Live data from Hacker News

“Collaboration” is bullshit

joanwestenberg.com

131–140 of 193 posts

Re: “Collaboration” is bullshit

#131
post #69

It's interesting that the author does not even consider the impact of incentives on performance. As Charlie Munger famously said, "Show me the incentives, and I'll show you the outcomes." It is true that collaboration becomes increasingly difficult as the team grows in size, but collaboration is not the fundamental problem. To manage a large team, the real challenge is to design incentives that properly reward those…

What kind of incentives are possible in your average tech work environment? A raise? A bonus? Raises usually come with more responsibility. I'm not familiar with tech companies doing bonuses.

Starts with how you evaluate employees for bonuses and promotion. Do you evaluate people on the impact of what was delivered? How fast they delivered feature work? The quality level of what they delivered? How well they worked with others?

The answers to basic questions like that already starts to shape behavior. If you pay zero attention to how people behave, and only look at impact of what was delivered you may promote people who optimize for their own work, but make others miserable. If you don't properly weight quality, especially now with AI code gen, you'll promote people who move fast break more things than is reasonable.

We can easily find examples of suboptimal behavior that arises out of poorly shaped rewards incentives at companies. Empire building is one behavior that is the result of managers getting promoted based on headcount. Stack ranking can and has led to people limiting collaboration with peers because someone has to fail in order for someone else to get a favorable rating. Or people avoid riskier work because failure can put you on the hot seat.

Re: “Collaboration” is bullshit

#132
Maybe "teamwork" is bullshit, but that's only one way to do collaboration. Specifically, it's the hierarchical way. Usually, this is referred to as "participation" or "corporation", while "collaboration" and "cooperation" are used to describe an anarchist approach.

> Collaborating means the failure belongs to the process.

This is the way that hierarchy fails to scale. The larger a hierarchy, the more "process" must exist to keep it together. Process in a hierarchy must be defined by superiors, and implemented by inferiors, so it is superiors who must own the failure of process, and inferiors who are blamed for it.

> The average knowledge worker maintains accounts across system after system, switching between applications hundreds of times per day.

This is the more serious problem that comes from hierarchy. Work done by a team must become its own isolated context: the project. Anything anyone hopes to be able to do with a computer must be monopolized somehow by an "application". Why? An application is the only practical goal that a project can have. Anything more would have too broad a scope to be manageable.

---

We don't need hierarchy. There is another way to do work, and despite making incredible the tools for it, we have barely scratched the surface.

We have a decentralized internet, email, and git, so why do we keep making applications? Application is not only a reflection of the hierarchy that makes it, it's also a reflection of the environment. No matter how you contribute to the puzzle, your contribution must be a piece. How else could it fit with the rest?

Free software has been struggling with this dichotomy from the beginning, but it's only getting worse. Most of the systems we use are becoming ever more consolidated and impositional. Most people don't configure their system by editing each of the unique config files: they open the GNOME/XFCE/KDE "system settings", and expect it all to stay consistent. Most of what we actually do with computers is facilitated by one of two major web browser engine implementations. Want to make a new window manager? Get ready to build a feature-complete Wayland compositor (probably leveraging the bulk of another compositor's code). Sure, you can use shell utilities, but it's not like we are doing anything new or interesting with them: just transforming text with a careful emulation of a 50 year old environment.

---

There's no clear way to resolve this situation. Software is useless until it can fit as a piece in the puzzle. If we want a system that is not a puzzle, then wouldn't we have throw away all the precious pieces?

Even so, I think we have really lost touch with the original magic of computing. All these isolated contexts are walls that stop us in our tracks. Formats, accounts, applications, frameworks, platforms... all dead ends. Maybe it's time we make a path that doesn't end?

Re: “Collaboration” is bullshit

#133
no wonder the best "productive" years were days when people smoked in offices, produced a memo or tangible work output after 3 months.

now there's pretense of doing work. if you're smoking, you tend to shut up and listen to others.

email though good it terms of faster communication, enabled the whole email chain thing to fake as if one is doing work.

Re: “Collaboration” is bullshit

#134
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standups should eliminate almost all other meetings engineers need to attend. Except to go deeper on questions that came up in standup that cannot be instantly resolved. Otherwise yeah there’s really no point.

Do you mean standups as part of Scrum? Scrum dictates several other meetings.

I will allow one more meeting to start a new sprint and end the previous one. Everyone should have prepared ahead of time to report on all their sprint items and whether they were completed, if not why not, and to present the work they will be doing in the next sprint.

If the Scrum Master or whatever their title schedules any other repeating process meetings, fire them.

Re: “Collaboration” is bullshit

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standups should eliminate almost all other meetings engineers need to attend. Except to go deeper on questions that came up in standup that cannot be instantly resolved. Otherwise yeah there’s really no point.

I would be pleased with the standup if it eliminated other meetings, but that has definitely not been my experience.

Be the change you want to see.

Re: “Collaboration” is bullshit

#136
Extremely good example of this is the fact that all major breakthroughs that pushed out civilisation further were done by highly motivated an genious individuals.

Im not saying teamwork is not needed, but it for sure should not be #1 indicator for teams.

Vetting for character to skip dycks is till fine in my eyes.

Re: “Collaboration” is bullshit

#137
Read a super interesting paper by McEntire lately, “The Organizational Physics of Multi-Agent AI”.

In short, he proved that even AI agents exhibit all the dysfunctions one would normally attribute to human shortcomings / politics / laziness etc.

Either way, I think the point is strong: if the organization is bad, you end up doing mostly work about work which is exhausting.

Small, effective teams with super high accountability are more fun, but don't look "reproducible" or "repeatable".

Shameless plug on my take: https://www.menge.io/blog/where-to-cut/

Re: “Collaboration” is bullshit

#138
The lead story was about the “useless” soldiers in a battle that was won. I think as a minimum effort one should look for an example where the battle was lost? Most companies can only wish their outcomes were as good as the US in World War II.

Re: “Collaboration” is bullshit

#139
post #137

Read a super interesting paper by McEntire lately, “The Organizational Physics of Multi-Agent AI”. In short, he proved that even AI agents exhibit all the dysfunctions one would normally attribute to human shortcomings / politics / laziness etc. Either way, I think the point is strong: if the organization is bad, you end up doing mostly work about work which is exhausting. Small, effective teams with super high accou…

"So God created mankind in his own image"

I wonder if that made it into the training set intentionally, or just as an unexpected side effect of stealing every character of text available on the internet with absolutely no curation?

Re: “Collaboration” is bullshit

#140
post #44

A lot leaps from riflemen, who obviously didn’t want to die (did you expect them to rush Medal of Honor style?), to system features to model office work? Whole essay is incoherent mess written by one of those lonesome “no-bullshiter” who gets the job done but is so pulled down by modern day bureaucracy that even his clairvoyance can’t get through. > Dostoevsky wrote _The Brothers Karamazov_ alone. The Apollo Guidance…

> A lot leaps from riflemen, who obviously didn’t want to die Yeah but you'd think not dying involves killing those who want to kill you, or at least shooting at them! Isn't it super interesting to learn that 80% of riflemen don't ever shoot?

In a gunfight, you usually have to expose yourself at least a little bit in order to aim and fire. And let's say that you know an enemy soldier is around some corner, unaware, and you can pop out and shoot them. If there is another soldier aiming at your position, unbeknownst to you, you are dead.
Post reply on HN