[josephg]

It’s both. If you’re an engineer and you push out shitty code that takes down 911 systems and ambulances, you f’ed up. Push back against processes that cause harm, or have the potential to cause harm. You are ultimately responsible for your actions. No one else. The excuse of “I was just following orders” has been dead and buried since WW2.

Yeah, ideally management should know better. But management aren’t usually engineers. Even when they are, they don’t deal with the code on a day to day basis. They usually know much less about the actual processes and risks than the engineers on the ground.

[alserio]

if one of the people i manage is not up to the task the fault is mine. I've hired them. I should setup a system of hard gained trust and automation to avoid or at least minimize them fucking up. When fuckups happen, they are my fuckups. Critical systems don't survive only on trust, obviously. If I don't setup the teams and the systems properly, my bosses will also take the blame for having put me in that position. I'm not advocating for lower layers to avoid responsabilities. But if an head needs to roll you should look above. That said, peole are hardened by fuckups, so there are better solutions than rolling heads, usually.

[josephg]

Right. In one sense, what we're talking about is different ideas on how companies / teams work. There's a wonderful book called "Reinventing Organizations" by Laloux that I recommend to basically everyone. In the book, the authors lay out a series of different organisational structures which have been invented and used throughout the ages. The book talks about early tribes where the big man tells everyone what to do (eg mobsters), to rigid hierarchies + fixed roles (the church, schools) to modern corporations with a flexible hierarchy, and some organisation structures beyond that.

The question of "who is ultimately responsible" changes based on how we see the organisation. In organisations where the chief decides everything, its up to the chief to decide if they should place blame on someone or not. In a modern corporation, people at the bottom of the hierarchy are shielded from the consequences of their actions by the corporation. But there's also a weird form of infantilisation that goes along with that. We don't actually trust people on the ground to take responsibility for the work they do. All responsibility goes up the management hierarchy, along with control, power and pay. Its sort of assumed that people who haven't been promoted are too incompetent to make important choices.

I don't think thats the final form of how high functioning teams should work. Its noble that you're willing to put your head on the chopping block, but I think its also really important to give maximal agency to your employees. And that includes making people feel responsible and empowered to fix problems when they see them. You get more out of people by treating them like adults, not children. And they learn more, and I think that's usually, in the long run, better for everyone.

I agree that if a company has a bad process, employees shouldn't be fired over it. But I also think if you're an employee in a company with a bad process, you should fight to make the process better. Never let yourself be complicit in a mistake like this.

[alserio]

Thank you for the reading suggestion!

[albertP]

> It’s both. If you’re an engineer and you push out shitty code that takes down 911 systems and ambulances, you f’ed up.

This is wrong. If a company is developing that kind of software is the responsibility of the company to provide a certain level of QA before they release software. And no, it's not that "engineers are pushing out shitty code", but that the shitty company allows shitty code to be deployed in customers' machines.

[bradgranath]

Yeah, agreed. Who cares whose semicolon it was?

What matters is how this was deployed without any testing.

[hulitu]

> The excuse of “I was just following orders” has been dead and buried since WW2.

Only for the loosers.