[dmix]

> Also, good programmers tend to be undisciplined.

I'm curious if that's coorelated to ADD. As I definitely fit into this category.

Most startups I've worked with utilize product managers to compensate for this, coordinating the work of engineers, which can be helpful. But in many situations I've found the engineers knew what was best for the product than these guys, who were typically older non-technical types with business experience (typically at larger firms). Largely because engineers have lived and breathed software since they were kids, tried to understand them, and know what makes good products intuitively. Plus they're usually smarter in general.

So I believe the best product managers are ones who seek input from developers as equally as they delegate/manage tasks. The worst ones are the ones who think they always know best and see the engineers as merely workhorses who are there to implement their (and the founders) vision. As middlemen they create a disconnect between programmers/designers and the founder. Or, worse, just saddle engineers with endless tickets with no clear vision or higher level thinking.

The very worst are the ones who think everything is about setting up processes and systematizing everything. Which they learned working at big companies and then try to pigeonhole it onto fast-moving startups... ultimately slowing everything down for little benefit, creating more risk out of failed attempt to manage/minimize future risk.

[eldavido]

Having survived a few startup disasters, I also resisted the imposition of process.

Looking back, I think it was a mistake.

[joshmarlow]

It sounds like our experiences were similar; I was very anti-process, but now see the value.

I read about a really interesting concept - "the null process" [0] - recently. The idea is that there is always a set way of doing things (a process) whether it's documented or not.

[0] - https://kateheddleston.com/blog/the-null-process

[majormajor]

The danger of process is that while some amount of official process is super valuable, it's very very very hard to only have a little process.

Once you start hiring for people specifically responsible for managing the process, you've got people whose incentives line up more with "furthering the process" than "furthering the underlying enterprise."

But yeah, places that say they have no process are falling into the same trap as places with "flat orgs" - there are always some power brokers once you're over 10 people or so, it's just not always documented (and even a non-flat org can hide the true power holders).

[joshmarlow]

Yeah, as in all things in life, balance is required.

That sounds like a pretty good heuristic, btw - when you are hiring people who only manage process, question your amount of process.