3 ms·

Harlan Mills has a much better metaphor that captures how different roles match with different personality types and doesn't insist that people be fired as if t

by gfody 12y ago

Harlan Mills has a much better metaphor that captures how different roles match with different personality types and doesn't insist that people be fired as if the company "out grows" certain engineers. (http://javatroopers.com/Mythical_Man_Month.html#Chapter_3 http://javatroopers.com/Mythical_Man_Month.html#Chapter_3) If companies outgrow anyone it's executive leadership that for whatever reason can no longer motivate and inspire their workforce.

ryan-allen 12y ago
The early stage, unless they have control, wonder why on earth they should listen to the newly hired management layer when it was them who build the damn business. I've been in this situation before. I couldn't take direction from anyone who thought they knew what we did better than me, since I had been there from day one and saw the thing through. Also there's resentment that they're jumping on late and riding coat tails when you've already done the hard yards. I don't think executive leadership is actually about motivating staff per-se and more about building little fortresses to further their career ends.
jdeibele 12y ago
That seems simplistic. What I've seen is the jack-of-all-trades is necessary at the start. As things progress, another person - or multiple people - are assigned to each of those "trades". But it's not just that it's specializing, it's that there's more accountability. If you're supposed to be adding function X to module Y, that's much different than "fight the hottest fire". Sometimes people get fired because they insist on acting the way that things that started. From their viewpoint it's even reasonable: they haven't change, the position has. Sometimes people recognize the situation and quit. Being employee number 40 is quite a bit different than 400 or 40,000. Or number 4. Some people are able to negotiate the changes. Some bosses or CEOs can. A lot can't.

by gfody 12y ago

ryan-allen 12y ago

The early stage, unless they have control, wonder why on earth they should listen to the newly hired management layer when it was them who build the damn business. I've been in this situation before. I couldn't take direction from anyone who thought they knew what we did better than me, since I had been there from day one and saw the thing through. Also there's resentment that they're jumping on late and riding coat tails when you've already done the hard yards. I don't think executive leadership is actually about motivating staff per-se and more about building little fortresses to further their career ends.

jdeibele 12y ago

That seems simplistic. What I've seen is the jack-of-all-trades is necessary at the start. As things progress, another person - or multiple people - are assigned to each of those "trades". But it's not just that it's specializing, it's that there's more accountability. If you're supposed to be adding function X to module Y, that's much different than "fight the hottest fire". Sometimes people get fired because they insist on acting the way that things that started. From their viewpoint it's even reasonable: they haven't change, the position has. Sometimes people recognize the situation and quit. Being employee number 40 is quite a bit different than 400 or 40,000. Or number 4. Some people are able to negotiate the changes. Some bosses or CEOs can. A lot can't.