The Manager’s Blinders

What Shapes a Manager’s Limited Perspective?

When managers step into their offices, they see things differently—and sometimes that means they don’t see things at all. The necessity to focus on specific factors like team responsibilities, personal targets, and their own wellbeing can often render them blind to matters in plain sight.

Why the Equine Comparison?

Horses have eyes positioned on the sides of their heads, giving them a wide field of vision but also creating blind spots directly in front and behind them. Similarly, managers often concentrate so intently on particular areas that they overlook what may be obvious to others.

Are Managers Bound by Hierarchy?

Hierarchical dynamics often narrow a manager’s field of view. Busy aligning their decisions with the goals of upper management, they may neglect input from subordinates or peers. Just as a horse may miss what’s right under its nose or behind its tail, managers can overlook what’s happening at other levels of the organisation.

Does Resource Management Limit Sight?

When focused on allocating resources like staffing and budgets, managers may fail to spot emerging needs, interpersonal issues or unexplored opportunities. These blind spots can have repercussions, delaying problem-solving and hampering innovation.

Is Accountability a Double-Edged Sword?

While being accountable adds a layer of caution to managerial decision-making, it can also instil a sort of tunnel vision. Concerns for their own wellbeing may overshadow the broader needs of the team or the organisation, obscuring potential pathways for collective growth.

What Soft Skills Are Overlooked?

Even if they value soft skills like empathy and emotional intelligence, managers can still miss the human element in their daily operations. Wrapped up in tasks and targets, they may neglect the well-being of their team members, failing to notice signs of burnout or disengagement.

How Does Adaptability Affect Perception?

While adaptability is crucial, constantly shifting focus can make managers prone to missing consistent patterns or long-term issues. In their bid to adapt and survive, they may not notice that they are perpetuating systemic problems or missing out on stable solutions.

In Summary

Just as a horse’s unique vision serves it well but also leaves it vulnerable, managers too have their own blind spots. Despite—or perhaps because of—their focus on hierarchy, resources, and accountability, they may miss things that are glaringly obvious to others. Recognising these limitations isn’t just beneficial; it’s essential for the growth and cohesion of the team and the organisation.

So You’re a Manager and You Hate Your Job?

So you’re a manager now. Welcome to the party! You’ll quickly find that a lot of things about the role are neither as fun nor as straightforward as you may have been led to believe. Let’s dig into the factors that make the job less glamorous than advertised.

What Makes the Job Risible?

1. Unrealistic Expectations: You’re now the solver of everyone’s problems. Good luck juggling everyone’s needs and desires.
2. Blurred Lines of Authority: You’re told you’re the boss, but often, decisions are made over your head.
3. Dealing With Personalities: Unlike chess pieces or cogs or Borg Drones, humans have emotions, opinions, and bad days.
4. Daily Drudgery: Meetings, paperwork, more meetings. Did anyone mention there’d be so much admin?

Why Is the Job Detestable?

1. You Can’t Just Order People Around: Gone are the days where a stern look would do the trick. You’re not in a dictatorship, you’re in an office – or not even.
2. Lack of Autonomy: Being a manager doesn’t mean you have all the power. In fact, it generally feels like you have less.
3. Accountability Without Control: When things go south, you’re the first to suffer, even if the factors were beyond your grasp. A veritable whipping boy (or girl).
4. Mundane Tasks: Think management is all strategy and expense account lunches and power moves? Think again. You’re also the go-to for approving holiday leaves and dealing with niggling disputes.

Remember Captain Sobel from ‘Band of Brothers’?

You might recall the character Captain Herbert M. Sobel, portrayed by David Schwimmer in the miniseries “Band of Brothers.” Sobel’s style was authoritarian, focused on discipline and regimen, often at the cost of morale and trust. His approach led to a lack of faith among his men and ultimately didn’t serve him or his troops well in the field.

Can Nonviolence Be the Answer?

Nonviolence is more than the absence of physical force; it’s about fostering an environment of respect, dialogue, and mutual understanding. Sobel’s method lacked these qualities, highlighting how ineffective a ‘command and control’ model can be.

Is Sobel’s Style a Cautionary Tale?

Absolutely. A rigid, authoritarian style might work in certain settings, but in most modern workplaces, this approach is outdated, ineffective and doomed to failure. Employees don’t respond well to leaders who operate solely on a basis of power and fear. A successful  team is not a set of robots to command.

What Should You Do Instead?

1. Be Flexible: Adapt your style to the situation and the needs of your teams.
2. Communicate: Keep the lines open. No one can read minds.
3. Be Human: Show empathy and understanding. You’re managing people, not machines. In fact, don;t manage the people at all.”You manage things; you lead people.” ~ Grace Hooper, Rear Admiral, USN
4. Learn Continuously: The best managers know they don’t have all the answers and are willing to grow.

Managing is tough, no doubt. But understanding its flaws and challenges is the first step in doing it better. Don’t be a Sobel; be the manager you wish you had.

Why Not Managers?

The Managerial Role: Obsolete

Traditionally, managers serve as overseers, ensuring work flows smoothly and deadlines meet their marks. But in today’s business environments, we’re seeing a seismic shift. Teams are self-organising and making decisions independently. Why do we still need managers?

Do Teams Manage Themselves?

The answer seems to lean towards ‘yes’, teams can and do “manage” themselves. In settings where productivity is of the essence, the emphasis is on empowering teams to solve problems and innovate without having a managerial figure present, breathing down their necks. Collective ownership becomes the mantra, and everyone takes responsibility for the product’s success or failure.

What Happens to Accountability?

Contrary to popular belief, the absence of a traditional managerial role doesn’t mean accountability vanishes. In fact, team members often feel more accountable to each other than they might to a distant or toxic boss. Review processes become more meaningful, as peers understand the challenges and intricacies of the tasks at hand.

Is Decision-Making More Efficient?

The chain of command usually slows down decision-making. In a manager-less environment, teams arrive at decisions more quickly and can adapt to changes or unexpected challenges without having to wait for managerial approval. This can be especially vital in the fast-paced world of software development. See also: Auftragstaktik.

Does Quality Suffer?

One concern is that without a managerial figure to enforce standards, quality might slip. However, evidence suggests that the opposite happens. A sense of ownership and peer review often leads to a higher standard of work. Team members become each other’s quality control, leading to a more cohesive and well-executed end product. See also: Ensemble development.

What’s the Role of Leadership?

Leadership doesn’t evaporate in the absence of managers; it merely takes a different form. Leaders emerge naturally, guided by their expertise, communication skills, context, and the team’s respect. These leaders are often more in tune with the needs and dynamics of the team, making for a more harmonious and productive work environment.

Is This Model for Every Business?

The manager-less model isn’t just a passing fad in the software development world; it raises legitimate questions about the universal need for managers across all business types. While some argue that industries with stringent regulatory compliance or high-volume customer interactions need a managerial structure, this reasoning often serves as a convenient crutch rather than a real justification.

Firstly, regulatory compliance doesn’t inherently require a managerial role. Businesses can still adhere to laws and regulations through well-documented processes and collective responsibility. Teams can be educated and empowered to include regulators in the set of Folks That Matter™ and comply with rules without a manager acting as the gatekeeper.

Secondly, the idea that customer service businesses benefit from managerial roles is also questionable. Frontline employees are more likely to understand the intricacies and nuances of customer interactions than a removed managerial figure. Empowered teams often show better problem-solving capabilities, which is beneficial in handling complex customer concerns.

So, are managers necessary? The evidence increasingly points to ‘no’. Even outside the tech sector, rethinking the need for managers can lead to more agile, responsive, and accountable businesses.

So, Are Managers Redundant?

In the context of modern software development and certain types of businesses, managers are increasingly looking like relics of a past era. For businesses willing to take the leap, a manager-less structure offers more than just cost savings; it paves the way for innovation, efficiency, and a far more engaged workforce.

Further Reading

Zanini, M. (2021). Can we manage without managers? Retrieved on 9 September 2023 from https://www.michelezanini.com/can-we-manage-without-managers/
Zanini, M. (2014). Companies without managers better every metric. Retrieved on 9 September 2023 from https://www.cobrt-archive.com/archived-blog/2014/08/companies-without-managers-better-every-metric/

Are Managers Killing Their Golden Geese?

Cognitive Function Rules

Cognitive function encapsulates the mental processes needed for problem-solving, abstract thinking, and quick decision-making. In the realm of software development, high cognitive function is indispensable for understanding complex algorithms, creating efficient code, delivering quality, and solving intricate problems.

Why Does Cognitive Function Matter?

When cognitive function is at its peak, developers can perform their tasks not just quickly but also effectively. It enables them to come up with innovative solutions, debug issues proficiently, and contribute meaningfully to a project’s success.

How Do Managers Disrupt Cognitive Function?

Routine managerial practices like frequent check-ins, status reports, micromanagement, and unclear objectives can negatively impact a developer’s cognitive function. Added to this, loaded work schedules and harsh deadlines contribute to stress, which further degrades cognitive performance.

What About Toxic Behaviour?

Abusive and toxic conduct from managers goes beyond disrupting cognitive function. This behaviour often leads to severe emotional stress, causing long-term harm – including brain damage – that manifests as burnout, poor performance, and staff turnover.

What’s the Consequence?

When cognitive function suffers, the ripple effect is felt throughout the team and the organisation. There’s a decline in product quality, an increase in mistakes, and a noticeable lag in delivery timelines. In such a scenario, managers are essentially killing the very geese (developers) that lay the golden eggs (software).

Is There a Remedy?

Creating a more nurturing work environment can help. Managers might choose to adopt practices that allow for focused work, respect individual needs, and most importantly, eliminate toxic and abusive behaviours.

Will Change Happen?

The ball’s in the managers’ court. The cognitive well-being of their software developers—and by extension, the quality and success of their own wellbeing—depends on how they choose to adapt their management styles.

Why Managers?

Who’s In Charge?

For years, companies have automatically installed managers at the helm of software development teams. Why? Perhaps it’s because this model has been employed across various other industries with some semblance of success. But is this the right approach for software development?

Does Archaism Matter?

Historically, the concept of a manager has roots in the Industrial Age, where assembly lines were all the rage. These lines seemed like they needed supervision and structure. The manager became the linchpin in ensuring that production flowed more or less smoothly. While this may have worked in a factory setting, software development isn’t assembly work. It’s more akin to crafting a work of art. So why are we still clinging to archaic notions?

What Devs Need

Developers don’t need someone hovering over them, dictating their every move. They need autonomy and space to innovate. Software development is a field that requires creative thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and an in-depth understanding of technologies. These skills can’t be micromanaged into existence. Instead, a supportive, collaborative environment is more beneficial. So, if not managers, then who or what can create such an environment?

Why Not Self-Management?

Self-management or self-organising teams are a game changer in the software development industry. Such teams have no formal manager but work towards a common goal. Every team member is responsible for managing their tasks and collaborating with their teammates. While this model isn’t flawless, it’s more attuned to the needs and work style of software developers, and collaborative knowledge work more generally.

There Are Alternatives

If going manager-free feels too risky, other structures such as ‘servant leadership’ offer a middle ground. In this framework, leaders exist but act as enablers rather than dictators. Their role is to remove obstacles and facilitate, rather than control. This form of leadership suits the collaborative, innovative nature of software development.

What’s the Bottom Line?

Installing managers in software development teams is a practice that’s way outlived its usefulness. While it’s not going to change overnight, there are alternative methods of organisation that better serve the needs of developers and promote a more effective, humane work environment. So, the next time someone suggests that a manager is essential for a software development team, consider whether tradition is clouding better judgement.

Positive Relationships and Collaborative Knowledge Work

Why Relationships Matter in Collaborative Settings

In sectors such as software development, and management, where collaborative knowledge work is the norm, the quality of relationships isn’t just a social nicety—it’s a business imperative. Positive interpersonal connections amplify collective intelligence, increase productivity, and enhance the overall quality of work. In contrast, strained relationships lead to communication breakdowns, reduced morale, and compromised results. Hence, any team that aims for excellence might choose to focus, at least in part, on fostering positive relationships.

The Heart of the Matter: Caring Deeply

Before diving into the nuts and bolts of relationship building, it’s important to highlight a fundamental principle: genuine care for those with whom you’re working. In the context of collaborative knowledge work like software development, or management, compassion might not be the first thing that comes to mind. However, a deep sense of care and understanding for your fellows is what turns a group of individuals into a cohesive unit. Compassion fosters a supportive environment where people feel valued, not just for their technical skills but for who they are as individuals. This, in turn, leads to a sense of shared purpose and mutual respect, driving the team to higher levels of achievement.

For those sceptical about the role of compassion in a professional setting, the book “Compassionomics” provides compelling evidence. It delves into the science behind compassion and demonstrates how this emotional intelligence skill significantly impacts relationship building and, ultimately, success.

Having set the stage with the importance of deep care and compassion, let’s delve into the specific strategies to build and maintain positive relationships in collaborative settings.

Master the Art of Listening

Listening is more than just a passive act; it’s an active skill. This is especially crucial in collaborative knowledge work where understanding each other is key to solving complex challenges. Effective listening reveals not only what team members are saying but also what they’re thinking or possibly avoiding saying. Technical teams and management teams may choose to regard this deeper level of communication as critical for addressing challenges and finding solutions collaboratively.

Cultivate Self-Awareness

In a team setting, knowing oneself is as vital as knowing one’s craft. Being aware of one’s own strengths, weaknesses, and emotional responses can help navigate team dynamics more effectively. This level of insight allows one to contribute where most effective, and defer when deferral plays to someone else’s strengths.

Uphold Respect as a Core Value

In any collaborative effort, people bring a diverse set of skills and perspectives to the table. The concept of respect goes beyond mere tolerance of this diversity; it involves valuing and leveraging these different skills and viewpoints to enrich the project. In software development, where cross-functional teams often collaborate, respecting different disciplines—be it engineering, UX design, or quality assurance—is vital for project success.

Make Room for Personal Space

Even in high-stakes environments, it’s crucial to understand that everyone needs space to operate effectively. Overcrowding can lead to burnout, reduced productivity, and deteriorated relationship quality. Allowing for ‘breathing room’ can also offer team members the chance for independent thought, which they can later bring back to enrich the collective effort.

Be Consistent in Communication

Effective communication is a key element of successful relationship building. In a fast-paced, deadline-driven setting, regular check-ins can be the lifeline that keeps projects on track. This doesn’t just mean status updates, but also sharing feedback, insights, and even acknowledging small wins. It keeps everyone aligned on goals and expectations, reducing the room for misunderstandings or conflict.

Embrace Adaptability

The nature of collaborative knowledge work, particularly in tech, is dynamic. Flexibility and willingness to adapt are not just desirable traits but beneficial practices for maintaining positive relationships amidst change.

Summary

In collaborative knowledge work, the importance of maintaining positive relationships is amplified due to its direct impact on productivity and outcomes. By incorporating principles like effective listening, self-awareness, respect, personal space, consistent communication, and adaptability, you can lay down a robust foundation for a successful collaborative environment.

Further Reading

Trzeciak, S., & Mazzarelli, A. (2019). Compassionomics: The Revolutionary Scientific Evidence that Caring Makes a Difference. Studer Group.

Radical Curiosity: The Rebel’s Fuel

The Underbelly of Conventionality

Let’s flip the script: you’ve heard the old yarns about risk management, balancing ledgers, and synergies in the boardroom. But where do these established narratives lead? More often than not, they funnel us down the same well-trodden paths, offering the comfort of predictability at the cost of innovation. The real elixir that can jolt a business into unfamiliar yet rewarding territory is the element of assiduous curiosity, particularly in the context of countercultural business management.

What Does Assiduous Curiosity Look Like?

Curiosity on its own is a start, but it’s not enough. We’ve all met the ‘bright sparks’, the idea generators, who fizzle out when it comes to follow-through. Assiduous curiosity is different—it’s about marrying the insatiable appetite for knowledge with the rigor of disciplined investigation. This is curiosity that digs, questions, and keeps the midnight oil burning.

For instance, Toyota Kata, a practice developed within Toyota, exemplifies this form of disciplined curiosity. It’s not just about finding problems but systematically solving them through iterative coaching cycles, thereby making the approach to solutions as important as the solutions themselves.

Cultivating Curiosity in a Countercultural Context

Being countercultural in business isn’t about being quirky for the sake of it. It’s about challenging the status quo and saying, “I reckon there’s a better way.” Combining this with assiduous curiosity allows for the exploration of alternative management strategies, financial models, or employee engagement techniques that mainstream wisdom might discourage. You’re not just asking ‘what if?’ but diving deep into the trenches to find out.

Start With the Margins

Scan the landscape for those already defying the norms—whether in social enterprises, disruptive startups, or alternative management theories. Delve into their world through readings, interviews, or hands-on experiences

The Tough Questions

Breaking from tradition means asking unsettling questions, be they about unequal pay or ineffective processes. Here, practices like Radical Candour are invaluable. They encourage us not only to question systems but to foster honest interpersonal relationships as well.

Research, but Not as You Know It

Invest in R&D not just for products or services but also for business practices. Assiduous curiosity is about a sustained commitment to finding out ‘what works’ in an unconventional setup.

R&D isn’t solely for product development. It’s equally crucial for evolving business practices. Companies like Toyota commit to long-term R&D through mechanisms like Toyota Kata, which align beautifully with a countercultural strategy rooted in assiduous curiosity..

Risks and Rewards: What’s at Stake?

Challenges Ahead

Being assiduously curious in a countercultural setting isn’t a walk in the park. You’ll likely face resistance, skepticism, and, let’s be honest, occasional failures.

Radical Candour itself can be challenging to implement. Just like assiduous curiosity, it can lead to uncomfortable conversations and initial resistance. However, these are often the catalysts for transformative change.

The Bounties of the Path Less Travelled

But the rewards are potentially immense. You might stumble upon a business model that’s not just profitable but also equitable and sustainable. You may find a management style that not only improves effectiveness but also enhances employee well-being.

The Toyota Kata method shows us that even in a large, well-established company, nurturing a culture of disciplined curiosity can yield innovative solutions. It’s evidence that the rewards of following an unconventional path can be both profitable and transformative.

The Odyssey, Not the Destination

Assiduous curiosity isn’t a short-lived initiative or an annual retreat; it’s an ongoing culture change. In this vein, both Toyota Kata and Radical Candour teach us that the objective isn’t merely to reach a destination, but to cultivate a culture where relentless inquiry and direct communication are celebrated, even demanded.

So, let’s throw the conventional playbook to the wind and make room for a richer narrative—one where assiduous curiosity becomes the lead actor on the stage of countercultural business management. This isn’t about merely switching out tactics or adopting new lingo. Instead, it’s an invitation to rewrite the very rules that govern how we think about business, management, and leadership. Through the lenses of mechanisms like Toyota Kata and practices like Radical Candour, we can reimagine the fabric of our work environment. We’re not just nudged to question the norm; we’re propelled to dig deeper, speak openly, and strive for continual improvement. In so doing, we not only challenge the existing paradigms but also build new ones that are more equitable, sustainable, and inherently dynamic. How about we embark on this intellectual odyssey, creating a realm where relentless inquiry and unabashed directness are not only tolerated but vigorously celebrated. It’s high time we moved beyond traditional norms to lead and innovate in ways that are as deeply considered as they are boldly unorthodox.

 

Dr. Deming and the Antimatter Principle

Evaluating the Assertion

Dr. W. Edwards Deming posited that the most important act a manager can make is to understand an individual’s needs. Could this insight be the cornerstone for a more reciprocal, mutually beneficial management style? Let’s explore in the context of the Antimatter Principle.

The Principle of Mutuality in Management

Management isn’t a one-way street. The idea that managers should attend to the needs and priorities of their staff isn’t merely an altruistic approach; it’s a strategy that pays dividends. When employees feel that their personal needs and goals are being attended to, they’re often more inclined to reciprocate by aligning themselves more closely with the needs of managers, other teams, and the organisation at large.

Beyond Self-Interest: A Two-Way Street

This isn’t just about individual benefits or personal motivation. It’s about creating an ecosystem of mutual respect and collaboration. When managers take the time to understand what’s important to each employee, a reciprocal relationship often develops:

• Employees are more likely to buy into company goals and objectives.
• Greater willingness to go the extra mile when the team or company requires it.
• Enhanced collaboration among team members, born out of a mutual understanding of each other’s needs and priorities.

The Virtuous Cycle of Understanding

When the principle of mutuality is applied in management, it often creates a virtuous cycle:

1. Manager Understands the Individual: This means taking the time to learn about what truly matters to each team member, be it work-life balance, career growth, or specific project interests.
2. Individual Feels Valued: This sense of understanding often translates into the employee feeling valued and respected, which in itself can be a powerful motivator.
3. Reciprocal Engagement: A natural outcome is that the employee is likely to be more engaged and committed, not just to their own roles but to the wider needs of the team and organisation.
4. Organisational Alignment: With this heightened level of mutual engagement, there’s often a better alignment between individual and organisational needs.

Summary

Dr. Deming’s notion, that understanding what is important to an individual ranks as a critical managerial act, can be viewed as a catalyst for a management style rooted in the principle of mutuality. It’s not just about the manager understanding the team, but also about the team understanding—and thereby better serving—the goals of the manager and the organisation.

The Fallacy of Measuring Developer Productivity: McKinsey’s Misguided Metrics

At least the execrable, and totally misinformed, recent McKinsey article “Yes, you can measure software developer productivity” has us all talking about “developer productivity”. Not that that’s a useful topic for discussion, btw – see “The Systemic Nature of Productivity”, below. Even talking about “development productivity” i.e., of the whole development department would have systems thinkers like Goldratt spinning in his grave.

The Systemic Nature of Productivity

Productivity doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it’s a manifestation of the system in which work occurs. This perspective aligns with W. Edwards Deming’s principle that 95% of the performance of an organisation is attributable to the system, and only 5% to the individual. McKinsey’s article, advocating for specific metrics to measure software developer productivity, overlooks this critical context, invalidating its recommendations from the outset.

Why McKinsey’s Metrics Miss the Mark

Quantitative Tunnel Vision

McKinsey’s emphasis on metrics ignores the complex web of factors that actually contribute to productivity. This narrow focus can lead to counterproductive behaviours.

The Dangers of Misalignment

Metrics should align with what truly matters in software development. By prioritising the wrong metrics, McKinsey’s approach risks incentivising behaviours that don’t necessarily add value to the project or align with organisational goals.

Predicated on Fallacies

McKinsey’s suggestions are riddled with fallacious assumptions, including:

• Benchmarking – long discredited.
• Contribution Analysis – focused on individuals. Music to the ears of traditional management but oh so wrong-headed.
• Talent – See, for example,  Demings 95/5 for the whole fallacious belief in “talent” as a concept.
• Measuring productivity (measure it, and productivity will go down).

The Real Measure: Needs Attended To and Needs Met

The Essence of Software Development

The core purpose of business – and thus of software development – is to meet stakeholders’ needs. Therefore, have the most relevant metrics centre on these factors: How many stakeholders’ needs have been identified? How many have been and are being attended-to? How many have been successfully met? These metrics encapsulate the real value generated by a development team – as an integrated part of the business as a whole. (See also: The Needsscape).

Beyond the Code

Evaluating how well needs are attended to and met requires a focused approach. It includes understanding stakeholders’ requirements, effective collaboration within and across teams and departments, and the delivery of functional, useful solutions. (Maybe not even software – see: #NoSoftware).

Deming’s 95/5 Principle: The Elephant in the Room

The System Sets the Stage

Ignoring the role of the system in productivity is like discussing climate change without mentioning the Sun. Deming’s 95/5 principle suggests that if you want to change productivity, you need to focus on improving the system, not measuring individuals, or even teams, within it.

The Limitations of Non-Systemic Metrics

Individual metrics are the 5% of the iceberg above the water; the system—the culture, processes, and tools that comprise the working environment—is the 95% below. To truly understand productivity, we need metrics that evaluate the system as a whole, not just the tip of the iceberg. And the impact of the work (needs met), not the inputs, outputs or even outcomes.

The Overlooked Contrast: Collaborative Knowledge Work vs Traditional Work

McKinsey’s article advocates for yet more Management Monstrosities, where the category error of seeing CKW – collaborative knowledge work – as indistinct from traditional models of work, persists.

The Nature of the Work

Traditional work often involves repetitive, clearly defined tasks that lend themselves to straightforward metrics and assessments. Think of manufacturing jobs, where the number of units produced per time period or per resources committed can be a direct measure of productivity. Collaborative knowledge work, prevalent in fields like software development, is fundamentally different. It involves complex problem-solving, creativity, and the generation of new ideas, often requiring deep collaboration among team members.

Metrics Fall Short

The metrics that work well for traditional jobs are ill-suited for collaborative knowledge work. In software development, such metrics can be misleading. The real value lies in innovation, problem-solving, and above all meeting stakeholders’ needs.

The Role of Team Dynamics

In traditional work settings, an individual often has a clear, isolated set of responsibilities. In contrast, collaborative knowledge work is highly interdependent. This complexity makes individual performance metrics not just inadequate but potentially damaging, as they can undermine the collaborative ethos needed for the team to succeed.

The Importance of Systemic Factors

The system in which work takes place plays a more significant role in collaborative knowledge work than in traditional roles. Factors like communication channels, decision-making processes, and company culture (shared assumptions and beliefs) can profoundly impact productivity. This aligns with Deming’s 95/5 principle, reinforcing the need for a systemic view of productivity.

Beyond Output: The Value of Intellectual Contributions

Collaborative knowledge work often results in intangible assets like intellectual property, improved ways of working, or enhanced team capabilities. These don’t lend themselves to simple metrics like ‘units produced’ but are critical for long-term success. Ignoring these factors, as traditional productivity metrics tend to do, gives an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of productivity.

A Paradigm Shift is Needed

The nature of collaborative knowledge work demands a different lens through which to evaluate productivity. A shift away from traditional metrics towards more needs-based measures is necessary to accurately capture productivity in modern work environments.

Quality and Productivity: Two Sides of the Same Coin

The Inextricable Link

Discussing productivity in isolation misses a crucial aspect of software development: quality. Quality doesn’t just co-exist with productivity; it fundamentally informs it. High-quality work means less rework, fewer bugs, and, ultimately, a quicker and more effective delivery-to-market approach.

Misguided Metrics Undermine Quality

When metrics focus solely on outputs they can inadvertently undermine quality. For example, rushing to complete tasks can lead to poor design choices, technical debt, and an increase in bugs, which will require more time to fix later on. This creates a false sense of productivity while compromising quality.

Quality as a Measure of User Needs Met

If we accept that the ultimate metric for productivity is “needs met,” then quality becomes a key component of that equation. Meeting a user’s needs doesn’t just mean delivering a feature quickly; it means delivering a feature that works reliably, is easy to use, and solves the user’s problem effectively. In other words, quality is a precondition for truly meeting needs.

A Systemic Approach to Quality and Productivity

Returning to Deming’s 95/5 principle, both quality and productivity are largely influenced by the system in which developers work. A system that prioritises quality will naturally lead to higher productivity, as fewer resources are wasted on fixing errors or making revisions. By the same token, systemic issues that hinder quality will have a deleterious effect on productivity.

Summary: A Call for Better Metrics

Metrics aren’t the problem; it’s the choice of metrics that McKinsey advocates that demands reconsideration. By focusing on “needs attended to” and “needs met,” and by acknowledging the vital role of the system, organisations can develop a more accurate, meaningful understanding of holistic productivity, and the role of software development therein.Let’s avoid the honey trap of measuring what’s easy to measure, rather than what matters.

Afterword

As with so much of McKinsey’s tripe, the headline contains a grain of truth – “Yes, you can measure software developer productivity”. But the nitty-gritty of the article is just so much toxic misinformation. Many managers will seize on it anyway. Caveat emptor!

The Deming Way to Measuring Software Developer Productivity

Many software folks pay lip service to Bill Deming and his work. Few if any pay any attention to the implications. Let’s break the mould and dive into how the great man himself might look at software developer productivity (a subset of collaborative knowledge worker productivity more generally).

This isn’t just a thought experiment; it’s an invitation to rethink our existing assumptions and beliefs about productivity.

Why Traditional Metrics Don’t Cut It

If Deming could peer over our shoulders, he’d likely be aghast at our fascination with shallow metrics. Lines of code? Bugs fixed? DORA? SPACE? These are mere surface ripples that fail to delve into the depths of what truly constitutes productivity. Deming was a systems thinker, and he’d want us to look at productivity as an outcome of a complex system. It’s influenced by everything from the quality of management practices to the clarity of project goals, and yes, even the standard of the coffee in the break room.

Aside 1

Let’s not get too hung up on staff productivity and the measurement thereof.

Deming’s First Theorem states that:

“Nobody gives a hoot about profits.”

A corollary might be:

“Nobody gives a hoot about software developer productivity.”

Which, drawing on my 50+ years experience in the software business, rings exceedingly true. Despite all the regular hoo-hah about productivity. Cf. Argyris and espoused theory vs theory in action.

Aside 2

While we’ve on the subject of measurment, let’s recognise that measuments will only be valid and useful when specified by and collected by the folks doing the work. I’ve written about this before, for example in my 2012 post “Just Two Questions“.

Aside 3

Let’s remember that the system (the way the work works) accounts for some 95% of an individual’s productivity. Leaving just 5% that’s a consequence of an individual’s talents and efforts. This makes it clear that attempting to measure individual productivity, or even team productivity, is a fool’s errand of the first order.

Here’s the Deming Approach

So, how would the statistician go about this? Hold on to your hats, because we’re diving into an eight-step process that marries statistical rigour with psychology and humanistic care.

1. Understand the System

First things first, get to grips with the holistic view. Understand how a line of code travels from a developer’s brain to the customer. This involves understanding the various elements in the software development lifecycle and how they interact.

2. Define Objectives

Random metrics serve no one. Deming would urge us to link productivity measurements to broader business objectives. What’s the end game? Is it faster delivery, better quality, or increased customer satisfaction?

3. Involve the Team

The people on the ‘shop floor’ have valuable insights. Deming would never neglect the developer’s perspective on productivity. Involving them in defining productivity criteria ensures buy-in and better data accuracy.

4. Data Collection

We’ve got our objectives and our team’s perspective. Now it’s time to roll up our sleeves and get to work on data collection. But this is Deming we’re talking about, so not just any data will do. The focus will be on meaningful metrics that align with the objectives we’ve set.

5. PDSA Cycle

Implementing the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, any changes aimed at boosting productivity would be introduced in small, incremental phases. These phases would be assessed for their effectiveness before either full implementation or going back to the drawing board.

6. Feedback Loops

You’ve made changes; now listen. Feedback from developers, who can offer a real-time response to whether the changes are working, is invaluable.

7. Regular Reviews

Productivity isn’t a static entity. It’s a dynamic component of a system that’s always in flux. Regular reviews help recalibrate the process and ensure it aligns with the ever-changing landscape.

8. Leadership Commitment

Finally, if you think increasing productivity is solely a developer’s job, think again. The leadership team must be as committed to this journey as the developers themselves. It’s a collective journey toward a common goal.

The Long Game

Deming never promised a quick fix. His was a long-term commitment to systemic improvement. But the fruits of such a commitment aren’t just increased productivity. You’re looking at more value for your business and greater satisfaction for both your developers and customers. So, let’s stop paying lip service to Deming and start actually embracing his philosophy. After all, a system is only as good as the assumptions and beliefs that shape it.

Culture Change is Free When You Change the System

Dismiss the notion that culture change requires a budget. In reality, culture evolves naturally when you alter the way the work works. The crux lies in acknowledging that the way the work works is direct consequence of an organisation’s collective assumptions and beliefs. This is where normative learning comes in. Normative learning is not just beneficial but essential for inexpensive cultural change. It’s an avenue through which foundational assumptions and beliefs are scrutinised and potentially revised, making it an indispensable part of the transformation process.

The Reality of Zero-Cost Change

There’s no need for expensive training or consultants to initiate culture change. Such change is cost-free when you surface and reflect on the collective assumptions and beliefs that have shaped your existing systems.

Collective Assumptions and Beliefs

These collective assumptions and beliefs are not mere background noise; they dictate the way the work works. Often overlooked, these underpinnings steer behaviour and decision-making. To improve the way the work works, surface and reflect upon the collective assumptions and beliefs first.

Normative Learning

Normative learning is indispensable for staff and leaders to confront counter-intuitive truths. This leads to a revision of collective assumptions and beliefs, aligning with John Seddon’s assertion that “Change is a normative experience.” Authentic change happens when these collective assumptions and beliefs shift, resulting in behavioural and cultural change.

Systems: Outcomes of Collective Assumptions and Beliefs

Systems are not autonomous constructs; they are the consequences of collective assumptions and beliefs. Modify these through e.g. normative learning, and both the system and culture will adapt without additional expenditure.

Summary

By focusing on the collective assumptions and beliefs that inform the way thje work works in your organisation, culture change is achievable with minimal financial outlay. Normative learning provides an organic and enduring route to meaningful organisational transformation.

Dulce Et Decorum Est

Ah, decorum, the double-edged sword. On one hand, it stitches the social fabric of a business, ensuring threads don’t unravel into chaos. On the flip side, it’s like a too-tight knot, limiting movement and sometimes even cutting off circulation to vital areas. Let’s get into it…

Decorum’s Dark Side: The Silence of Discomfort

We’ve talked about decorum as the unsung hero in boardrooms and virtual chats, keeping us from diving into the abyss of unfiltered chaos. But what about the times when decorum turns into the villain, stifling the very discussions necessary to propel a business forward?

The Elephant in the Room: Conformity

1. Gagging Honesty: When decorum overshadows openness, honesty often gets gagged and tied to a chair. Fear of breaking the ‘decorum barrier’ can dissuade people from expressing dissenting opinions, however constructive and necessary they may be.
2. Limiting Discourse: One downside of decorum is that it can frame discussions within narrow boundaries. Topics that are uncomfortable, controversial, or challenging are often off the table.Undiscussibility thrives.
3. Lack of Intense Debate: Some of the best ideas come from heated discussions, where people don’t just tiptoe around the issues but dig into them. Decorum can chill these debates, making them tepid exchanges of superficial pleasantries and irrelevant trivialities.See also: Bikeshedding.

For Those Who See Dissent as a Duty

In some work cultures, contentious discussions aren’t just tolerated, they’re demanded. Employees treat no subject as undiscussable and consider dissent to be an obligation. In such an environment, excessive decorum can be like putting a speed limit on a racetrack. Here’s why:

1. Quelling the Revolutionary: The one who disagrees, questions, or pushes boundaries often initiates change. A decorum-ruled environment can make these individuals avoid speaking up.
2. Consensus ≠ Progress: Decorum often seeks consensus, which can be the enemy of innovation. After all, if everyone agrees, then everyone is likely thinking too much along the same lines.
3. The Cost of Silence: When people feel the need to dissent but are discouraged by an excessively decorous atmosphere, the cost isn’t just emotional. The business will lose out on valuable insights and revolutionary ideas.

What distinguishes exemplary boards is that they are robust, effective social systems … The highest performing companies have extremely contentious boards that regard dissent as an obligation and that treat no subject as undiscussable.

~ Jeffrey Sonnenfeld

Striking a New Balance

Given that decorum isn’t all rainbows and butterflies, how do we redefine it for the modern, dynamic workplace?

1. Context is King: Understand when it’s appropriate to uphold traditional decorum (hint: rarely) and when it’s productive to let the reigns loosen (hint: almost always).
2. Facilitate Safe Spaces: Create environments where challenging the status quo is not just accepted but demanded and celebrated.
3. Redefine Norms: Perhaps it’s time to evolve the notion of decorum to include open, intense debate as a form of respect for the collective intelligence of the team.
4. Leadership’s Role: Managers might choose to not just tolerate but encourage dissenting opinions. The truest form of respect is to take someone’s ideas seriously enough to debate them passionately.

Final Thoughts

Decorum has its merits, no doubt. But when it becomes the warden rather than the grease of business communication, we risk locking up the very ideas and discussions that could set a company free. Next time you enter a room—whether it’s a boardroom or a chatroom—think twice before you let decorum silence the dissent that could be the catalyst for change.

Further Reading

In ‘Radical Candor,’ Kim Scott (2017) revolutionises our understanding of effective communication and team building. She presents a compelling case for a communication style that combines candour with empathy, challenging the notion that leaders need to be either ‘soft’ or ‘tough.’ Instead, Scott introduces the concept of ‘Radical Candor’ as the golden mean—a zone where people can both care personally and challenge directly, thereby contributing to building teams that are both cohesive and highly productive. In the current climate of rapidly evolving business landscapes and diverse workforces, Scott’s insights offer timely and actionable steps for enhancing communication and performance.

Scott, K. (2017). Radical Candor: Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity. St. Martin’s Press.

Ego – The Perfect Blocker

There’s a saying that wisdom often falls on deaf ears, and nowhere does this seem truer than when broaching the subject of ego with managers. Is it even worth trying to invite them to consider that their ego might be the major blocker to success for their organisations? The common sentiment might lead us to believe that there’s no point in even trying.

The Ego and Its Hold on Managers

In the context of business managers and executives, the term “ego” refers to a person’s sense of self-esteem or self-importance. It’s the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and unconscious and is responsible for a sense of personal identity and self-confidence. This understanding of ego can be a powerful force in individuals, particularly those in leadership positions. Managers, often under pressure to perform, may become consumed with their sense of self, status, and personal wellbeing.

This focus on self can lead to a lack of openness to criticism or feedback, especially if it’s aimed at something as personal as the ego.

Why Telling Managers Seems Futile

Nobody likes being told anything, and especially when the subject is related to one’s self-image.

1. Resistance to Criticism: Managers often see themselves as the decision-makers and leaders. Admitting that their ego might be an issue can feel like a personal attack, leading to defensiveness.
2. Lack of Awareness: Many managers might be unaware of how their ego affects their decisions and the organisation as a whole. Without this awareness, any conversation about ego can seem abstract or irrelevant.
3. Fear of Vulnerability: Acknowledging that one’s ego is a problem requires a level of vulnerability that many managers may be unwilling or unable to embrace.
4. The Backfire Effect: Presenting evidence that challenges a manager’s belief or behaviour might cause them to hold on to their views more strongly. This psychological phenomenon further complicates the task of addressing ego in leadership.

A Different Approach: Is There Hope?

While it may seem like a lost cause, there might be ways to address the issue without direct confrontation:

• Focus on Behaviour, Not Personality: Instead of talking about ego as a personality flaw, focus on specific behaviours – arising from e.g. ego – that might be addressable and changeable.
• Invite and Support Self-Reflection: Create opportunities for managers to reflect on their actions and how they affect the team. This can lead to organic realisation and change.
• Build a Culture of Openness: Cultivating a culture where feedback is encouraged and valued can slowly break down barriers and make conversations about ego more acceptable, less uncomfortable.

Summary

While it may seem futile to tell managers that their ego is blocking everyone’s success, it’s not necessarily a lost cause. The approach matters. By focusing on behaviour, encouraging self-reflection, and fostering an open culture, we can pave the way for constructive conversations about ego.

It’s not about pointing fingers or laying blame; it’s about creating an environment where growth and self-improvement are possible. The task is challenging, no doubt, but it’s not one that we should abandon without trying. It requires tact, empathy, and persistence, but the potential rewards for the organisation are well worth the effort.

The Software Crisis: A 50+ Year Conundrum Waiting for a Paradigm Shift

When the term “Software Crisis” was coined in the late 1960s, the software industry was grappling with issues of complexity, reliability, and maintainability. The rate at which technology was evolving seemed to outpace the ability to efficiently and effectively manage software projects. Yet, half a century later, we still find ourselves confronting the same challenges.

The Persistent Nature of the Crisis

Most industries undergo evolutionary shifts, which often transform the landscape and resolve the challenges of the past. However, the software domain remains an anomaly. Instead of outgrowing its initial issues, we find them compounded by the enormous scale and scope of contemporary software development. Despite more advanced tools and platforms, software bugs, project overruns, and scalability issues remain pertinent.

So, why is the software crisis still with us?

The Inherent Complexity of Software

Software is, in essence, abstract and malleable. Unlike constructing a building or manufacturing a car, where there’s a tangible product, software development involves attending to folks’ needs through weaving intricate patterns of logic. As the Needsscape evolves, it becomes increasingly challenging to untangle and reweave the strands.

Furthermore, software isn’t limited by physical laws. While you can keep adding lines of code, each new line tends to increase complexity in a non-linear fashion.(See also: #NoSoftware)

The Economic Incentives

There’s an underlying economic motive to maintain the status quo. Major software corporations, consultancy agencies, educational establishments, and even management gain from the ongoing software crisis.

• Software Companies: Continuous updates, patches, and new releases mean ongoing revenue. “Perfect”, bug-free software from the outset would reduce the push for upgrades and extended support.
• Consultancy Firms: A continuing crisis ensures a constant demand for experts to guide, integrate, and sustain various approaches. (Ever seen consultants hired to obviate the Software Crisis?).
• Educational Institutions: The ever-evolving landscape necessitates continuous learning, translating to enrollment in courses, certifications, and further studies.
• Management: The status quo often validates management hierarchies and roles. Shaking up the software development paradigm challenges established management statuses and command & control dynamics, which many in management roles find unsettling. Where’s the leadership??

The Need for a New Paradigm

While we’ve seen enhancements in methods and technologies, they don’t directly tackle the root causes of the software crisis. A paradigm shift is essential, but what should it emphasise?

• People: Centralide the role of people in the software process. Recognise that while tools and technologies are marginally relevant, it’s people and teams who breathe life into software. We might choose to prioritise their well-being, motivation, and skills.
• Relationships: Emphasise collaboration and communication. Siloed teams and heroic individuals exacerbate challenges. Cross-functional cooperation and fostering an environment where diverse perspectives converge can lead to better solutions.
• Collective Assumptions and Beliefs: Challenge and revisit the shared beliefs and assumptions in the organisation. Often, outdated paradigms persist because they go unquestioned. By reassessing and updating these, we can pave the way for innovative approaches.

#Quintessence

The enduring software crisis mirrors the challenges inherent in software development and the economic frameworks that have crystallized around it. While vested interests might resist change, history reminds us that transformation is both inevitable and necessary. When the software industry finally experiences its paradigm shift, it will not only resolve its longstanding crisis but also unleash unprecedented avenues for innovation.

Further Reading

Marshall, R.W. (2021). Quintessence: An Acme for Software Development Organisations. [online] leanpub.com. Falling Blossoms (LeanPub). Available at: https://leanpub.com/quintessence/ [Accessed 18 August 2023].

Management Decisions: A Love Affair with Status

The world of management can sometimes resemble a theater where different players don various masks. Underneath the mask of ‘decisiveness’ or ‘authority,’ there lies a deeply rooted human emotion: the desire for status. Many of our actions, especially in the realm of management, stem from this very sentiment. Let’s delve into how a management’s affection for their status influences their decisions and behaviors.

The Siren Call of Status

Since ancient times, humans have been driven by the need for status. From tribal chiefs to modern CEOs, the pursuit of status, power, and recognition is deeply ingrained in our psyche. This isn’t necessarily a negative trait. In many ways, it’s a survival instinct. Being in a position of authority or having high status meant access to resources, protection, and other benefits.

However, in today’s corporate landscape, this love affair with status can sometimes overshadow genuine relationship building qualities and long-term vision.

Fear of Losing the Crown

With status comes the fear of losing it. For managers and executives, this fear can manifest in various ways:

1. Resistance to Change: A manager who’s achieved success with a particular strategy or approach will inevitably resist new approaches or technologies. The unspoken reason? If the new approach fails, their competence, and thus their status, might be questioned.
2. Suppressing Innovation: Employees with revolutionary ideas can be seen as threats to a manager who’s more invested in maintaining the status quo. Such a manager might sideline or even suppress these innovations to maintain their position.
3. Credit Hogging: A manager deeply invested in their own status might take undue credit for team successes, further alienating team members and damaging morale.

Short-Term Thinking

A love affair with one’s status can lead to short-term decision-making. Instead of considering what’s best for the company five or ten years down the line, a manager might focus on immediate gains to boost their image now, at the expense of future growth.

Micro-management

Fear of losing status might make a manager involve themselves in every tiny detail. This not only stifles team autonomy and creativity but also indicates a lack of trust, which can corrode team dynamics.

Building Genuine Relationships

For companies to thrive, we might choose to recognise and address the pitfalls associated with a management team that’s too enamored with their own status. Some ways to do this include:

1. Promote a Culture of Growth: Encourage an atmosphere where failure is seen as a learning opportunity, and the primary goal is collective growth rather than individual glory.
2. Foster Open Communication: Allow employees at all levels to share feedback and ideas. This breaks the ‘ivory tower’ syndrome and helps in keeping managers grounded.
3. Training: Regularly train people to build genuine relationship skills. This can include recognising and managing their biases and fears.

In conclusion, while it’s natural for individuals, including those in management, to cherish and protect their status, it’s crucial for the long-term health of an organisation to recognise when this becomes a driving force behind decisions. After all, true relationships aren’t about clinging to a title, but about guiding a team towards a brighter, shared future.

Unappreciated Product Development Skills

Introduction

In the world of product development, hiring for the right skills is paramount. Yet, hiring managers and HR people often fail to appreciate the necessary core skills, and thus certain crucial skills often go unsought, overshadowed by more flashy competencies or specific technical abilities. While technical expertise is a nice to have, ignoring these unappreciated skills can lead to teams and departments that lack cohesion, struggle with efficiency, and miss out on a broader understanding of the development landscape.

Top Ten Overlooked Skills and Their Consequences

#	Skill	Hiring Consequences
1	The Importance of the Way the Work Works, incl subsidiarity.	Teams lack a holistic view, leading to systemic issues and an inability to see beyond their immediate tasks.
2	Risk Management	Teams are reactive, rather than proactive. This leads to crisis management scenarios and frequently derailed release schedules.
3	Role of Variation	Projects may frequently miss deadlines or go over budget due to a lack of preparedness for uncertainties.
4	Flow Optimisation	Teams face frequent bottlenecks, resulting in uneven workloads, delays, and heightened stress levels.
5	Feedback Loops	Products misaligned with user needs or market demands due to a reluctance or inability to seek or respond to feedback.
6	Systems Thinking	Teams operate in silos, leading to redundant efforts, inflated costs, delays, poor quality, and a fragmented product experience.
7	Value Stream Mapping	Misaligned priorities, arising from a focus on tasks without understanding their overall product value.
8	Make Things Visible	Lack of transparency resulting in miscommunications, overlooked issues, and poorly informed decisions.
9	Limiting Work in Progress (WIP)	Overall productivity and work quality decrease due to excessive multitasking and constant context switching.
10	Attending to Folks’ Needs	Neglecting this skill results in disengaged or unmotivated teams, decreasing engagement, discrationary effort and productivity, and increasing turnover rates.

Conclusion

To create a well-rounded and effective software development team, hiring managers migh choose to look beyond just technical proficiencies. By recognising and valuing these often-unappreciated skills, companies can increase the likelihood of building and maintaining cohesive, efficient, and innovative teams equipped to tackle the multi-faceted challenges of modern product development.

As the product development landscape continues to evolve, sadly, appreciation of the essential skills required to navigate it does not. Is it yet time to give these unappreciated competencies the recognition they deserve in the hiring process and beyond?

Offer

If your organisation suffers from any of the maladies listed under “consequences” in the table above, get in touch today for clear, independent advice on steps you can take to tackle the skills shortfall: bob.marshall@fallingblossoms.com

40+ Years in Software Development

40+ Years in Software Development Management

Translating Lessons to General Business Management

Right. Time to blow my own trumpet!

Over my 40+ years in software development, management I’ve had the privilege to witness and partake in the metamorphosis of the industry. More importantly, I’ve gleaned insights and best practices that, intriguingly, can transcend the world of software and have remarkable relevance in general business management.

1. The Power of Iteration and Continuous Improvement

From the early days, I learned that perfection is a journey, not a destination. Be it in software or thw way the work works, the essence lies in the willingness to refine, adjust, and evolve. Inspect and adapt, as they say. Continuous feedback loops and adjustments pave the path to excellence.

2. Flexibility Over Rigidity: The Business Dance

Having closely worked with many methods, I’ve understood that the real strength of any organisation is its ability to adapt at speed. It’s about being ready to dance to the tunes of the changing environment, and not just sticking to a predetermined set of steps.

3. Centrality of the User Experience

I’ve seen software applications flop not due to poor coding, but because they didn’t resonate with the users. Similarly, in business, if you’re not aligning with the needs and aspirations of your stakeholders, your strategies will not yield the desired results.

4. The Essence of Clear Communication

From countless team meetings to whiteboard sessions, one thing stood out: clarity in communication. It’s the bedrock upon which trust is built, misunderstandings are averted, and collective goals are achieved.

5. Risk Management: A Balancing Act

Every time we integrated a new feature or technology, risk was a constant companion. Likewise, in business, every decision – be it financial, strategic, or operational – carries inherent risks. It’s the art of managing risks and balancing them with rewards that distinguishes the good from the great.

6. Prioritising Quality and Preventing Defects

Throughout my years in software, I’ve been a staunch believer in the adage, “Prevention is better than cure.” Instead of fixing issues after the fact, emphasising  high-quality craftsmanship from the outset has always been my mantra. Similarly, in business, ensuring quality in products, services, and processes from the get-go can prevent a myriad of challenges down the road. It’s about being proactive, rather than reactive, ensuring that every endeavor is executed to the highest standard from the very beginning.

7. Self-Managing Teams and Auftragstaktik

One of the most profound lessons has been witnessing the magic of self-managing teams. Empowering teams, much like the principle of Auftragstaktik, gives individuals the freedom to determine the ‘how’ of achieving objectives, fostering creativity, and accountability.

8. A Visionary Horizon with Actionable Steps

While having a visionary goal is essential, I’ve found that breaking that down into actionable, short-term goals ensures not only progress but also regular checkpoints for reflection and course correction.

9. A Celebration of Change

In my journey, change has been a constant companion. Those who embraced it thrived, while those who resisted often struggled personally, and sabotaged the greater effort. In business, as in software, adaptability, continuous learning, and a curious mindset form the cornerstone of success.

10. Culture Change

Time and again, it’s been culture change that’s been essential in making major steps in improving the way the works works. And thus, in results. Outmoded shared assumptions and beliefs have always held thing back, mostly to the point of abject failure. And time and again, it’s been those with the most positional authority who have been the biggest blockers. Success depends on reaching these folks.

Conclusion

Reflecting on my journey, it’s evident that the principles that drive success in software development management are universal in their application. As the worlds of technology and business increasingly intertwingle, these lessons become not just relevant, but indispensable. Here’s to harnessing the wisdom of experience for the challenges and opportunities of the future. If you’d like to benefit from my decades of practical experience, please get in touch.

Leaders’ Inconsistencies

In every institution—whether in politics, business, or broader community contexts—we frequently observe those in authority saying one thing and doing another. It’s not just about broken campaign promises or managers who preach work-life balance while flooding inboxes at midnight. This inconsistency has far-reaching implications, especially when considering the concept of pragmatic legitimacy.

Espoused Theory vs Theory in Action: An Introduction

Chris Argyris’s groundbreaking insights shed light on this phenomenon. He distinguished between “espoused theory” (what people claim they believe) and “theory in action” (how they actually behave). For example, a leader might verbally prioritize team input (“espoused theory”) but may sideline their team in decision-making processes (“theory in action”).

Impacts of Inconsistent Leadership

1. Erosion of Credibility: A clear disparity between words and deeds erodes leaders’ credibility. When words are at odds with by actions, followers and stakeholders are left questioning the authenticity of the leader’s commitments.
2. Mistrust and Cynicism: Inconsistent actions breed skepticism. Over time, this could dampen motivation and commitment, leading stakeholders to question the leader’s genuine intentions.
3. Ambiguity and Misdirection: When words don’t match actions, it creates confusion about actual priorities, making it difficult for subordinates to align their actions with organisational and leaders’ goals.
4. Organisational Dysfunction: This kind of behavior can fuel conflicts, inefficiencies, and cultivate a culture of disillusionment.
5. Undermining Pragmatic Legitimacy: Perhaps one of the most profound impacts is on an organisation’s pragmatic legitimacy. When stakeholders perceive that an organisation’s actions aren’t aligned with its stated goals or aren’t beneficial to them, its pragmatic legitimacy is compromised. A lack of pragmatic legitimacy means stakeholders doubt the organisation’s capacity or willingness to fulfill its promises or meet their needs, which can result in decreased support or commitment from these stakeholders.

Bridging the Divide: Recommendations for Leaders

1. Enhance Self-awareness: Leaders should continuously introspect and seek feedback. Recognizing one’s inconsistencies is the first step to addressing them.
2. Foster Open Communication: Encouraging an environment where individuals can voice concerns about perceived discrepancies promotes accountability and transparency.
3. Prioritize Consistency: Leaders should evaluate if they can truly align with what they promise, setting achievable expectations to maintain credibility.
4. Acknowledge and Amend: When discrepancies arise, leaders should admit them, apologize, and take measures to correct their course.
5. Continuous Learning: Regular training sessions emphasizing the importance of consistency in leadership can be instrumental.
6. Lead by Example: If leaders advocate specific values or principles, they must personify them in their actions.
7. Tend to your pragmatic legitimacy: By becoming more consistent in aligning saying with doing, thereby improving your legitimacy, stakeholders will lend increased support and commtiment to your initiatives and directions.

Navigating the Discrepancies: Recommendations for Those on the Receiving End

It’s often challenging to be on the receiving end of inconsistent leadership. It can be demotivating, confusing, and sometimes even detrimental to one’s mental health. If you find yourself in such a situation, it’s essential to take proactive steps to preserve your well-being and sanity.

1. Seek Clarification: If you notice a discrepancy between words and actions, ask for clarification. There might be reasons or perspectives you aren’t aware of. By seeking a clearer understanding, you can align your expectations accordingly.
2. Maintain Open Communication: Foster an environment where you feel empowered to communicate your feelings and perceptions. This not only helps you address potential misunderstandings but also lets leaders be aware of their inconsistencies.
3. Document Everything: When you see inconsistencies, make a note of them. This isn’t about “keeping score” but about having a reference point for discussions or to ground your own understanding of events.
4. Find Support: Confide in colleagues or friends who understand the situation. Sharing experiences can provide validation and sometimes lead to collective solutions or coping strategies.
5. Set Boundaries: It’s essential to protect your mental and emotional well-being. If you’re consistently receiving mixed signals, it may be necessary to set clear personal and professional boundaries to avoid burnout.
6. Seek External Mentorship: Connect with mentors outside your immediate work environment. They can provide an outside perspective, offer advice, or sometimes just serve as a sounding board.
7. Engage in Self-care: Engaging in activities that relax and rejuvenate you is crucial. Whether it’s reading, exercising, meditating, or pursuing a hobby, make sure you have an outlet to destress.
8. Consider Professional Counseling: If the inconsistency in leadership begins to take a toll on your mental health, consider seeking professional counseling. Therapists can provide coping mechanisms and strategies to navigate such situations.Organisational therapists can support organisation-wide initiatives to help reduce discrepancies between words and actions.
9. Evaluate Your Position: If you find the environment to be consistently toxic with no signs of change, it may be worth considering a change. Your well-being should always be a top priority. “Change your organisation, or change your organisation”.

Remember, in environments where leaders are inconsistent, it’s essential to prioritise your own personal well-being. By taking proactive steps, you can navigate the challenges while ensuring you remain grounded, supported, and mentally resilient.

To sum it up, pragmatic legitimacy is crucial for any organisation, and leaders play an integral role in upholding it. By aligning their words with their actions, leaders can reinforce trust, maintain credibility, and ensure that stakeholders see the organisation as a beneficial and aligned entity.

A Conversation of Luminaries

I’ve been playing with ChatGPT-4 and Multi-persona prompting (MPP). Here’s a sample conversation between Peter Drucker, Bill Deming, Russell Ackoff, Eliyahu Goldratt and Prof Gary Hamel.

The subject for discussion is: “Management, and Mankind’s present Global crises”

Drucker: The true role of management is not just to ensure the effective operation of organisations, but to make people capable of joint performance through shared values and goals. In this era, however, our goals must consider the pressing global crises facing humanity.

Deming: It’s essential to approach these crises as we would any system — understanding the interrelated processes and the variations within. By not understanding these, we risk applying solutions that may cause more harm than good.

Ackoff: Precisely. The challenges we face, be it climate change, inequality, or health pandemics, require a holistic approach. We cannot merely address symptoms; we must tackle the root causes.

Goldratt: These global issues can be likened to constraints in a system. Addressing the most significant constraints can trigger a ripple effect of positive change throughout the system. For instance, focusing on sustainable energy might alleviate multiple environmental challenges at once.

Hamel: We also need to reimagine our organisations. The hierarchical, bureaucratic models of the past just aren’t equipped to handle these challenges. We need organisations that are adaptable, innovative, and geared towards addressing global challenges, not just profitability.

Drucker: Indeed, Gary. We need to redefine success. Profitability is essential, but in a world facing such crises, long-term sustainability and social responsibility become paramount.

Deming: The human element remains at the center. Only when we empower individuals, giving them the tools, training, and trust, can we harness collective intelligence to address these crises effectively.

Goldratt: And collaboration is key. No single organisation, country, or individual can tackle these crises alone. We need a global perspective, understanding how constraints in one area affect another, and create solutions that benefit the system as a whole.

Ackoff: This goes beyond management; it’s about people. People need to share in a vision that transcends organisational or even national boundaries. It’s about creating a future that’s desirable for all.

Hamel: Traditional hierarchies won’t cut it. We need to democratise organizations, allowing innovative solutions to emerge from anywhere. This isn’t just about business adaptability; it’s about species survival and flourishing.

Drucker: The future of management, then, is not just about navigating the complexities of business. It’s about steering humanity towards a sustainable and harmonious future.

Deming: It’s about a continuous cycle of learning and improving, not just for organisational growth, but for the betterment of society and the planet.

Goldratt: Our focus should be clear — identify the most pressing constraints and collaborate globally to address them, ensuring the sustainability of our species and our planet.

Ackoff: We’re crafting the narrative of human civilization. Our approach to these crises will define our legacy.

Hamel: The time for evolutionary organisations is now. Organisations that are not just efficient but humane, adaptive, and with a profound purpose to make the world a better place for all.

Drucker: Evolution has always been a part of business, but now it’s not just the evolution of enterprises we’re discussing, but of the very idea of management itself. We must evolve from being managers of businesses to stewards of society, our people, and our environment.

Deming: One of the principles I’ve always advocated for is the elimination of silos and barriers. Now more than ever, organisations, nations, and individuals need to break down walls. Collaboration, cooperation, and open communication are not just ideals; they’re imperatives.

Ackoff: I often speak of systems thinking. In this crucial juncture of humanity, we must expand our system’s boundaries. No longer can we consider just the organisational system; we must think of the global system, the interrelated and interconnected web of life and society.

Goldratt: And while we address these global crises, it’s essential not to become overwhelmed. By identifying and addressing the most significant constraints, we can create a positive domino effect. It’s about leveraging our resources most effectively for the maximum positive impact.

Hamel: Our organisations can’t be static entities, merely reacting to changes. They must be at the forefront, driving positive change. This requires a paradigm shift — from rigid hierarchies to fluid networks, from top-down directives to grassroots innovations, from short-term profits to meeting long-term societal needs.

Drucker: This goes back to the purpose of an organisation. The primary purpose shouldn’t be to make a profit, but to create and serve a customer — and in this context, the ‘customer’ is society at large and the generations to come.

Deming: That’s spot on, Peter. And this serves as a reminder that quality isn’t just about products or services but the quality of our decisions, actions, and their repercussions on the world.

Goldratt: It underscores the necessity of clear goals. Not just organisational goals, but shared human goals. Addressing global crises requires us to prioritise our shared humanity above all else.

Ackoff: It challenges us to rethink what we understand by growth and progress. Growth at the expense of sustainability or equality is no growth at all. We need holistic measures of success.

Hamel: The organisations of the future — the ones that will lead and make a difference — will be those that recognise and act upon their broader responsibilities. They will be filled with purpose-driven communities who understand that business, at its best, can be a force for good.

Drucker: In essence, this isn’t just about the evolution of management. It’s about the evolution of our shared values, aspirations, and the very essence of what it means to be a part of this interconnected web of life. The task is daunting, but the promise of a better, sustainable, and harmonious world is worth every effort.

A Consensus?

After a deep and intense discussion, the luminaries lean in, attempting to consolidate their collective wisdom into a unified message:

Drucker: We began by examining the essence of management in light of current global crises. It’s evident that our traditional understanding must evolve; management is no longer just about organisations but about our shared responsibility towards society and the environment.

Deming: And it’s vital to recognise the interconnectedness of all things — to approach these challenges as a system. By understanding and addressing the root causes, rather than symptoms, we can make more impactful changes.

Ackoff: We emphasised the need for holistic thinking, transcending mere organisational or even national boundaries. We’re crafting not just the future of businesses but of civilization itself.

Goldratt: The importance of prioritisation was stressed, highlighting the need to address the most pressing constraints that hold us back. It’s about strategic focus and collaborative efforts for a domino effect of positive change.

Hamel: The structures and ethos of our organisations must undergo profound shifts. From rigid, profit-centric hierarchies to fluid, purpose-driven networks, we must democratise innovation and place humanity at the core of our endeavors.

Together, they come up with a collective statement:

“In the face of unprecedented global challenges, the future of management lies in its evolution from organisational efficiency to societal stewardship. We advocate for a systems-driven approach, recognising our interconnectedness, prioritising the most pressing issues, and redefining success beyond profits to encompass sustainability, collaboration, and societal well-being. Organisations must transform into fluid networks of purpose-driven innovators, all working harmoniously for the betterment of humanity and our shared planet.”

Everyone nods in agreement, confident that their consolidated wisdom encapsulates the essence of their discussion and provides a guiding light for the future.

Over to You

What’s your response to this conversation? And which luminaries would YOU like to get together in a conversation?

All Managers Are Morons

Whether it’s in the realm of marketing, leadership, or everyday life, we sometimes stumble upon generalisations that, while audacious, serve to make us think deeply about inherent human behaviours and prejudices. One such claim was popularised by Seth Godin in his provocative book title, “All Marketers are Liars”. Borrowing a leaf from his book, let’s explore the argument: All managers are morons. And yes, I’m serious.

Definitions First

Managers: When we speak of managers, we aren’t just talking about middle-management or those who supervise a small team. The term ‘manager’ here covers a broad spectrum, from team leaders to high-level executives. Anyone with responsibility for directing or overseeing the work of others, setting objectives, and ensuring goals are met falls under this definition.

Morons: Rather than referring to the derogatory term rooted in early 20th-century psychology, we’re defining a ‘moron’ as someone with little to zero self-awareness and self-knowledge. It’s a reflection of our inability to introspect, evolve, and comprehend our impact on the world around us.

Argument 1: All People are Morons, All Managers are People. Therefore…

It might be hard to digest, but we’ve all displayed ‘moronic’ behaviour at some point. Each one of us has found ourselves in situations where we’ve lacked self-awareness or understanding about our actions and their repercussions. It’s a part of the human experience.

1. Cognitive Biases: We humans are wired with a host of cognitive biases that skew our perspective. For instance, the Dunning-Kruger effect makes people believe they’re more skilled than they truly are. This lack of self-awareness can lead to overestimation and underperformance.
2. The Blind Spot: Everyone knows someone who can’t see their flaws but can easily point out others’. That’s because, inherently, we all have a blind spot when it comes to self-perception. And this is compounded when lack of curiousity perpetuates this blindness.
3. Emotional Hijacking: Emotions often cloud our judgement. Whether it’s anger, sadness, or immense joy, strong emotions can lead us to act without considering the consequences, a definitive sign of lack of self-awareness.

Argument 2: Following Fads

Managers, being humans, are susceptible to getting lured by the latest trends and fads. Without critical evaluation, they might adopt methods or tools that aren’t beneficial in the long run, just because they’re currently popular.

Argument 3: Ignorance, Compounded by Indolence

A manager’s ignorance, when coupled with laziness, lack of curiosity, or failure to study and ground decisions and actions in proven theory, will have detrimental effects. It can lead to missed opportunities, wrong decisions, and inefficiencies. We might call this “seat-of-pants” management.

Argument 4: Accepting Things at Face Value

Managers, like any other individual, generally take things at face value. Instead of delving deeper, asking probing questions, or experimenting to discover underlying truths, they accept the presented information, leading to potential misconceptions or errors. Cf. William Kingdon Clifford on “The Ethics of Belief”.

Argument 5: Driven by Self-Interest

Self-interest generally overshadows all managers’ decision-making. While it’s natural to have personal ambitions and guard one’s own well-being, it becomes problematic when those interests conflict with the team or company’s greater good.

Argument 6: The Fundamental Attribution Error

This cognitive bias, widely prevalent, involves attributing someone’s actions more to their character than the situation they’re in. For managers, this can result in misjudgements about team members’ intentions or capabilities whilst holding their own decisions and behaviours to an entirely different standard.

All Managers are People

Managers, be it at the basic or executive level, are humans first. Their rank doesn’t exempt them from the human condition. Hence, if all people have moments of being ‘morons’, so do all managers.

Drawing the Analogy: Marketing and Management

Seth Godin’s claim that “All Marketers are Liars” wasn’t intended to insult every marketer. Instead, he explained that stories sell, and marketers are essentially storytellers who might sometimes stretch the truth for a narrative.

Likewise, “All Managers are Morons” isn’t a sweeping statement of their incompetency. It’s an acknowledgment of their humanity and fallibility, a call for introspection and growth.

The Call to Self-Awareness

The goal of this post isn’t to undermine managers – although I have serious issues with the whole idea of management – but to highlight the human tendencies they, like all of us, might exhibit. Recognising these tendencies is the first step to growth. Managers may choose, especially those in influential positions, to understand these inclinations and continuously strive for self-awareness.

In conclusion, while “All Managers are Morons” is designed to provoke thought, its underlying message is clear: it serves as a reminder of our shared human frailties. Managers, at all levels, might choose to be conscious of these pitfalls, striving always for improvement and betterment, whilst maybe considereing alternatives to the whole idea od “management”.

Further Reading

Hamel, Gary. (2011). First, Let’s Fire All The Managers. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-managers