6 ms·

PHB's tend to measure themselves by how many people they're in charge of; better 10 guys than 1 that's productive as 10. PHB's aren't entrepreneur types, they'

PHB's tend to measure themselves by how many people they're in charge of; better 10 guys than 1 that's productive as 10. PHB's aren't entrepreneur types, they're middle managers who require underlying to justify their existence, the more the better.

michaelochurch 14y ago
That's been my feeling about it, too. Headcount and control rather than actual productivity. Also, I feel like middle managers have a terrible incentive profile. If an underling really shines, then it reflects well on the underling. If one underperforms or makes a mess, boss gets shat on for not keeping them in line. It's easy to rip on middle managers, but they have a shitty job and it's not their fault. It's just structured badly. I think it's easier to understand why middle managers are the way they are once one understands their incentive structure. They participate in an employee's downside but not upside (she did it herself) so of course they're going to be the way they are. I may be radical but I think open allocation is the only answer for software development. All the nonsensical process that grows up around closed allocation seems archaic and stifling. I think typical middle management is useless. What you really need are HR-independent mentors. Aside from mentoring, the other thing managers can do (firing) should be so rare in a well-run company that you only need one per few hundred people.
- enupten 14y ago
  .. brought to you by her Majesty's Civil service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister
- gingerlime 14y ago
  I recommend reading about the Gervais principle![1] [1]http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
  - dpritchett 14y ago
    When Michael read about the Gervais principle it inspired about 100,000 words of response: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/?s=gervais&submit=Search http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/?s=gervais&submit=Se...
    - gingerlime 14y ago
      thanks for the link!
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    If you have the time, you might want to check out my blog. I've covered that topic in exacting detail.
    - gingerlime 14y ago
      just had a quick look and am as excited reading this as checking out more espisodes of 'the office'! (I only started watching the american version recently. Originally I dismissed it as just another copy-cat of the original UK, but I'm beginning to get into it). I didn't read any of it yet, but just the thought of having more to read about it makes my life already better :) EDIT: I just realised who I was "recommending" this too. Well, at least it was worth it for me :)
geon 14y ago
They would also have trouble identifying the 10x programmer to begin with, and with the pointy haired-ness have trouble retaining them.
- dchichkov 14y ago
  It is trivial to identify a 10x programmer. Take any project (or platform) that uses quirky and individualistic style, preferably written in an obscure language. Any programmer that has been working with such a project for a year or two, would be a 5x programmer. Any programmer that has actually started that project would be a 10x programmer. Why? Because an amount of effort that any developer, unfamiliar with an obscure approach has to spend is 50x.
  - geon 14y ago
    So a 10x programmer is one who writes crappy code? I think you have your definition backwards.
    - dchichkov 14y ago
      One who writes quirky and individualistic code. Not crappy. It could be well organized. And even good. And even solve the problem, at the time when it was written. But. If that code is approachable by any regular developer, when the original programmer would not be 10x. And management and peers wouldn't think about the original developer as 10x. But if, the code is quirky and individualistic... a funny thing happens. Suddenly whoever works (or can rise up and work with that code for whatever reason) is 10x. And peers and management would see them as 10x. I've seen that quite a number of times. Many times as 10x, as 1x and even a few as 0.1x.
      - geon 14y ago
        Good code is dead simple to read and understand. That is what makes it good, because sooner or later, someone will need to read it and maintain it. Getting to that point is difficult, and may require a 10x programmer. But the end result is simplicity.
vorg 14y ago
The ten 1x programmers tend to turn against the 10x programmer before he/she has time to manifest, to protect their own 10 jobs.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Very fucking true. Also dangerous is the 2.5x who thinks he's a 10x, convinces management of this, and then drives out everyone better. (For my part, I'm only a 6-8x. I'm fairly new to software and I also spend too much fucking time on activism.)

michaelochurch 14y ago

That's been my feeling about it, too. Headcount and control rather than actual productivity. Also, I feel like middle managers have a terrible incentive profile. If an underling really shines, then it reflects well on the underling. If one underperforms or makes a mess, boss gets shat on for not keeping them in line. It's easy to rip on middle managers, but they have a shitty job and it's not their fault. It's just structured badly. I think it's easier to understand why middle managers are the way they are once one understands their incentive structure. They participate in an employee's downside but not upside (she did it herself) so of course they're going to be the way they are. I may be radical but I think open allocation is the only answer for software development. All the nonsensical process that grows up around closed allocation seems archaic and stifling. I think typical middle management is useless. What you really need are HR-independent mentors. Aside from mentoring, the other thing managers can do (firing) should be so rare in a well-run company that you only need one per few hundred people.

enupten 14y ago
.. brought to you by her Majesty's Civil service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister
gingerlime 14y ago
I recommend reading about the Gervais principle![1] [1]http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
- dpritchett 14y ago
  When Michael read about the Gervais principle it inspired about 100,000 words of response: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/?s=gervais&submit=Search http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/?s=gervais&submit=Se...
  - gingerlime 14y ago
    thanks for the link!
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  If you have the time, you might want to check out my blog. I've covered that topic in exacting detail.
  - gingerlime 14y ago
    just had a quick look and am as excited reading this as checking out more espisodes of 'the office'! (I only started watching the american version recently. Originally I dismissed it as just another copy-cat of the original UK, but I'm beginning to get into it). I didn't read any of it yet, but just the thought of having more to read about it makes my life already better :) EDIT: I just realised who I was "recommending" this too. Well, at least it was worth it for me :)

geon 14y ago

They would also have trouble identifying the 10x programmer to begin with, and with the pointy haired-ness have trouble retaining them.

dchichkov 14y ago
It is trivial to identify a 10x programmer. Take any project (or platform) that uses quirky and individualistic style, preferably written in an obscure language. Any programmer that has been working with such a project for a year or two, would be a 5x programmer. Any programmer that has actually started that project would be a 10x programmer. Why? Because an amount of effort that any developer, unfamiliar with an obscure approach has to spend is 50x.
- geon 14y ago
  So a 10x programmer is one who writes crappy code? I think you have your definition backwards.
  - dchichkov 14y ago
    One who writes quirky and individualistic code. Not crappy. It could be well organized. And even good. And even solve the problem, at the time when it was written. But. If that code is approachable by any regular developer, when the original programmer would not be 10x. And management and peers wouldn't think about the original developer as 10x. But if, the code is quirky and individualistic... a funny thing happens. Suddenly whoever works (or can rise up and work with that code for whatever reason) is 10x. And peers and management would see them as 10x. I've seen that quite a number of times. Many times as 10x, as 1x and even a few as 0.1x.
    - geon 14y ago
      Good code is dead simple to read and understand. That is what makes it good, because sooner or later, someone will need to read it and maintain it. Getting to that point is difficult, and may require a 10x programmer. But the end result is simplicity.

vorg 14y ago

The ten 1x programmers tend to turn against the 10x programmer before he/she has time to manifest, to protect their own 10 jobs.

michaelochurch 14y ago
Very fucking true. Also dangerous is the 2.5x who thinks he's a 10x, convinces management of this, and then drives out everyone better. (For my part, I'm only a 6-8x. I'm fairly new to software and I also spend too much fucking time on activism.)