Blameless post-mortems and a just culture (2012) • Hacker News Board

Re: Blameless post-mortems and a just culture (2012)

#31

Post by di4na » Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 1:26 PM UTC

codesections wrote: post #28

> We must strive to understand that accidents don’t happen because people gamble and lose. The problem is that some accidents do happen because people gamble and lose – or rather, because people cut corners is ways that probably won't matter but sometimes really, really do. The best approach needs to balance both causes of error. I agree that most organizations tend to err too far in the "blame someone" direction – b…

They cut corner because the system tell them to do so. Not because they are fundamentally flawed into liking to gamble. I can make a perfect product with zero gamble, if i get infinite money and noone need to use it.

Re: Blameless post-mortems and a just culture (2012)

#32

Post by the_af » Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 1:40 PM UTC

leggomylibro wrote: post #29

I once worked somewhere that did blameless technical postmortems very well. Whenever something broke, we kept asking questions until we had uncovered what went wrong, and we constantly reminded each other that our failings were in the process, not the people. It worked great, and we ended up with much more robust systems than most other places I'd worked. Sadly, they didn't apply the same ideals to social faux pas. W…

"Straight man" still has that meaning today, just like "deadpan" and "foil". It's not a generational thing. It was probably a contextual thing; my guess is that nobody expected terms of comedy and theater at the workplace. But don't blame it on youth...

Re: Blameless post-mortems and a just culture (2012)

#33

Post by im3w1l » Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 2:01 PM UTC

leggomylibro wrote: post #29

I once worked somewhere that did blameless technical postmortems very well. Whenever something broke, we kept asking questions until we had uncovered what went wrong, and we constantly reminded each other that our failings were in the process, not the people. It worked great, and we ended up with much more robust systems than most other places I'd worked. Sadly, they didn't apply the same ideals to social faux pas. W…

> I've never been good with people, and what if I made a mistake?

This climate of fear made me absolutely miserable. To the point that I have vowed never to be an employee again. I'm not spending 8h a day in an environment where the thought police is breathing down my neck. I'd rather beg on the streets.

Re: Blameless post-mortems and a just culture (2012)

#34

Post by Ididntdothis » Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 2:02 PM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #15

MikeAmelung wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the other reply kind of hints at, it's a lot easier to do this if you have the absolutely dominant driver on your team. If I was the technical director and we were losing, I'd certainly be like "Lewis, pal, we lose as a team, right?" And then Lewis would be gone and we would just be losers.

There’s so many reasons for Mercedes success, that the parent comment comes of as being a bit silly. As you mentioned, they have Lewis Hamilton, who a lot of people would argue is the greatest driver of all time. They also have a very clear pecking order, team orders for Bottas to lose to Hamilton are a meme in F1 (“Valtteri, it’s James”). After the season was underway, they really only let them race after Hamilton h…

It reminds me a little of the time when Berger and Senna were teammates. Two very good drivers but there was no dispute who was the number one and two driver. It’s much easier to keep peace in a team where the hierarchy is clear. It would be interesting if Mercedes hired Verstappen next to Hamilton. I doubt they could keep the peace then.

Re: Blameless post-mortems and a just culture (2012)

#35

Post by Ididntdothis » Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 2:04 PM UTC

leggomylibro wrote: post #29

I once worked somewhere that did blameless technical postmortems very well. Whenever something broke, we kept asking questions until we had uncovered what went wrong, and we constantly reminded each other that our failings were in the process, not the people. It worked great, and we ended up with much more robust systems than most other places I'd worked. Sadly, they didn't apply the same ideals to social faux pas. W…

I often hear about this stuff but I have never seen it myself. Do people really ostracize others for saying a sentence they don’t like? I can see it if somebody constantly says stupid or offensive things but not for a few mistakes (are they even mistakes?).

Re: Blameless post-mortems and a just culture (2012)

#36

Post by hoorayimhelping » Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 2:05 PM UTC

codesections wrote: post #28

> We must strive to understand that accidents don’t happen because people gamble and lose. The problem is that some accidents do happen because people gamble and lose – or rather, because people cut corners is ways that probably won't matter but sometimes really, really do. The best approach needs to balance both causes of error. I agree that most organizations tend to err too far in the "blame someone" direction – b…

As I understand it the key to the blameless and just culture is to keep going to the bottom of it: "You cut corners. You were incentivized to cut corners. Why? Why do those incentives exist? What can we do to remove those incentives in the future?"

The core of the philosophy is assuming people come to work to do a good job, and when they don't do a good job, there are reasonable explanations that involve people making locally rational decisions. The goal is to make the system stable in a way that making locally rational decisions translates to globally good decisions.

Re: Blameless post-mortems and a just culture (2012)

#37

Post by Ididntdothis » Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 2:08 PM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #19

kqr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> team orders for Bottas to lose to Hamilton are a meme in F1 (“Valtteri, it’s James”). After the season was underway, they really only let them race after Hamilton had secured the drivers championship. Is this not an extension of "we win as a team, we lose as a team"? Would this be possible with the same consistency in teams where both drivers are in clear competition with each other for the seat next season?

Well I think this is a bad example in general, because unlike most businesses, success is actually a zero sum game in top flight sports. If somebody does good enough to earn a seat, it will always mean that somebody else did bad enough to lose theirs. It’s also not a very faithful characterization of Mercedes. They were seriously considering letting Bottas go last year, it was honestly a surprise that they kept him (…

Yes let Mercedes hire Verstappen and see how they can keep harmony between Hamilton and Verstappen.

Re: Blameless post-mortems and a just culture (2012)

#38

Post by whatshisface » Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 2:11 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #32

leggomylibro wrote: post #29

I once worked somewhere that did blameless technical postmortems very well. Whenever something broke, we kept asking questions until we had uncovered what went wrong, and we constantly reminded each other that our failings were in the process, not the people. It worked great, and we ended up with much more robust systems than most other places I'd worked. Sadly, they didn't apply the same ideals to social faux pas. W…

"Straight man" still has that meaning today, just like "deadpan" and "foil". It's not a generational thing. It was probably a contextual thing; my guess is that nobody expected terms of comedy and theater at the workplace. But don't blame it on youth...

>my guess is that nobody expected terms of comedy and theater at the workplace

That's a bit of a stretch, metaphors are the grease for the engine of the English language. In fact I've even heard this specific phrase many times before, recently. It's a metaphor in active use. The company was probably looking for a reason to get rid of him.

Re: Blameless post-mortems and a just culture (2012)

#39

Post by joshuacc » Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 2:22 PM UTC

williamdclt wrote: post #21

JackMcMack wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means killing your org to live again. This resonates with me. I've experienced a few "agile transformations". They almost never stuck. The thing that mostly worked was creating teams with a majority of experienced agile devs, people willing to self improve and execute. And when the job is over, it all starts falling apart. Some team members might be believers now, they become disillusioned and leave. Some might ha…

I saw an interesting talk by Alistair Cockburn (one of the Agile Manifesto guys), where he said he never once saw a succesful "agile transformation". Just too much resistance to change to have any chance to succeed. What did succeed, is to create what he called a "new building", meaning a new subcompany (sometimes literally in a new building) with a different (agile) culture, and only letting in people that are inter…

Happen to have a link to a video of this talk?

Re: Blameless post-mortems and a just culture (2012)

#40

Post by notyourday » Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 2:25 PM UTC

diegoperini wrote: post #24

notyourday wrote: post #20

Blameless postmortems should come with the equal pay ( as in equal dollar amount, equal value of equity, and equal value of other perks) for everyone in the tech organization. If it does not, then it is a propaganda tool embraced by people who extract more value from the people below them.

I don't understand the argument. (I didn't vote on your comment)

If it accepted that is not a person or persons whose mistakes create problems requiring postmortems meaning it was the collective that made mistakes then it should also be accepted that it is never a person or persons whose accomplishments propelled the company forward rather it is the collective. So everyone in the collective should get paid the amount of money for equal contributions to ups and downs, should not they?