Developers Are the Most Valuable Resource When Creating Software

Next in line is presentations for management.

Next is bullshit political meetings that engineers are forced to have to remove people blockers. I have no idea what managers are useful for if they can't handle people issues.

Next is nonsense nitpicks on PRs and design docs. If manager has a peculiar OCD about something, don't waste dev time on that. Work on your own OCD.

I think this is the cause: https://charity.wtf/2020/09/06/if-management-isnt-a-promotio...

tl;dr: Management should be a supporting role, but because it's closer to the business (and usually staffed by "Idealists" as described here: https://leanpub.com/developerhegemony), it's given a more powerful position, and does whatever it can to execute as needed by the business. Of course everyone (managers included) also want to keep the power they have and gain more power/money over time.

Developers' time isn't respected because managers have more power and building software is hard, so rather than building partnerships and supporting everyone as needed, then just squeeze harder, treat people lower on the org chart as lower worth as humans, and generally don't shield or abstract things away as much as they should (often not at all). From the article:

> The goal of most software projects is to deliver to deadlines and budget of the plan. The real goal of a software project is to create the right software, but instead decisions focus on the meeting the plan not creating software.

The plan is focused on instead of the software because the plan is the artifact of the more important people, the managers. They're higher up on the ladder because they're more loyal to the company. Even when this isn't the case they're still higher up because it's safer to have them in power rather than devs who can change stuff.

Purely based on my experience, I believe much of what is described cannot exist in large (100±) organisations. Fundamentally, large organisations need decision making structures, and become more "command and control" in order to make those structures work.

Smaller organisations can more quickly assess problems/opportunities and collaborate on responses in a more inclusive way.

Back to how you define success. Profit? Hypergrowth? Investment? Shares? Salary? Staff churn? Mental health? Satisfaction?

I run small (4-20) person development teams, as a project/delivery manager or senior manager, and I always prioritise mental health, well being and support for every team member. I always get feedback that team members would like every manager to do the same, and that they are happier on my team.

I do this because having come from a system/development background myself, I've seen the negative effects that bad management has. My own mental health, that of others, and losing colleagues to suicide (not just because of work, but work had been a factor) led me to take a protective and idealistic stance towards supporting development teams and project members.

The flip side of taking this approach is the very difficult conversations and stress I have to deal with in dealing with clients, project sponsors or CxOs. That's my choice. Many of the roles that commission software development teams have no idea how to work with or manage them.