Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

ludic.mataroa.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 482 posts

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#11

Post by ludicity »

pdimitar wrote: post #8
smokefoot wrote: post #4

This is a painfully cynical take and beyond that I’m not sure what he’s trying to say. If it’s all crap, make it better. Do something, don’t just complain!

How? Programmers don't have executive powers. You are very often told that this is not your job and you should be doing yours and leave the "experts" to theirs. Well, they are not experts. They are not even at the level of informed amateurs. But they have the power. What would you do? Sure, there are good companies and you can switch until you find one but let's recognize that statistically speaking this absolutely d…

Hello! I am the author, and you've saved me writing this out. The whole point is that you actually can't do something (and that's okay! I don't complain anymore either!). Burnout comes from believing what people are saying in corporate contexts without looking at what they're actually doing.

I have come across so many government teams that say they want to start using version control... as if someone has been stopping them all these years! If they were serious, they'd just do it, so you're better off just looking at what they're doing than talking.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#12

Post by pdimitar »

ludicity wrote: post #10
brilee wrote: post #6

In this long rant, there is only one concrete thing named that is supposedly bad: > I saw someone that was working on a few Git branches, twenty years my senior, and they decided to clone the entire repository ten times, then checkout a different branch in each repository clone "because it's easier". > Can you imagine the kind of havoc such a person could wreak upon infrastructure and code if left unchecked? But I'm…

Hello, hello, I am the original poster. I had surmised why this person was doing this, but didn't want to spend ages venting about a particular person, especially in a way that might actually cause that person to realize they're reading about themselves one day. Suffice it to say that there are other serious issues. Here's a more concrete thing - I work on a product that took years and a spectacular sum of money to g…

Truth be told, I liked your article a lot but that particular example definitely should have been replaced with something more concrete and a bit more convincing.

Having several copies of a GIT repo for different branches is a viable strategy as long as one does not do force-pushes.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#14

Post by coolmitch »

brilee wrote: post #6

In this long rant, there is only one concrete thing named that is supposedly bad: > I saw someone that was working on a few Git branches, twenty years my senior, and they decided to clone the entire repository ten times, then checkout a different branch in each repository clone "because it's easier". > Can you imagine the kind of havoc such a person could wreak upon infrastructure and code if left unchecked? But I'm…

i see a lot of people doing this, and especially if theyre shallow clones, its really not a big deal

and anyway git-worktree is basically this workflow wrapped in nicer UX

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#15

Post by smokefoot »

pdimitar wrote: post #8
smokefoot wrote: post #4

This is a painfully cynical take and beyond that I’m not sure what he’s trying to say. If it’s all crap, make it better. Do something, don’t just complain!

How? Programmers don't have executive powers. You are very often told that this is not your job and you should be doing yours and leave the "experts" to theirs. Well, they are not experts. They are not even at the level of informed amateurs. But they have the power. What would you do? Sure, there are good companies and you can switch until you find one but let's recognize that statistically speaking this absolutely d…

In no particular order: 1. Use your powers of persuasion to drive better decisions 2. Recruit some good people 3. Suggest and execute some positive changes—“there’s this thing called source control and it’s great…” or, “seems like the reports we built aren’t that useful—how can we make this better”

There’s a trap here which is thinking it’s all crap so I may as well not try. It’s seductive but quite poinsonous to the organization and to the individual.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#16

Post by addicted »

> My current organization has 8000 staff members, and I used to glance over the usage metrics of the dashboards my old team produced. I believe three dashboards were used, out of somewhere around 50 - 100. Of those being visited, it usually turned out they were being visited by members of our team checking to see if the data had refreshed for the day. I'd estimate the cost of maintaining our team was approximately $1,000,000, for an organization that supposedly can't afford to waste that money.

I’m not sure how to explain this, but often when I find posts on HN linking to an engineer discussing how management is doing it wrong (especially if it’s someone who’s not running a successful company themselves), there’s usually a hyperfocus on really insignificant numbers as evidence of their point.

This company has 8000 employees. And the cost of maintaining those dashboards is about $1mm according to the post.

It only takes someone in management to identify a change which improved employee efficiency by $125 annually to completely pay for the $1mm spent to maintain the dashboard.

Identify a new $125 efficiency improvement every year, and by year 5 your $1mm annual expense is saving you $5mm every year.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#17

Post by 88913527 »

pdimitar wrote: post #7

That article was a very nice surprise and apart from how crushingly accurate it is (before somebody jumps in to defend all the corporate chaos, of course) it also had me giggling several times while reading it. The answer of course is financial incentives. It is the answer 99% of the time, I know quite a few high-profile managers at this point and they are all very smart and get stuff done people and yet they allow t…

You can make improvements, but it ends up being small things that you can showcase to leaders to demonstrate that progress is happening, but it's nothing of actual material value. It's a lot like public political discourse where a policy solution is touted, all the ooh's and ahh's, but then nothing really changes.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#18

Post by ludicity »

pdimitar wrote: post #12
ludicity wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hello, hello, I am the original poster. I had surmised why this person was doing this, but didn't want to spend ages venting about a particular person, especially in a way that might actually cause that person to realize they're reading about themselves one day. Suffice it to say that there are other serious issues. Here's a more concrete thing - I work on a product that took years and a spectacular sum of money to g…

Truth be told, I liked your article a lot but that particular example definitely should have been replaced with something more concrete and a bit more convincing. Having several copies of a GIT repo for different branches is a viable strategy as long as one does not do force-pushes.

Thank you for the feedback - I hammered this out over an hour this morning, and wasn't really expecting much readership but should have been more careful. As noted elsewhere on my blog, I'm young enough that I've only used Git, so it's good to know that the original example was not good. I read much too far into it given the other dysfunction I've seen from the same people.

In any case, I've made a speedy replacement.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#20

Post by justin_oaks »

Of course the organization doesn't want to improve things. The bosses would have to be humble enough to receive feedback. Most people can't take feedback, let alone the bosses who feel that those under their management are beneath them.

At my last job, the bosses ignored everything even the smartest employees suggested. Changes only came when customers, news outlets, vendors, or auditors made suggestions. Anyone external had more influence on company direction than the most experienced employees. A person leaving an anonymous review on an app store had more influence.

It was clear that we were ignored because the bosses didn't want to take direction from those they manage. Their arrogance and fragile egos wouldn't allow them to.

Post reply on HN