Techies Vs. The Business(plpatterns.com)
plpatterns.com
Techies Vs. The Business
http://plpatterns.com/post/55433565/techies-vs-the-business
17 comments
This article alludes to this, but doesn't go into it - but the terms "Technology" and "Business" are totally bogus and I usually recommend that people don't use them.
I hear this all the time in big corporates - "We need to ask the Business", or "That's for Technology to sort out". It sets "Technology" apart from the rest of the organization in a way that just isn't realistic or productive.
When people invoke the term "The Business", what do they really mean? - is it marketing, or the call center, or the HR department, is it sales, is it the warehouse? It's a meaningless term. Technology is the Business just like every other part of an organization.
I've worked on projects where that mentality persists - and had successes and failures. I've also worked on projects where Tech/Business is never mentioned, it never comes up... These projects have been overwhelming successes (and more fun to boot).
I hear this all the time in big corporates - "We need to ask the Business", or "That's for Technology to sort out". It sets "Technology" apart from the rest of the organization in a way that just isn't realistic or productive.
When people invoke the term "The Business", what do they really mean? - is it marketing, or the call center, or the HR department, is it sales, is it the warehouse? It's a meaningless term. Technology is the Business just like every other part of an organization.
I've worked on projects where that mentality persists - and had successes and failures. I've also worked on projects where Tech/Business is never mentioned, it never comes up... These projects have been overwhelming successes (and more fun to boot).
It starts well, then gets all political at the end. You don't get trapped in a job by the job. You get "trapped" by commitments that you freely entered into at the time, such as, having kids, buying a house and so on. Commitments that the job makes it possible for you to keep. If you really want to stay out of the trap, it's not hard! But is it worth it?
It did feel rather tacked on and poorly considered. Human beings are not slaves to employers but to our own needs. We take out our frustration at this upon our employers even though it isn't really their fault (most of the time) that the only safe and efficient way to satisfy these needs is through tedious employment.
(Well, it's not the only way, but it is the way most people chose, which is primarily their fault.)
I very much liked the comparison of management of people to management of computers. We each understand our own field and how, generally, to utilize the resources we are meant to manage, but we don't understand each other's so well. This is a problem when we have to cooperate and each have a good understanding of what the other needs and does, as it is in the employer/techie relationship. Division of labor has its advantages, but it's no excuse for not knowing what your neighbor does.
(Well, it's not the only way, but it is the way most people chose, which is primarily their fault.)
I very much liked the comparison of management of people to management of computers. We each understand our own field and how, generally, to utilize the resources we are meant to manage, but we don't understand each other's so well. This is a problem when we have to cooperate and each have a good understanding of what the other needs and does, as it is in the employer/techie relationship. Division of labor has its advantages, but it's no excuse for not knowing what your neighbor does.
Criticism taken. I was thinking more along the lines of what umjames is saying, but that's besides the point. I want to improve my writing as much as any other skill, so this kind of feedback is much appreciated.
The reason I tacked the whole Questions section on was to:
1) Stimulate the feelings deep down inside those who want to start a startup, but for one reason or another, aren't.
2) Ask the question, how can we compensate people for what they actually contribute in a way that scales better?
Any ideas?
The reason I tacked the whole Questions section on was to:
1) Stimulate the feelings deep down inside those who want to start a startup, but for one reason or another, aren't.
2) Ask the question, how can we compensate people for what they actually contribute in a way that scales better?
Any ideas?
I think part of what he is saying is right. You can only work "profitably" if you have "resources" available to you. Take farming. Guess what, no matter how good at it you are, no matter how hard a worker, no matter how much you deserve to succeed, without land\seeds\water\ect, you can't get a start to prove yourself with and make a profit. So you get pushed into share cropping instead, which goes nowhere, at least for you...
Trapped by "commitments" you "freely" entered into... true on one level in a way but it's just not that simple. And who has\doesn't have resources in life? Who share crops and who owns the plantation? Is it a meritocracy? Do those who are most deserving get allocated more? Somewhat, hence the idea of profiting\bankruptcy. But also most of the people who can rise up in such a system have resources given to them to invest, probably by their parents. Invest in themselves (a chance at education), in a business, in many different ways. The opposite, those who are given little, give you the term "crushing poverty", were upon you will almost certainly share crop (and remain crushingly poor) or perish.
There's no easy magic solution, but at the same time trapping people into a world where they must submit to a life of drudgery (whether through physical labor, mental anguish, or both) in order to access resources held by those who were just given them... seems wrong. Perhaps instead we should work to push up the "bottom class"? Say, use technology and progress to bring us to a productive and equitable enough state everyone can have a great education, at least so far as they can prove themselves worthy of. I think it is clear that given human nature this will never happen... but that doesn't mean we can't dream that no one has to become a drone, nor decry the perpetuation of the share cropping system, in all it's forms.
Trapped by "commitments" you "freely" entered into... true on one level in a way but it's just not that simple. And who has\doesn't have resources in life? Who share crops and who owns the plantation? Is it a meritocracy? Do those who are most deserving get allocated more? Somewhat, hence the idea of profiting\bankruptcy. But also most of the people who can rise up in such a system have resources given to them to invest, probably by their parents. Invest in themselves (a chance at education), in a business, in many different ways. The opposite, those who are given little, give you the term "crushing poverty", were upon you will almost certainly share crop (and remain crushingly poor) or perish.
There's no easy magic solution, but at the same time trapping people into a world where they must submit to a life of drudgery (whether through physical labor, mental anguish, or both) in order to access resources held by those who were just given them... seems wrong. Perhaps instead we should work to push up the "bottom class"? Say, use technology and progress to bring us to a productive and equitable enough state everyone can have a great education, at least so far as they can prove themselves worthy of. I think it is clear that given human nature this will never happen... but that doesn't mean we can't dream that no one has to become a drone, nor decry the perpetuation of the share cropping system, in all it's forms.
I don't think he meant that all employment is evil or akin to slavery. What sucks about work from the employee's perspective usually has roots in the employee's belief that he/she is not properly appreciated/respected/compensated for his/her personal contributions to the job.
It's not like working for a startup or starting one yourself frees you from your personal financial commitments, but it can (and often does) make you feel more appreciated/respected/compensated for the work you do.
It's not like working for a startup or starting one yourself frees you from your personal financial commitments, but it can (and often does) make you feel more appreciated/respected/compensated for the work you do.
Here here! I've a friend who lives very, very cheaply, has no debt, and makes bank. As a result, he simply doesn't make work decisions based on money -- pretty amazing to see the freedom that his lifestyle choices afford him.
Its extremely well thought out articles like this one that have converted me and so many others from digg to HN.
Very interesting and thorough article. I think these questions are particularly interesting to consider from the perspective of a startup. While smaller startups may not face these challenges yet, since them teams are still relatively small, it is a good idea to begin considering them. It makes me wonder if there is something an organization can do ahead of time to mitigate these conflicts down the road. Any thoughts?
Yes, I think it definitely has to be in the culture from the start. I doubt people who have been working at a company for a while are going to go for switching to a completely different methodology for getting compensated.
In the beginning, when a startup is very small, everything is transparent. Everyone knows who's doing what, and their share of the pay/company can be proportional. Kind of like the way Joel Spolsky describes having compensation open, not a big secret how much every person is being paid. But as the company gets bigger, you might not even know all the people there, let alone what work they're doing. The transparency breaks down.
I was already considering ideas of how to measure contribution by analyzing source code that you commit. But this obviously only works for code. Not all value contributed is through code. Maybe each department or kind of work could have its own scheme. (Manning the phone, for example, probably _should_ be paid hourly.)
In the end though, some hybrid will probably make the most sense. I'm looking for other ideas too.
In the beginning, when a startup is very small, everything is transparent. Everyone knows who's doing what, and their share of the pay/company can be proportional. Kind of like the way Joel Spolsky describes having compensation open, not a big secret how much every person is being paid. But as the company gets bigger, you might not even know all the people there, let alone what work they're doing. The transparency breaks down.
I was already considering ideas of how to measure contribution by analyzing source code that you commit. But this obviously only works for code. Not all value contributed is through code. Maybe each department or kind of work could have its own scheme. (Manning the phone, for example, probably _should_ be paid hourly.)
In the end though, some hybrid will probably make the most sense. I'm looking for other ideas too.
Yeah, very good point about transparency. I remember reading some entrepreneur's story who stressed fostering this kind of environment. It is a somewhat different but related point: he insisted that everyone in the company spend time doing customer service, so everyone had a sense of what the customer's needs were and how the product was progressing. I thought this was very clever.
I also think you're right - there doesn't seem to be enough innovation in regard to compensation. Even bonuses don't necessarily create the right incentives - often these seem more related to the overall health of the economy rather than work or contributions. While it is a good idea to share success with employees, regardless of the cause, it does little to encourage employees in their individual actions. While you say this sort of salary structure is in reaction to a company's growth, it seems like they are even less useful as a company grows and each individual's contribution has an ever smaller affect on how well a company ultimately does.
I also think you're right - there doesn't seem to be enough innovation in regard to compensation. Even bonuses don't necessarily create the right incentives - often these seem more related to the overall health of the economy rather than work or contributions. While it is a good idea to share success with employees, regardless of the cause, it does little to encourage employees in their individual actions. While you say this sort of salary structure is in reaction to a company's growth, it seems like they are even less useful as a company grows and each individual's contribution has an ever smaller affect on how well a company ultimately does.
Yes, absolutely! Doing customer service is a great idea. Many problems (esp. usability) stem from the fact that the people making the product don't empathize with the people using the product. It's just like when developers eat their own dog food, the software almost always ends up being significantly better.
I actually have asked multiple times to work in different departments at my day job to get a better sense of how users use the stuff I'm making. I feel it's necessary to do my job well. _Necessary._ But the culture just isn't open to that I guess. Short of quitting, I don't see it ever actually happening.
I completely agree with you about compensation. At a big company, the bonus I get has no correspondence to what I actually do. I wonder if it would work out better if profits were broken down by product, for example. Then, if you worked on a given product, you get a cut of the profit for that product. At least then, the profit from big hit products wouldn't be split among everyone in the company.
I actually have asked multiple times to work in different departments at my day job to get a better sense of how users use the stuff I'm making. I feel it's necessary to do my job well. _Necessary._ But the culture just isn't open to that I guess. Short of quitting, I don't see it ever actually happening.
I completely agree with you about compensation. At a big company, the bonus I get has no correspondence to what I actually do. I wonder if it would work out better if profits were broken down by product, for example. Then, if you worked on a given product, you get a cut of the profit for that product. At least then, the profit from big hit products wouldn't be split among everyone in the company.
Techies priorities:
1. Technology
2. Processes
3. People
Business priorities:
3. Technology
2. Processes
1. People
1. Technology
2. Processes
3. People
Business priorities:
3. Technology
2. Processes
1. People
I for one thought this article was incredible. I'll recommend it to my student group.
My word of caution is this: due to the all too common 'them and us' situation (as described in the article), it is sometimes the case that the situation escalates to the point that one (or both) parties put up barriers to prevent 'the other side' from learning to speak their language, aka 'domain freakism'. This is sometime done as a defensive measure to prevent 'the other side' from 'getting in', for example to cover the tracks on things they dont want 'the other side' to know.
This doesnt always happen, but it is sad when it does. My advice in this scenario is to find an independent person (either inside the company or outside) who can help you learn the basic language of 'the other side' to help bring that wall down. And then go solve the root problem around why one side does want to let the other side in (it's often skeletons / legacy).