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

Blameless post-mortems and a just culture (2012)

codeascraft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 91 posts

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

#81

Post by leggomylibro »

im3w1l wrote: post #33
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.

Yeah, I ended up leaving to go hiking for like 3 months. I don't want to go back either.

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

#82

Post by viklove »

the_af wrote: post #80
viklove wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to your take, you can't use the term "devil's advocate" in this context either -- because it only makes sense in the context of the Catholic church. Metaphors are meant to be used out of context. When I say "I'm in pole position," for example, I don't actually have to be a competitor in an automobile race.

Um, "devil's advocate"? I didn't say anything about that. But let's roll with it: "devil's advocate" is a phrase appropriate for the situation described in the original post ("let me hear your suggestion, I'll try to find any flaws or objections to it for the sake of debate"), so it has the correct context , whereas "I'll play the straight man to your suggestion" makes little sense outside comedy, and if the offended…

"Straight man" makes just as much sense as "devil's advocate," neither of them apply to a workplace situation. The former applies to comedy performances, and the latter applies to biblical characters. Neither can be used in a day-to-day setting according to you. You're drawing a distinction where one can't be made, probably because your ego is preventing you from admitting you're wrong. Have a nice day, I guess.

Oh wait, it's night time, so I shouldn't use that metaphor -- goodbye.

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

#83

Post by notyourday »

diegoperini wrote: post #60
notyourday wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would happily accept the blameless postmortems in such a company.

Yes. But it's a dynamic relationship and radical equity is still not justified even here. Equity and worth is not a function of solely participation. It's a mixture of participation, loyalty, honesty, competence, sacrifice, seniority and priorities in life. You can always name more variables and it will always put the radical argument in a greyer zone. Edit: I use the word "radical" as in outstanding, outside of the…

> But it's a dynamic relationship and radical equity is still not justified even here. Equity and worth is not a function of solely participation.

It is a function solely of contribution in whatever way one contributes be that by being the smartest person in a room who needs only one minute to do what it takes others three months, or by being people who labor for three months so the smartest person in a room can do something else.

Since the negative contribution is evenly split among everyone ( blameless ) so should be the positive contribution.

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

#84

Post by raihansaputra »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #63
raihansaputra wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No way. They already learned that having 2 number 1 drivers doesn't work (Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg on 2016 season). They won that season, but if it weren't for the totally superior car, they were on a tight margin. Distributing the winning points to two drivers doesn't work to secure both the Driver's championship and the Manufacturer's championship. There's a reason why Red Bull picked Max Verstappen over Car…

I think Bottas is in a comfortable spot but has to give up his dreams of a title as long as Hamilton is around. Some drivers are ok with that, some aren’t. Ricciardo probably could also have stayed with Red Bull as a very good number two driver but he didn’t want to give up the title dream. Unfortunately he seems to have bet on the wrong team...

Yeah, and I'm sure he'd like the chance but either he puts everything in for a chance (as Rosberg did and decided he burned out after winning), or take the hit and do a good job for the best team.

Ricciardo made the same move Lewis did, and the delay in the new regulation opens up opportunity for him. How good or what could it be is very uncertain, though. I think he's very unfortunate in timing; I think he would take the chance of the Mercedes seat if he weren't in contract at that time. And if he knows McLaren were moving to Mercedes engine, he might consider that too. Nobody knows what Renault showed him that made him sign though. Or maybe $80M can wipe that pain away..

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

#85

Post by raihansaputra »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #77
raihansaputra wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No way. They already learned that having 2 number 1 drivers doesn't work (Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg on 2016 season). They won that season, but if it weren't for the totally superior car, they were on a tight margin. Distributing the winning points to two drivers doesn't work to secure both the Driver's championship and the Manufacturer's championship. There's a reason why Red Bull picked Max Verstappen over Car…

> There's a reason why Red Bull picked Max Verstappen over Carlos Sainz instead of having both Redbull haven’t really resolved this problem though. Max obviously has championship potential, and is their number one driver. But they haven’t managed to find a suitable teammate for him. They need their own Bottas. A driver who is comfortable being the number 2, but talented enough to lock out the front row and consistent…

Albon is still really new though. Bottas didn't get to his current form after a few years in Williams. I think Albon has the potential; this year is supposed to be the time to prove it. At least he's much better than Gasly and the team picked Albon over Kvyat. I'm really excited about him. The whole younger squad is really exciting to watch, can't wait for the battle in 3-5 years.

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

#86

Post by diegoperini »

notyourday wrote: post #83
diegoperini wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. But it's a dynamic relationship and radical equity is still not justified even here. Equity and worth is not a function of solely participation. It's a mixture of participation, loyalty, honesty, competence, sacrifice, seniority and priorities in life. You can always name more variables and it will always put the radical argument in a greyer zone. Edit: I use the word "radical" as in outstanding, outside of the…

> But it's a dynamic relationship and radical equity is still not justified even here. Equity and worth is not a function of solely participation. It is a function solely of contribution in whatever way one contributes be that by being the smartest person in a room who needs only one minute to do what it takes others three months, or by being people who labor for three months so the smartest person in a room can do s…

What you define is not contribution, it's participation. Killing meritocracy entirely also kills the incentive to improve oneself. Distributing equity non-equally is just one of those dials which if you adjust slightly, you reward people who are able to self improve more. Do it too much, you alienate your team (as you pointed out). Do it never, you reward the lazy by not rewarding the hardworking. I think you are on the right track with your intentions but having a balanced approach is the key and choosing one extreme over the other is not the path forward here.

This has been a fun debate but I believe what I think about the topic can be summarized as this:

Healthy competition without the toxicity is possible in the workplace. It is just hard and needs careful attention to detail. If you ask how much, that's probably the subject of ideology. When ideologies battle, it's either bloody and both sides lose or it's small wins and loses achieved by mutual compromise. No matter where the balance is met, it must progress with dialogue.

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

#87

Post by Ididntdothis »

raihansaputra wrote: post #84
Ididntdothis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Bottas is in a comfortable spot but has to give up his dreams of a title as long as Hamilton is around. Some drivers are ok with that, some aren’t. Ricciardo probably could also have stayed with Red Bull as a very good number two driver but he didn’t want to give up the title dream. Unfortunately he seems to have bet on the wrong team...

Yeah, and I'm sure he'd like the chance but either he puts everything in for a chance (as Rosberg did and decided he burned out after winning), or take the hit and do a good job for the best team. Ricciardo made the same move Lewis did, and the delay in the new regulation opens up opportunity for him. How good or what could it be is very uncertain, though. I think he's very unfortunate in timing; I think he would tak…

“Or maybe $80M can wipe that pain away.”

It definitely helps :)

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

#88

Post by the_af »

viklove wrote: post #82
the_af wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, "devil's advocate"? I didn't say anything about that. But let's roll with it: "devil's advocate" is a phrase appropriate for the situation described in the original post ("let me hear your suggestion, I'll try to find any flaws or objections to it for the sake of debate"), so it has the correct context , whereas "I'll play the straight man to your suggestion" makes little sense outside comedy, and if the offended…

"Straight man" makes just as much sense as "devil's advocate," neither of them apply to a workplace situation. The former applies to comedy performances, and the latter applies to biblical characters. Neither can be used in a day-to-day setting according to you. You're drawing a distinction where one can't be made, probably because your ego is preventing you from admitting you're wrong. Have a nice day, I guess. Oh w…

> "Straight man" makes just as much sense as "devil's advocate,"

I disagree. It's easy to see why "straight man" doesn't make sense in this situation if you try to explain to me how it makes sense. I can't. I can explain how "devil's advocate" makes sense though: it means arguing the opposition to an idea not because you necessarily disagree, but because you want to explore the negatives/other possibilities. What does "straight man" mean to you?

> The former applies to comedy performances

Correct.

> the latter applies to biblical characters.

Incorrect. If you think this, you're confusing a metaphor's literal interpretation with its meaning.

"Have a nice day" isn't a metaphor, at this point it seems you're being purposefully obtuse.

Have a nice day!

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

#89

Post by viklove »

the_af wrote: post #88
viklove wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Straight man" makes just as much sense as "devil's advocate," neither of them apply to a workplace situation. The former applies to comedy performances, and the latter applies to biblical characters. Neither can be used in a day-to-day setting according to you. You're drawing a distinction where one can't be made, probably because your ego is preventing you from admitting you're wrong. Have a nice day, I guess. Oh w…

> "Straight man" makes just as much sense as "devil's advocate," I disagree. It's easy to see why "straight man" doesn't make sense in this situation if you try to explain to me how it makes sense. I can't. I can explain how "devil's advocate" makes sense though: it means arguing the opposition to an idea not because you necessarily disagree, but because you want to explore the negatives/other possibilities. What doe…

> straight man: the person in a comedy duo who speaks lines which give a comedian the opportunity to make jokes

All you have to do is change "comedy duo" to "coworker pair" and "jokes" to "explanation of architecture."

> devils advocate: the popular title of the person appointed by the Roman Catholic Church to challenge a proposed beatification or canonization, or the verification of a miracle

All you have to do is change "person appointed by the Roman Catholic Church" to "coworker" and "challenge a proposed beatification or canonization" to "challenge another person's ideas."

> purposefully obtuse

Is that worse than being unintentionally obtuse, like you're doing?

By the way, have you tried just looking up the word "metaphor?"

> a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

Do you see the words at the end? "Not literally applicable."

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

#90

Post by the_af »

viklove wrote: post #89
the_af wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Straight man" makes just as much sense as "devil's advocate," I disagree. It's easy to see why "straight man" doesn't make sense in this situation if you try to explain to me how it makes sense. I can't. I can explain how "devil's advocate" makes sense though: it means arguing the opposition to an idea not because you necessarily disagree, but because you want to explore the negatives/other possibilities. What doe…

> straight man: the person in a comedy duo who speaks lines which give a comedian the opportunity to make jokes All you have to do is change "comedy duo" to "coworker pair" and "jokes" to "explanation of architecture." > devils advocate: the popular title of the person appointed by the Roman Catholic Church to challenge a proposed beatification or canonization, or the verification of a miracle All you have to do is c…

> All you have to do is change "comedy duo" to "coworker pair" and "jokes" to "explanation of architecture."

But that doesn't work, because it requires changing the meaning/imagery of the metaphor beyond what regular people would recognize. You know, what actually happened in the situation of the original post.

Yes, I can change "straight man" to "spaceship" and "jokes" to "launch into space", but it'd be almost as nonsensical.

> By the way, have you tried just looking up the word "metaphor?"

Yes. Note you misunderstand the definition you quoted. Let me say it once more, then we're done: the CONTEXT of a metaphor is not ITS LITERAL MEANING, so quit yapping about literalness. Context matters. "Straight man" doesn't have the required context, "devil's advocate" does.

I don't expect you to acknowledge what I'm saying. At this point I must assume your ego won't let you budge an inch. Have a nice day! (which is not a metaphor, by the way).

Post reply on HN