4 ms·

Putting on my client/product manager hat for a moment, this is incredibly annoying. You are putting me in the position of either (a) fixing the obvious ducks an

Putting on my client/product manager hat for a moment, this is incredibly annoying. You are putting me in the position of either (a) fixing the obvious ducks and not looking closely at the real problems, or (b) having to micromanage you and scheduling another review to make further changes. Maybe you get your desired result (a), but my opinion of your work is going to be much lower since you are making obvious duck-sized mistakes. If you are a developer who takes this approach, you may want to consider whether the short-term benefit of avoiding criticism is worth the long-term downside of having me think you are incompetent.

jimmaswell 12y ago
This isn't meant to apply to managers who actually know what they're doing and don't always have to make a change just to look like they're contributing. If you're competent then the developers probably won't feel the need to do this.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- damoncali 12y ago
  AKA the Gunny Hartman doctrine: "If it wasn't for dickheads like you, there wouldn't be any thievery in this world, would there?"
slapresta 12y ago
If you interpret this to be about "avoiding criticism" instead of as a counter-reaction to meddling, clueless middle management eager to justify their job position at a cost on employee time and product quality, then you're likely to be part of the very problem ducks fix.
Nacraile 12y ago
I think you're missing the point. The point here is that some PMs feel that if they're not demanding changes, they are not necessary / not doing their job / etc. If there's nothing wrong with the completed work, such a PM will demand unnecessary changes, in order to justify themselves. The duck is a passive counter to the PM's pathological behaviour: ensure there's always some easily-fixed fault, so the PM can feel like they're doing something, without forcing unnecessary high-effort changes. Since the duck is obviously bad and easily removed, it shouldn't prevent the PM from noticing real issues, or detract from fixing real issues. If you feel the need to add ducks, the real problem is that you have a bad PM. But if you're a dev and have no good way to solve the real problem...
- Elepsis 12y ago
  The problem is that it's not uncommon for a dev/designer/etc. to not understand some of the reasoning for why a PM is requesting changes be made. We all snicker at the incompetent PM who just wants to "make their mark" on a project, but very often the demand that may appear that way is motivated by entirely legitimate concerns. (And yes, the PM should bring the dev along with them, etc.) If you "add a duck" and the PM ends up missing the legitimate concerns as a result, everyone loses. The add-a-duck attitude fundamentally assumes that the dev/designer knows what's best for the end product and the customer, and while that happens some of the time, the reason the PM role exists in the first place is because that's not always true. :)
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  > The point here is that some PMs feel that if they're not demanding changes, they are not necessary / not doing their job / etc. If there's nothing wrong with the completed work, such a PM will demand unnecessary changes, in order to justify themselves. Is that the point? Or is the point that some developers/designers don't like to get edited, so they tell themselves that their PM is pathological? There's more than one valid perspective on things, and in my experience professional relationships work better when everyone realizes that. edit: spelling
donuteaters 12y ago
There are plenty of incompetent managers and consultants who justify their existence by demanding pointless changes. If one of your subordinates is putting obvious ducks in the product, perhaps you should reflect and decide if you have a history of micromanaging.
monokrome 12y ago
Nobody is saying to intentionally put things wrong into the software in order to get your attention on the wrong things. They are saying that there are people who will ask for changes when there isn't value to them, but only because it allows them to make a difference. I've seen cases where people have completely ruined products in ways like this. I don't think that anybody is actually saying that "broken" / "poor" features should be added just to be removed... Possibly unless you have been working with one of the people who require you to change things without unreasonably.
monokrome 12y ago
Nobody is saying to intentionally put things wrong into the software in order to get your attention on the wrong things. They are saying that there are people who will ask for changes when there isn't value to them, but only because it allows them to make a difference. I've seen cases where people have completely ruined products in ways like this. I don't think that anybody is actually saying that I should add broken features.
mathattack 12y ago
Taken literally this is pretty bad. Wasting time to placate hands on incompetent managers is not sustainable. This is also why design by committee fails - everyone wants to seem like they have some input. The reality is this always exists to a degree. Politics exist. It can be hard to come up with an objective definition of best, especially around usability. (A/B testing helps, but only so far) So one has to learn how to do the politics to get things done.
xster 12y ago
I think the fact that you started off with the assumption that the PM is competent illustrates the inherent entitlement problem with a lot of PMs in the software industry. Yes, PMs are highly important roles when done right. Companies who imitate companies that are successful (and who hires great people) picks up the PM role without picking up the culture of building good products or the hiring practices ends up with PMs who think they're competent and superior by association with the role they're in and that their opinion about who is competent is relevant.
- damoncali 12y ago
  I think that the point is more that everyone has bouts of incompetence now and then. Sure, some more than others, but it happens to the best of us. Doing something intentionally stupid and manipulative in the name of competence seems counter productive if not paradoxical. It also smells of narcissism and an inability to look at what might be a larger picture. That's my experience with the type of person who tends to pull this sort of thing.
rfrey 12y ago
If you are a product manager who provides thoughtful rather than asinine criticism, your developers will not do this. It's defence, not offence.
vellum 12y ago
A competent PM would notice the duck and any real issues. An incompetent PM would only notice the duck.
Shorel 12y ago
The duck is not something that is/should-be used often, and it's not to be used with a competent manager. It's a last resource action. It means you as a manager are unqualified to manage the project and any idea you have is perceived as a waste of time by the employees, and you make them lose time, in fact, you probably already have a track record of meaningless changes and many man-hours wasted only to satisfy your tiny ego. Also, in that case your own opinion is as meaningless as the duck.

jimmaswell 12y ago

This isn't meant to apply to managers who actually know what they're doing and don't always have to make a change just to look like they're contributing. If you're competent then the developers probably won't feel the need to do this.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
damoncali 12y ago
AKA the Gunny Hartman doctrine: "If it wasn't for dickheads like you, there wouldn't be any thievery in this world, would there?"

slapresta 12y ago

If you interpret this to be about "avoiding criticism" instead of as a counter-reaction to meddling, clueless middle management eager to justify their job position at a cost on employee time and product quality, then you're likely to be part of the very problem ducks fix.

Nacraile 12y ago

I think you're missing the point. The point here is that some PMs feel that if they're not demanding changes, they are not necessary / not doing their job / etc. If there's nothing wrong with the completed work, such a PM will demand unnecessary changes, in order to justify themselves. The duck is a passive counter to the PM's pathological behaviour: ensure there's always some easily-fixed fault, so the PM can feel like they're doing something, without forcing unnecessary high-effort changes. Since the duck is obviously bad and easily removed, it shouldn't prevent the PM from noticing real issues, or detract from fixing real issues. If you feel the need to add ducks, the real problem is that you have a bad PM. But if you're a dev and have no good way to solve the real problem...

Elepsis 12y ago
The problem is that it's not uncommon for a dev/designer/etc. to not understand some of the reasoning for why a PM is requesting changes be made. We all snicker at the incompetent PM who just wants to "make their mark" on a project, but very often the demand that may appear that way is motivated by entirely legitimate concerns. (And yes, the PM should bring the dev along with them, etc.) If you "add a duck" and the PM ends up missing the legitimate concerns as a result, everyone loses. The add-a-duck attitude fundamentally assumes that the dev/designer knows what's best for the end product and the customer, and while that happens some of the time, the reason the PM role exists in the first place is because that's not always true. :)
snowwrestler 12y ago
> The point here is that some PMs feel that if they're not demanding changes, they are not necessary / not doing their job / etc. If there's nothing wrong with the completed work, such a PM will demand unnecessary changes, in order to justify themselves. Is that the point? Or is the point that some developers/designers don't like to get edited, so they tell themselves that their PM is pathological? There's more than one valid perspective on things, and in my experience professional relationships work better when everyone realizes that. edit: spelling

donuteaters 12y ago

There are plenty of incompetent managers and consultants who justify their existence by demanding pointless changes. If one of your subordinates is putting obvious ducks in the product, perhaps you should reflect and decide if you have a history of micromanaging.

monokrome 12y ago

Nobody is saying to intentionally put things wrong into the software in order to get your attention on the wrong things. They are saying that there are people who will ask for changes when there isn't value to them, but only because it allows them to make a difference. I've seen cases where people have completely ruined products in ways like this. I don't think that anybody is actually saying that "broken" / "poor" features should be added just to be removed... Possibly unless you have been working with one of the people who require you to change things without unreasonably.

monokrome 12y ago

mathattack 12y ago

Taken literally this is pretty bad. Wasting time to placate hands on incompetent managers is not sustainable. This is also why design by committee fails - everyone wants to seem like they have some input. The reality is this always exists to a degree. Politics exist. It can be hard to come up with an objective definition of best, especially around usability. (A/B testing helps, but only so far) So one has to learn how to do the politics to get things done.

xster 12y ago

I think the fact that you started off with the assumption that the PM is competent illustrates the inherent entitlement problem with a lot of PMs in the software industry. Yes, PMs are highly important roles when done right. Companies who imitate companies that are successful (and who hires great people) picks up the PM role without picking up the culture of building good products or the hiring practices ends up with PMs who think they're competent and superior by association with the role they're in and that their opinion about who is competent is relevant.

damoncali 12y ago
I think that the point is more that everyone has bouts of incompetence now and then. Sure, some more than others, but it happens to the best of us. Doing something intentionally stupid and manipulative in the name of competence seems counter productive if not paradoxical. It also smells of narcissism and an inability to look at what might be a larger picture. That's my experience with the type of person who tends to pull this sort of thing.

rfrey 12y ago

If you are a product manager who provides thoughtful rather than asinine criticism, your developers will not do this. It's defence, not offence.

vellum 12y ago

A competent PM would notice the duck and any real issues. An incompetent PM would only notice the duck.

Shorel 12y ago

The duck is not something that is/should-be used often, and it's not to be used with a competent manager. It's a last resource action. It means you as a manager are unqualified to manage the project and any idea you have is perceived as a waste of time by the employees, and you make them lose time, in fact, you probably already have a track record of meaningless changes and many man-hours wasted only to satisfy your tiny ego. Also, in that case your own opinion is as meaningless as the duck.