3 ms·
responsibility for the failure does belong to management, certainly, but taking away all responsibility from the employee for producing poor work is amazingly p
by oldmanjay 12y ago
responsibility for the failure does belong to management, certainly, but taking away all responsibility from the employee for producing poor work is amazingly populist, but not particularly helpful to the reality that the person is unable to do the job assigned.
I'm assuming such this is some of that good old low-current class warfare you get in tech circles... all managers are stupid and evil, all engineers are pure and virtuous. that's the same sort of thing that leads to Aaron Swartz being lionized for breaking the law, because the prosecutor sought a ridiculous punishment.
a failure in process does not have the side effect of absolving individual responsibility.
- jacquesm 12y agoThe guy simply should not have been in a position to send this PR, that's not populist, it's reality. So you fix the process and you try to salvage what was produced in a way that has the least overhead and the maximum possibility for success. If you feel like pushing the blame on the employee you can do that but then you risk it happening over and over again, in the end the employee owns the code he produced but the process that put him in that position is 100% a management issue. The trick is not to either define this is good old low-current class warfare or as stupid or evil managers and virtuous engineers, that's a total strawman. You simply need to apportion your effort there where you can fix what went wrong and to avoid a repetition. Aaron Swartz need not be brought in to it, that has nothing to do with any of this.