Archive
What Will The Children Think?
A Costly Mistake For Many
In “Learning Standard C++ as a New Language“, Bjarne Stroustrup gives a slightly different take on the waterfall method of software-intensive system development:
“… treating programming as merely the handmaiden of analysis and design doesn’t work either. The approach of postponing actual discussion of code until every high-level and engineering topic has been thoroughly presented has been a costly mistake for many. That approach drives people away from programming and leads many to seriously underestimate the intellectual challenge in the creation of production-quality code.“
If your company implicitly treats software engineers like “code monkeys” and great engineers strive to “rise” into coveted management positions ASAP because the unspoken ethos is that “coders” are interchangeable cogs, then your company most likely has made costly mistakes in the past and it will most likely do so again in the future.
Personal And Social
Another Rare Gem
At Saab Sensis, we use Atlassian‘s Confluence wiki and Jira issue tracking tools for intra-project communications. They are wonderful, easy to use, and instantaneously fluid communication tools that increase productivity relative to the sole use of paper documents and fragmented, agenda-less meetings.
After reading this article by Atlassian employee John Rotenstein, “It’s the Culture, Stupid!“, I’ve added the company to my list of faves:
So, how did Atlassian squeeze into the esteemed BD00 list of faves? Here are the snippets that did the trick:
- Atlassian’s CEOs have instilled an information culture throughout the company with the core value of “Open Company, No Bullshit”. The result is a bottom-up democracy of information where information sharing is the norm and information hoarding is a foreign concept.
- The very act of using a wiki, with its easy access to information and default ‘open’ nature of information, led to an information culture in Atlassian of openness and sharing.
- Where ever possible, information is made accessible to all staff. Instead of sending person-to-person emails, relevant information is placed on the wiki for all staff to read. Instead of storing information in documents (eg Word files), information is entered directly onto the wiki so that it is searchable and accessible to all staff — even from home! New staff members, upon joining the company, have immediate access to all historical information kept on the wiki.
- From the very beginning, Atlassian founders Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar had a firm belief in having an ‘Open Company’. Unlike other companies that kept information in silos, their vision has always been of a company that has open information by default.
Regarding number 1, I love when employees and executives use everyday language within and without the company – not the carefully crafted, robo-management jargon that wall-streeters and elitist big-wigs want to hear.
Regarding number 4, I love how the company policy toward information is open by default; not closed by default like the moo-herd.
Note: With a tinge of regret, I replaced Saab Sensis with Atlassian in my list of faves. It’s a good company and I really do like working there, but after a bit of reflection and re-evaluation, it’s just not in the same class. In BD00’s whacky and weird world (where you don’t wanna go because the sky is pink and water flows uphill), Saab Sensis is a notch above the sea of CLORGs and DYSCOs that dot the landscape, but a notch below these world class organizations.
Desired And Actual
A Missing Core Value?
I’d venture to say that every technology company has phrases similar to “elegant products“, “technical excellence“, “innovative solutions“, and “quality first” smartly written in its mission and/or core values statements. I’d also venture to say that “schedule is king” is not explicitly inscribed in those WORN documents.
Regardless of what is espoused in their cutesy mission and core values statements, all mediocre and underperforming corpricracies operate day-to-day as if “schedule is king” is their top priority. How many times have you heard managers say the words “quality“, “elegance“, or “excellence” when discussing or reviewing a project? Now, how many times have you heard the word “schedule” uttered by managers?
If “quality“, “elegance“, or “excellence” are never mentioned because they’re “auto-assumed” to be present in all project endeavors, then why write them down? If “meeting schedule at all costs” is really what drives day-to-day behavior in the DYSCO, then why not write it down and put it at the top of the list?
Schein On You Crazy Diamond
Edgar Schein is a well known MIT expert on the topic of organizational culture. In “A Corporate Climate of Mutual Help“, Mr. Schein describes his method for taking on the huge challenge of changing institutional culture. Wisely, he harbors a:
deep respect for the power and legitimacy of ingrained assumptions and attitudes that people develop together gradually.
While talking about the approach that CGHs, BUTTs, and SCOLs typically pursue when trying to improve their CLORG‘s culture, he sez:
they think that to change culture, you simply introduce a new culture and tell people to follow it. All you’ve done is stated the obvious, like “We’re for motherhood.”
Mr. Schein goes further in peeling the onion:
It’s the very nature of authority to say, “Don’t be a squeaky wheel. You made your point, but we’re going to go ahead anyway. I don’t want to hear any more.”
In lieu of the easy “dictate-and-skidaddle-away” strategy, Mr. Schein’s painstakingly thoughtful and time consuming approach to cultural change (which makes it unacceptable to most institutional SCOLs) is:
…one of observation, inquiry, and leverage.This means observing the ways in which an organization’s employees act; deducing (or inquiring about) the ways they think; and putting in place small behavioral changes that lead them, bit by bit, to think about things differently.
Notice that to execute Mr. Schein’s strategy requires sustained commitment, hard work, and empathy. You know, those traits that SCOLs demand from their subordinates but not themselves.
So, why is designing and implementing a healthy culture becoming more and more important in this era of social networking and instantaneous connectivity? It’s because:
…work in many companies is getting more complex, and subordinates have more relative power by virtue of their specialized expertise. If they choose to not tell the boss about problems, the company will never know that there’s an issue until it’s too late. The people with the most authority and established knowledge must make the others feel psychologically safe; everyone will speak up freely when something is wrong.
Of course, if institutional leaders auto-assume that their culture matches the esprit de corps they espouse it to be, then they don’t have a clue that it needs maintaining or (heaven forbid) improving. They then deserve what they get – a deterioration in the quality of work life for all (which includes themselves), which leads to increased apathy at the workface, which leads to decreased commitments to efficiency and innovation, which leads to a degradation in the borg’s products and services, which leads to an incremental (and undetectable) decline in long term financial viability….. until it’s too late and a hairball crisis appears seemingly out of nowhere.
Effective And Ineffective
In the 50 year old book, “The Human Side Of Enterprise“, Douglas McGregor lists the attributes of effective groups as follows:
- The atmosphere is informal, comfortable, relaxed.
- There is lots of pertinent discussion and it stays on track.
- The group’s task is well understood and accepted.
- Members listen to each other and have no fear of looking foolish.
- There is disagreement and no conflict avoidance.
- Decisions are made mostly by consensus.
- Criticism is frank, frequent, relatively comfortable.
- Members freely express feelings on problems and group operation.
- Clear assignments are made and accepted.
- The group lead doesn’t dominate and there is no struggle for power.
- The group is self-conscious and periodically reflects on performance.
So, do you think this list is outdated and inapplicable in this day and age? How many effective groups have you had the privilege of participating in?
For grins, let’s look at an inverted version of the list:
- The atmosphere is formal, uncomfortable, tense.
- There is lots of impertinent discussion and it wanders all over the map.
- The group’s task is vague, undefined and thus, unaccepted.
- Members ignore each other and put on a mask of infallibility.
- There is no disagreement and conflicts are avoided.
- Decisions are made by authority
- Criticism is personal and uncomfortable.
- Members cover up and suppress feelings.
- No assignments are made and tasks fall though the cracks – accepted by no one or the ubiquitous “we”.
- The group head dominates and there is much politicking to curry favor.
- The group is unconscious.
Which of these lists feels more familiar to you?
Downward Dependence
Almost everybody knows about, and behaves in accordance with, the concept of “Upward Dependence“. You know, the hapless dependence of the many toiling in the lower levels of a hierarchically structured org upon the few in the higher levels for financial, psychological and, in extreme cases (e.g. despot-commandeered governments), physical health. However, in CLORGs and DYSCOs, the reality of “Downward Dependence” is willfully ignored in the minds of the DICforce and the SCOLs who rule over them.
The term “Downward Dependence” captures the fact that the health of the whole org, which obviously includes its upper echelons, depends heavily on the quality and efficiency of the work performed in the lower tiers. As a minimum, a recognition of the reality of “Downward Dependence” requires:
- humility on the part of SCOLs
- assertiveness on the part of DICsters
In viable and cutting edge orgs, these behaviors are on display daily, but not in CLORGs or DYSCOs. In these types of monstrosities, the 18th century reward and punishment system they utilize requires the org’s SCOLs to don masks of infallibility and its DICs to be unassertive – regardless of whether the participants know it or not. Bummer for the “whole“, no?
These Guys “Get It”
In the freely downloadable National Academies book, “Critical Code: Software Producibility for Defense“, the dudes who wrote the book “get it“. Check out this rather long snippet and place close attention on the bolded sentences. If you dare, pay closer attention to the snarky Bulldozer00 commentary highlighted in RED .
An additional challenge to the DoD is that the split between technical and management roles will result (has already resulted) in leaders who, on moving into management, face the prospect of losing technical excellence and currency over time. This means that their qualifications to lead in architectural decision making (and schedule making) may diminish unless they can couple project management with ongoing architectural leadership and technical engagement. The DoD does not (and legions of private enterprises don’t) have strong technical career paths that build on and advance software expertise with the exception of the service labs. Upward career progression trends leading closer to senior management-focused roles and further away from technical involvement tend to stress general management rather than technical management experience (well, duh! That’s the way status-centric command and control hierarchies are designed.). This is not necessarily the case in technology-intensive roles in industry (not necessarily, but still pervasively). Many (but nearly not enough) of the most senior leaders in the technology industry have technical backgrounds and continue to exercise technical roles and be engaged in technology strategy. Nonetheless, certain DoD software needs remain sufficiently complex and unique and are not covered by the commercial world, and therefore call for internal DoD software expertise. In the DoD, however, as software personnel take on more management responsibility, they have less opportunity and incentive to stay technically current (<- this “feature” is baked into command and control hierarchies where, of course, caste and who-reports-to-who is king – to hell with excellence and what sustains an enterprise’s health and profitability). At the same time, there is an increasing need for an acquisition workforce that has a strong understanding of the challenges in systems engineering and software-intensive systems development. It is particularly critical to have program managers who understand modern software development and systems (If that’s the case, then the DoD and most private enterprises are hosed. D’oh!).
Could it be that unelected, anointed “managers” in DoD and technology industry CLORGs and DYSCOs are still stuck in the 20th century FOSTMA mindset? You know, the UCB where they “feel” they are entitled to higher compensation and stature than the lower cast knowledge workers (architects, designers, programmers, testers, etc) just because they occupy a higher slot in an anachronistic, and no longer applicable, way of life – no matter what the cost to the whole org’s viability.
In command and control hierarchies, almost everybody is a wanna-be:
“I wanna rise up to the next level so I’ll: make more money, have more freedom, be perceived as more important, and rule over the hapless dudes in my former level“. Nah, that’s not true. BD00 has been drinkin’ too many dirty, really really dirty, martinis.
Why am I here?
WTF?
Meh!
D'oh!
My BTC Address
Bulldozer00's Blog 