Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore • Hacker News Board

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#91

Post by a1369209993 » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 10:08 PM UTC

salawat wrote: post #68

ryguytilidie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its crazy how tribalistic HN has become. The whole Boeing fiasco has produced SO MANY "gosh, all those MBAs are at fault. I assign 0 fault to the engineers!" and every. single. time. There is a problem relating to a management/engineering decision, blame from HN ALWAYS goes to "the MBA types" and very literally never to engineering. I guess I just don't understand what the point of this type of tribalism is? Feeling…

It comes from the fact that all the people at the top refused to back down or slow down despite all the warning flags being raised in engineering, and persisted in maintaining a system of incentives that left engineers in a position to choose between having to do something unethical, and keeping food on their family's table; all in the name of stock price. If it were Engineers at the top, we'd probably be lambasting…

> It's just how it works.

Nitpick: that's how it should work, and how HN trys to make it work (hence the so-called tribalism), but in many cases those rushing fools get a golden parachute and a cushy retirement while leaving a straw-stuffed limited-liability corporation to be "held accountable" for liabilities it no longer has the assets to meet. And that's if they can't use superior legal funds, PR, and lobbying to shift those liabilities onto engineers or dismiss them entirely.

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#92

Post by 6700417 » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 10:38 PM UTC

bsder wrote: post #87

jm4 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny. If an article mentions how much someone in management gets paid, it’s all about how they don’t deserve it, they’re profiting off someone else’s sweat, they’re useless, it’s unfair, etc. Then you see something like a data breach or the Boeing fiasco and management belongs in jail because they didn’t put good processes in place for the engineers.

The problem is that the managers don't have accountability at the same level they are compensated . If you are compensated better than 90% of your workforce, then you should receive better than 90% of the blame every single time something goes wrong. You're that important, no?

Why should blame be tied to compensation?

Compensation tends to be tied to perceived impact. The perceived impact of a manager with 10 reports who are all focused and delivering individually is much higher than the impact of a manager with the same number of reports where half the team meets few of their goals.

The first manager is ultimately going to be seen as more effective and will get larger bonuses and will be more frequently promoted and ultimately grow the scope of what they own. That they happen to get paid more than individuals reporting to them is entirely appropriate based on their overall impact.

That managers sometimes blame the people on their team for the failure of the team is bad management (and worse if the people above them blindly accept that) but I don’t think you can assign all blame to a manager just because they happen to be the manager and certainly not because of their relative pay.

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#93

Post by mehrdadn » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 11:02 PM UTC

6700417 wrote: post #92

bsder wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the managers don't have accountability at the same level they are compensated . If you are compensated better than 90% of your workforce, then you should receive better than 90% of the blame every single time something goes wrong. You're that important, no?

Why should blame be tied to compensation? Compensation tends to be tied to perceived impact. The perceived impact of a manager with 10 reports who are all focused and delivering individually is much higher than the impact of a manager with the same number of reports where half the team meets few of their goals. The first manager is ultimately going to be seen as more effective and will get larger bonuses and will be…

> Why should blame be tied to compensation? Compensation tends to be tied to perceived impact. The perceived impact of a manager with 10 reports who are all focused and delivering individually is much higher than the impact of a manager with the same number of reports where half the team meets few of their goals.

Maybe because when those goals involve cutting corners on safety and hundreds of people die as a result, that's one heck of a lot of "impact"?

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#94

Post by ryguytilidie » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 11:08 PM UTC

tomc1985 wrote: post #69

ryguytilidie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its crazy how tribalistic HN has become. The whole Boeing fiasco has produced SO MANY "gosh, all those MBAs are at fault. I assign 0 fault to the engineers!" and every. single. time. There is a problem relating to a management/engineering decision, blame from HN ALWAYS goes to "the MBA types" and very literally never to engineering. I guess I just don't understand what the point of this type of tribalism is? Feeling…

Having been through business school, the MBAs are much more likely to be complete numbnuts, an observation which is very strongly correlated with most of the CEOs and managers I have spent time with close-up

"boy, people who aren't me sure are stupid!"

Finally someone on the internet comes through!

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#95

Post by ryguytilidie » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 11:11 PM UTC

objektif wrote: post #79

ryguytilidie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its crazy how tribalistic HN has become. The whole Boeing fiasco has produced SO MANY "gosh, all those MBAs are at fault. I assign 0 fault to the engineers!" and every. single. time. There is a problem relating to a management/engineering decision, blame from HN ALWAYS goes to "the MBA types" and very literally never to engineering. I guess I just don't understand what the point of this type of tribalism is? Feeling…

How so? If a certain group of people always CHOSE profit over doing the right thing other people or groups or teams or whatever you want to call them have every right to criticize them.

"How could you possibly imply that us engineers blame MBAs for everything? Here is me following this question by saying that MBAs ALWAYS choose profit over doing the right thing and that all other teams do not so therefore we should criticize MBAs and engineers are above criticism.

Do you think you'd understand my point if you had self awareness?

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#96

Post by jm4 » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 11:12 PM UTC

bsder wrote: post #87

jm4 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny. If an article mentions how much someone in management gets paid, it’s all about how they don’t deserve it, they’re profiting off someone else’s sweat, they’re useless, it’s unfair, etc. Then you see something like a data breach or the Boeing fiasco and management belongs in jail because they didn’t put good processes in place for the engineers.

The problem is that the managers don't have accountability at the same level they are compensated . If you are compensated better than 90% of your workforce, then you should receive better than 90% of the blame every single time something goes wrong. You're that important, no?

That is so mistaken I’m not sure where to start. I agree there should be accountability, but to say it should be commensurate with compensation is absurd. What happens around here is the engineers are never to blame and it’s always management. Even when it’s specifically an engineering problem it’s the managers’ fault for not preventing the engineers from making a mistake.

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#97

Post by acd » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 11:16 PM UTC

Hopefully this ends open Office spaces trend. I hope that there be a resurgence of private offices again. Cross discipline cross company cooperation sounds interesting.

I also tends to think that the move fast and break things builds technical debt. As such as there is a need for a cross between agile and a more planned approach.

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#98

Post by jsjohnst » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 11:27 PM UTC

MikeTheGreat wrote: post #83

ryguytilidie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its crazy how tribalistic HN has become. The whole Boeing fiasco has produced SO MANY "gosh, all those MBAs are at fault. I assign 0 fault to the engineers!" and every. single. time. There is a problem relating to a management/engineering decision, blame from HN ALWAYS goes to "the MBA types" and very literally never to engineering. I guess I just don't understand what the point of this type of tribalism is? Feeling…

Speaking of that bias, I just read this: https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merg... (Sorry about the 'amp' link)

All you need to do is remove ‘/amp’ from the end.

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#99

Post by dmitriid » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 12:15 AM UTC

hobofan wrote: post #47

joosters wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might have worked for Travis Kalanick, but can we really say that it worked for Uber?

Depends on how you define "Uber". If you mean the construct and it's continued existence, then the jury is still out on that. For all the early investors and employees (the ones that facilitated the "move fast" attitude), it looks like it worked pretty well.

When you have unlimited money from investors and your strategy is to engage in price dumping with that unlimited money, it will work well.

Has nothing to do with moving fast and breaking things though.

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#100

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 12:58 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #93

6700417 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should blame be tied to compensation? Compensation tends to be tied to perceived impact. The perceived impact of a manager with 10 reports who are all focused and delivering individually is much higher than the impact of a manager with the same number of reports where half the team meets few of their goals. The first manager is ultimately going to be seen as more effective and will get larger bonuses and will be…

> Why should blame be tied to compensation? Compensation tends to be tied to perceived impact. The perceived impact of a manager with 10 reports who are all focused and delivering individually is much higher than the impact of a manager with the same number of reports where half the team meets few of their goals. Maybe because when those goals involve cutting corners on safety and hundreds of people die as a result,…

Apparently "risk" is tied to compensation. And so is talent.

So if you have someone telling you they're more talented than you are, and they take bigger risks, and that's why they're paid a lot more than you, why would you not expect them to take more responsibility than everyone else when things go wrong?