[masterphilo]

> But most companies are incapable of the kind of equality and empowerment necessary to achieve agility, so they will force the terrible cargo cult version upon us.

I would argue that most companies cannot afford to give that kind of "empowerment" to most developers, especially if these companies rely heavily on masses of junior/inexperienced developers. So they figure a strong management layer is necessary to properly direct the project's goals.

Now I'm not saying that's how it should be, but that's the reality of the software talent market today.

[tikhonj]

I've heard this before but it strikes me as a fundamentally condescending view. I've found that most people, including junior developers, more than rise to the occasion as long as they're given trust, a real understanding of where the team is moving collectively and an environment where asking for help (or even direction!) feels comfortable and natural.

The problem is that this means you need leaders—managers or not—who are comfortable without an illusion of control or visibility and who understand how to lead and communicate effectively. And you really need this all the way up the chain. If you manage this, though, you'll be amazed at how productive even heavily junior teams can be.

[jasondigitized]

The illusion of control via rituals, status meetings, spreadsheets,JIRA, etc is a plague throughout the industry. Cargo cult and “making someone happy”. We do far too many thing simply because if you say you do it, your CTO / VP will be happy.

[danabrams]

> these companies rely heavily on masses of junior/inexperienced developers. So they figure a strong management layer is necessary to properly direct the project's goals.

Development isn’t an assembly line process—and cannot possibly be. It’s about theory building and mental models. It requires experience.

It’s fine to have juniors, but they need to lean heavily on experienced colleagues. No amount of management and no management process can change that. A team where the juniors outnumber the seniors 3-to-1 is going to cost more money in the long run.

What you’re describing is exactly what I’m talking about when I say companies are unable to achieve this. Hire 3 senior people instead of 12 junior. You’ll get more done. Reduce your collaboration costs. But, as a manager, you get paid more if you manage more people, or if the people below you manage more people, so there’s a perverse incentive to build as much bureaucracy as possible and staff the lowest layers with the cheapest possible hires.

[carmen_sandiego]

Well, yes, but that's also why most traditional companies are left for dead by the newer ones who are not doing that. The threat is existential and should be treated as such by the highest levels of management. The idea that they "can't" do it is just short-term thinking. A re-org is a big move and will upset the apple cart for a while, but not re-orging is often slow death.

Personally I'd almost always rather hire a single senior engineer and pay them what two juniors make. I suspect I won't get double the JIRA throughput, but will get more than double the actual effect on the product.