[greggsy]

I know these have their place in complex projects, but I'm often intrigued when people don't just apply the natural human instinct of talking about something and doing what needs to be done.

There almost seems to be a fetishistic obsession with referencing some magical method honed by masters of the craft.

[jdlshore]

When you have more than a few people, “talking about things and doing what needs to be done” breaks down. You can end up in analysis paralysis (endless talking), wild west (everybody doing their own thing and not doing things that work together), wild hares (doing things that aren’t important) or even all three.

[TeMPOraL]

And 4) individuals engaging multiple people or multiple people's worth of org resources into their initiative, only to get bored with it half-way in.

And 5), which is why we called this pattern a "do-it-cracy" in our Hackerspace - someone might do something and get 90% done before other people notice, and when they do, it turns out >50% of them absolutely do not want it, and would've objected given the chance.

(Then again, we've found that "do-it-cracy" can arise as a rebellion against excessive bike-shedding, which is something groups of people love to do.)

[toyg]

I'm a newb PM and at the moment I feel like I have all three... It's hard to coordinate when developers are all headstrong seniors with big agendas. The best I can do at the moment is nudge some of them, occasionally, into doing some of the work I need, while hoping their goose-chasing eventually produces something I can sell to my bosses.

[hobs]

As a sr eng, they've also probably experienced a bunch of PMs before, some good, a lot less so, all with their pet projects and agendas that next year will be entirely new and innovative and in the bin in 12 months.

The best ones I have worked with are competent, they dont make me do their work, they keep their promises, they dont waste my time, they see organizational issues and take point on them, and they generally were unflappable in targeting organizational discomfort about tackling an issue or talking to so and so.

This is really hard for someone jr to the space, but humility in the face of everyone's priorities is a great start.

[toyg]

> next year will be entirely new and innovative and in the bin in 12 months.

Yeah but my problem is that they are the ones with grand visions that may or may not ever come to fruition, and I am the one left with half-baked features that the business clearly needs to fix right now but are seen as unfashionable to work on.

Recently I was at a point where I've suggested to onboard a junior resource to mop the metaphorical floor. I'm starting to think that, next time, I should ask to have different degrees of seniority in the team to make it more balanced.

[hobs]

Honestly it sounds like you have a bit of a management problem if your engineers are building random stuff you don't need. I spend a decent amount of my time behind the scenes with the PM folks making sure the things we are building are the things we want to build, and then convincing people (often in a face saving manner) that what the business wants is what we all want (since they pay us.)

This generally works because I target the smaller companies and so actually making money is at issue, in a large enough org you can go half a decade before anything shakes up dumb stuff.

[asplake]

> but I'm often intrigued when people don't just apply the natural human instinct of talking about something and doing what needs to be done.

A few people might do that informally, sure, even as part of something bigger, but there’s no escaping the needs to 1) coordinate over shared resources and 2) organise around shared commitments. And where do those commitments come from? Implies some kind of strategising, and if that’s not a collective thing, then you’re relying on someone doing the telling. And of the options that are strategised, what’s acceptable and what’s outside our purpose, identity, etc?

There are theoretical limits on what formal organisational systems can achieve in terms of information flow (so managers shouldn’t over-depend on them), but nevertheless, the above activities are fundamental. Take any of them away and you no longer have a viable system, one capable of ensuring it’s ability to maintain itself, to act independently, and to increase possibility in a changing and perhaps hostile environment.

Disclosure: I have a book coming out on this stuff shortly, bringing some decades-old, well-tested, and well-regarded theory up to date. FWIW I also wrote one of the leading books on Kanban (2014), not that this changes any of the above, apart from that Kanban is among other things an effective coordination system (though incomplete in the above terms, but then so are all the others).

[greggsy]

> There are theoretical limits on what formal organisational systems can achieve in terms of information flow

Well put. There's just too much going on in some organisations for leadership to make meaningful decisions. Your comment reminds me of the Viable Systems model, which was a welcome gem hidden away in (the other) Michael Jackson's systems thinking slab of a textbook.

My go to means of ensuring that executive (including me) can keep their finger on the pulse is to encourage people to be open in large and informal chat platforms like Teams and Discord.

[intelVISA]

You can only be productive 'talking about something' if you understand the concepts to later 'do what needs to be done'.

In the absence of tech leadership it might as well be magic. I wouldn't understand the working details of doctors or lawyers on a medical, or legal, project but you'd bet I'd be praying to any agile deity listening to drag it over the finish line, trusting that the profit margins would help obscure this uncomfortable reality.