Bob La Quey wrote:
On 3/5/07, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bob La Quey wrote:
> While I too like working with "good" people and am
> sympathetic to what you and Gregory are saying there
> is still a voice inside that says, "Anbody can get the
> job done with 'good' peiople. No challenge there. The
> whol eproblem is how to get the job done with people
> who are 'not so good' ." (how the hell do you punctuate that?)
Again, why is it that software design is the *only* discipline which
expects to produce non-garbage results with garbage inputs?
It is not. The core notion that education can improve people is
all about doing better with the same inputs. You speak in an
exaggerated bluster. But why am I not surprised?
Exaggerated bluster? Maybe.
Perhaps I misread your contention. You commented that we have to work
with "not so good" people. Education is the process by which you move
"not so good" to "average" or "good". If you are saying that we should
*educate* people, we are in 100% agreement.
However, that is different from being stuck with "not so good" and
expecting above average results--this is the contention that makes steam
come out of my ears. It is also the contention I see continuously in
the software industry.
I'll let you clarify before sounding off further.
Below average is by definition not playing above average. I do expect
education in many of its forms to improve the play of most players,
including
those who are below average.
Obviously Talent != Skill. But a skilled boxer may well beat a talented
but unskilled one.
Actually, there has been some fascinating research lately that "talent"
seems to be far less influential than previously thought.
In extreme physical sports, genetic body factors obviously hold sway
("You can't teach height"). However, for most pursuits where the
physical demands don't push human limits, skill/training seems to matter
*far* more.
The problem is that managers want this to be true and never get held
accountable for when it fails. If an *entire* team from the VP down got
fired every time an IT project failed, IT failure would go away.
Sure, and if avoidance of failure is your only metric then go for it.
make damn sure you never undertake a risky project. Use only
the "best" people on the dullest of projects.
Frankly this sounds to me like a metric for failure of a larger sort.
The metric of the very insecure.
And applying the metrics we use now results in corporate zombification.
In fact, we *do* have the "the whole team gets fired" metric.
It's called a startup.
Funny, everybody seems to think that startups are much better places to
do software work than big companies that don't fire a whole team.
Better people may simply be the same old people who have
better training.
No argument.
When I have direct reports, "below average" performers get classified
into 3 groups--the uneducated, the temporarily disabled, and the unwilling.
The uneducated need training.
The temporarily disabled generally need understanding, support and a bit
of time.
The unwilling need to be *fired*.
The problem is that nobody ever actually wants to pull the trigger on
the unwilling. Since they are, by definition, the kind of person who
causes problems, they are also the most likely to cause the company
problems.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
