence of a culture of yes saying and grumbling behind the back, something I learned to hate. Most people in reality do not face a existential crisis, if they speak up and the boss gets mad. It might cause inconvenience, but this is already enough for many to just nod along and venting out that frustration later. And wondering why nothing ever changes. Those things work both ways.
    - atoav 3y ago
      Agreed, this is all speculation and I have seen corporate culture that worked despite bosses like that, but these were also corporate culutures which would have worked even better without the interruptions and "great ideas" from the top. The main thing a boss can do is ensure the incentives for the behavior you want to see are there and there are disincentives for behavior you don't want to see. And with this over time corporate culture can be changed. But the peculiar thing is that you are part of corporate culture, and a part with special reach and importance — so you better act as you say. And this is rarely the case.
steveBK123 3y ago
I worked at a shop where 2 layers of management decided they didn't like to see red on RAG status reports and wanted to discuss "changing the definition of done" for projects to preclude you know.. actually shipping them to prod. That is when I ramped up my job search to 11.

by ethbr1 3y ago

fendy3002 3y ago

The worst problem is, every success will be credited to CTO and every failure will be aimed towards the manager because it's a disobedience. In this case, the CTO also reward the credit to his friend because he/she doesn't know the backend. In the short time you may save the company, in the long time you'll lose and the company will lose too.

dheera 3y ago

> encouraging a culture of yes-reports I get the impression that most large corps are of this culture at this point

StressedDev 3y ago
Nope - Well run companies want to know the truth, expect mistakes, and want people to learn from them. In most of the teams I have been on, being a yes person is no t rewarded because yes people cannot deliver.
- Log_out_ 3y ago
  They deliver pressure, crunch and obedience. There are no well run companies. The defunct is part of the process as a load bearing pillar.
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  What is the size of your company?
  - orwin 3y ago
    Mine has 1.2k people and is the same. Very unionized, it's the IT part of a big energy company.
- rezonant 3y ago
  Most large companies aren't particularly well run.
  - itsoktocry 3y ago
    >Most large companies aren't particularly well run. What does it mean to be "well run" if our largest and most successful companies are not that?
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      Well, I'd suggest you start by reviewing your idea of "success" and how companies achieve it.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      They were well run when they were small, then as they grew large they could live on just being large and dominant and started to accrue organizational debt like this. After a couple of decades almost no company is particularly well run, they grow until they are no longer well run or until they captured the entire market.
ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
Even small ones. I have run into many people that work for companies, where vendor relationships are based on That Guy With the Really Good Coke at Burning Man, or, in more staid organizations, That Guy With the Prada Pimp Suit at the Country Club. Many times, the higher-level managers are working on a culture, where they are The Big Decision-Makers, With A True Knowledge of The Big Picture, and everyone else is an interchangeable peon. This is usually reinforced by their peers, and the culture is embedded like a tick. Pretty much impossible to dislodge, without damaging the entire company.
- itsoktocry 3y ago
  >I have run into many people that work for companies, where vendor relationships are based on That Guy With the Really Good Coke at Burning Man This is the cynical view, but you're right. But why does this surprise developers? The more optimistic view is: people want to work with people they like. I want to work with people I like. There's a trope in the tech world of the ornery IT guy that everyone tolerates because he's smart. Well, a lot of times these people aren't as smart as they think they are, and will be the first to be replaced when it's possible. Life is too short to work with these kinds of people.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    I believe in teams. I was a manager, for many years, and having a strong, healthy team was of paramount importance. My team was pretty damn good. Almost everyone in it had decades of software development experience, but it was also difficult to manage. I had to deal with every member, individually, and had to sometimes be Bad Cop, but it worked. When I interviewed candidates, I don't think I ever made a technical mistake, but I did hire people that broke the team, and they didn't last. Teams are how we do big stuff. Individuals can be extremely productive, but there's an upper limit to how much they can do. If you can get a good team working, there's really no limit.
    - yw3410 3y ago
      Could you elaborate what you mean when you say they broke the team?

lukan 3y ago

The CTO certainly seems not the most competent. "Because the CTO had a yearly turnover of his direct reports, every status call about the project took some variation of “great idea, boss” even though literally no one involved thought it was even a good idea. Or even a mediocre idea. It was a bad idea" But if everyone confirms his bad decisions instead of pointing flaws out, then they are all part of the problem.

atoav 3y ago
That is true, but the times I have seen such dynamics happen it was usually do to... emotional instability. If every time a subordinate brings you anything other than stellar news you get all emotional, angry and start blaming people guess what: Nobody is going to give you the truth anymore — as A) it seems you can't handle it anyways and B) there is no incentive for them to give you the truth while there are many incentives to not give you the truth. This is just bad leadership. The most important thing to make good decisions is correct and meaningful information. If you punish people for telling you things that you don't want to see, you will from now on never have a good picture of what is going on. Good luck making decisions that way. And this isn't even rocket science, it is basic common sense.
- lukan 3y ago
  Yes, that is bad leadership. But the article does not say that this CTO did this: "If you punish people for telling you things that you don't want to see" It is implied, but I rather see direct evidence of a culture of yes saying and grumbling behind the back, something I learned to hate. Most people in reality do not face a existential crisis, if they speak up and the boss gets mad. It might cause inconvenience, but this is already enough for many to just nod along and venting out that frustration later. And wondering why nothing ever changes. Those things work both ways.
  - atoav 3y ago
    Agreed, this is all speculation and I have seen corporate culture that worked despite bosses like that, but these were also corporate culutures which would have worked even better without the interruptions and "great ideas" from the top. The main thing a boss can do is ensure the incentives for the behavior you want to see are there and there are disincentives for behavior you don't want to see. And with this over time corporate culture can be changed. But the peculiar thing is that you are part of corporate culture, and a part with special reach and importance — so you better act as you say. And this is rarely the case.

steveBK123 3y ago

I worked at a shop where 2 layers of management decided they didn't like to see red on RAG status reports and wanted to discuss "changing the definition of done" for projects to preclude you know.. actually shipping them to prod. That is when I ramped up my job search to 11.