4 ms·

That is another great point. I do see a lot of companies trying to cut corners and make things as cheap as possible but I fundamentally believe that this ends

That is another great point. I do see a lot of companies trying to cut corners and make things as cheap as possible but I fundamentally believe that this ends up increasing costs in the long run. Which is a bit weird since I know a lot of business people and most seem to be familiar with Boot Theory[0] and even agree with it. But maybe it is one of those things that is just not realized in practice. Yet I constantly see these sacrifices being made. Profits over product. I don't think that actually leads to more profits. Maybe in the quarter, but not long term. It's a sustainable strategy if you've monopolized the market though... I also notice that when layoffs come around that the people who decide who to lay off tend to not lay off themselves. Great way to become management heavy... When in reality, if you have a lot of "rockstar programmers" they should be able to mostly manage themselves. You want to keep them from going down too many rabbit holes and help them prioritize, but for the most part experts know what is most important in the system they're working in. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory

BrenBarn 1y ago
> Maybe in the quarter, but not long term. It's a sustainable strategy if you've monopolized the market though... It's also a sustainable strategy if the market has become so distorted that it's difficult for consumers to distinguish the good products from the bad. This is a pervasive problem these days. It may still be the case that a good pair of boots will last you 10 years, but how can you tell which pair is the good one? There are 10,000 brands, all of them have 4.7 star ratings because of bots, most of them have a picture that looks nothing like what you'll receive, and if they wear out in two years you'll have no recourse because the brand was just a facade over a "ghost workshop" that's now producing the same crap under another name. Trying to vote with your dollars is like pushing on a rope. > When in reality, if you have a lot of "rockstar programmers" they should be able to mostly manage themselves. I'm not so sure about this. There are many people who are good at doing things but not at organizing that activity in a coherent way (especially across a team). Also when the people doing the "real work" are also managing, they often have a tendency to give the managing short shrift because they'd rather do the "real work". I agree we could do with a lot fewer managers than we currently have, but I think we do need some. (And this isn't just about software, it's about companies and organizations in general.) But I think we would be better off with more democratized company structures where the managers' power ultimately rests on the consent of the workers, so that when you have these clashes that currently result in "half the staff resigned in protest" they would instead result in "the CEO was fired due to lack of support from the staff".
- godelski 1y ago
  > if the market has become so distorted that it's difficult for consumers to distinguish the good products from the bad If you didn't know, there's a formal name for this: Lemon Markets[0]. Which yes, I agree. I think it is an accurate description of tech. Even among techies now. Hell, in that other thread[1] we seem to be talking to programmers who think we're omniscient and can generate bug free code (I'm still absolutely baffled by this). So tech literacy seems to be low even among the "techies". > I'm not so sure about this. I actually agree with you. I probably didn't phrase it well enough. That's a bit what I was trying to say when saying you want to prevent them from going down too may rabbit holes. But I did also want to subtly reference to Mervin Kelly, former director of Bell Labs. When asked "how do you manage genius?" his answer was "you don't"[2]. So I do agree that we need managers. Their job is to validate direction, ensure people are able to do their specialized job with minimal interruptions, and all that jazz. I think we often confuse "speed" with "velocity." The experts know the direction things need to go, but a manager's job is to ensure that those vectors are aligned across teams and aligned with the company goal. But we also get confused with thinking the goal is "to make money" and not differentiate it from "to make money by producing a useful product.". It's easy to drop that part off, but doing so shifts your customers from those that purchase your product to "shareholders". Even if shareholder price is based on people buying your product... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45742272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45742272 [2] https://westviewnews.org/2019/11/01/bell-labs-second-best-kept-secret/gcapsis/ https://westviewnews.org/2019/11/01/bell-labs-second-best-ke...
  - BrenBarn 1y ago
    > If you didn't know, there's a formal name for this: Lemon Markets[0]. Which yes, I agree. I think it is an accurate description of tech. Well, but I'm saying it's not just tech, it's becoming everything. (Unless by "tech" you mean "tech has made all markets act this way".) I guess one way to look at what I'm saying is that online marketplaces are inherently more "lemon-leaning" because the buyer's ability to assess the quality of the good is inherently limited (since they can't actually see, touch, or use it). Interestingly the "solution" that e-commerce seems to have settled on is "free shipping with free returns". This limits the damage of buying a lemon, since the customer can just send it back. But it creates a sort of moral hazard for both buyers and sellers: the buyer has an incentive to essentially operate like a spammer, selling crappy goods just on the off chance that a few won't get returned; and the seller is encouraged to just buy willy-nilly since they can just return anything that turns out to be crap. This generates an enormous amount of waste and churn and exacerbates the downward spiral of the lemon market. > But we also get confused with thinking the goal is "to make money" and not differentiate it from "to make money by producing a useful product.". This is the crux of the issue. I don't see that as an issue of "management" really though. I mean it is an issue of management but at a higher level, in the way the executives manage the whole company, or the way the board manages the executives, rather than the way mid-level managers manage actual workers. But ultimately it's an issue of values. As you say, too many people have drifted away from any value system that would place any kind of constraints on "the goal is to make money".

BrenBarn 1y ago

> Maybe in the quarter, but not long term. It's a sustainable strategy if you've monopolized the market though... It's also a sustainable strategy if the market has become so distorted that it's difficult for consumers to distinguish the good products from the bad. This is a pervasive problem these days. It may still be the case that a good pair of boots will last you 10 years, but how can you tell which pair is the good one? There are 10,000 brands, all of them have 4.7 star ratings because of bots, most of them have a picture that looks nothing like what you'll receive, and if they wear out in two years you'll have no recourse because the brand was just a facade over a "ghost workshop" that's now producing the same crap under another name. Trying to vote with your dollars is like pushing on a rope. > When in reality, if you have a lot of "rockstar programmers" they should be able to mostly manage themselves. I'm not so sure about this. There are many people who are good at doing things but not at organizing that activity in a coherent way (especially across a team). Also when the people doing the "real work" are also managing, they often have a tendency to give the managing short shrift because they'd rather do the "real work". I agree we could do with a lot fewer managers than we currently have, but I think we do need some. (And this isn't just about software, it's about companies and organizations in general.) But I think we would be better off with more democratized company structures where the managers' power ultimately rests on the consent of the workers, so that when you have these clashes that currently result in "half the staff resigned in protest" they would instead result in "the CEO was fired due to lack of support from the staff".

godelski 1y ago
> if the market has become so distorted that it's difficult for consumers to distinguish the good products from the bad If you didn't know, there's a formal name for this: Lemon Markets[0]. Which yes, I agree. I think it is an accurate description of tech. Even among techies now. Hell, in that other thread[1] we seem to be talking to programmers who think we're omniscient and can generate bug free code (I'm still absolutely baffled by this). So tech literacy seems to be low even among the "techies". > I'm not so sure about this. I actually agree with you. I probably didn't phrase it well enough. That's a bit what I was trying to say when saying you want to prevent them from going down too may rabbit holes. But I did also want to subtly reference to Mervin Kelly, former director of Bell Labs. When asked "how do you manage genius?" his answer was "you don't"[2]. So I do agree that we need managers. Their job is to validate direction, ensure people are able to do their specialized job with minimal interruptions, and all that jazz. I think we often confuse "speed" with "velocity." The experts know the direction things need to go, but a manager's job is to ensure that those vectors are aligned across teams and aligned with the company goal. But we also get confused with thinking the goal is "to make money" and not differentiate it from "to make money by producing a useful product.". It's easy to drop that part off, but doing so shifts your customers from those that purchase your product to "shareholders". Even if shareholder price is based on people buying your product... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45742272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45742272 [2] https://westviewnews.org/2019/11/01/bell-labs-second-best-kept-secret/gcapsis/ https://westviewnews.org/2019/11/01/bell-labs-second-best-ke...
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  > If you didn't know, there's a formal name for this: Lemon Markets[0]. Which yes, I agree. I think it is an accurate description of tech. Well, but I'm saying it's not just tech, it's becoming everything. (Unless by "tech" you mean "tech has made all markets act this way".) I guess one way to look at what I'm saying is that online marketplaces are inherently more "lemon-leaning" because the buyer's ability to assess the quality of the good is inherently limited (since they can't actually see, touch, or use it). Interestingly the "solution" that e-commerce seems to have settled on is "free shipping with free returns". This limits the damage of buying a lemon, since the customer can just send it back. But it creates a sort of moral hazard for both buyers and sellers: the buyer has an incentive to essentially operate like a spammer, selling crappy goods just on the off chance that a few won't get returned; and the seller is encouraged to just buy willy-nilly since they can just return anything that turns out to be crap. This generates an enormous amount of waste and churn and exacerbates the downward spiral of the lemon market. > But we also get confused with thinking the goal is "to make money" and not differentiate it from "to make money by producing a useful product.". This is the crux of the issue. I don't see that as an issue of "management" really though. I mean it is an issue of management but at a higher level, in the way the executives manage the whole company, or the way the board manages the executives, rather than the way mid-level managers manage actual workers. But ultimately it's an issue of values. As you say, too many people have drifted away from any value system that would place any kind of constraints on "the goal is to make money".