The Ambitious Noughties

There was a time, not long ago, when the desire for improving our ways of working seemed insatiable in the software development field. Around the first decade of this new century, our industry seemed filled with ambitious visionaries – determined to overhaul outdated practices, streamline inefficient workflows, and move beyond cumbersome legacy ways of working.

New approaches were the hot topics on everyone’s minds, promising to free teams from the constraints of bloated, joy-sucking development. Concepts like daily standups, timeboxed cycles, kanbans, and retrospectives became standard practice, with teams attacking projects in short, focused bursts. Iterative processes with continuous feedback loops were all the rage. We took inspiration from the Giants such as:

• Ackoff
• Schein
• Deming
• Goldratt
• Buckminster Fuller
• Marshall Rosenberg
• Stafford Beer (VSM, etc.)
• Gregory Bateson
• Margaret Mead
• Taiichi Ohno
• John Seddon
• Don “The Don” Reinertsen

We dissected and studied the principles of:

• Lean
• Training Within Industry (TWI)
• Socio-technical Systems
• The Toyota Product Development System (TPDS)
• Morning Star
• WL Gore
• Haier
• Semco
• Menlo Innovations

and a host of others.

The Rallying Cry

The goal? Cut bureaucracy, promote face-to-face communication, prioritise the delivery of high-quality “working software” and above all else bring more joy into the workplace. No more excessive documentation or tedious planning sessions. We’d fail fast, learn from customers, use the best knowledge available to Man, and constantly adapt our approach.

You could feel the palpable relief when developers traded in their cube farms for open office layouts intended to inspire collaboration. There was a grassroots momentum to work smarter.

The Gradual Demise

But somewhere along the line, that collective drive seemed to fizzle out into resigned acceptance. Was COVID a factor, I wonder. And the consequent remote working?

Today, walking through any tech workplace reveals teams in an unfortunate state of extremes. On one side, those many still operating using antiquated processes that should have been retired years ago. Rigid hierarchies. Stifling red tape. Mindless box-ticking rather than meaningful progress.

On the other, there were those who adopted “modern” ways of working…only to slowly backslide into new dysfunctional habits. Unmotivated workers mindlessly performing pro forma rituals, succumbing to collective apathy. The processes changed, but the hunger for actual improvement has left the building.

The Lost Ideals

What happened to that passion for customer-centric, iterative craftsmanship? Viewing colleagues as peers, not corporate zombies? Taking pride in elegant products, over simply checking boxes?

Perhaps the new approaches were flawed from the start. Or the ideals were too lofty for reality at scale. Most likely, disillusionment gradually set in as the same organisational failures persisted – miscommunication, mission creep, mounting technical debt, management metacluelessness, and of course, burnout.

The Harsh Reality

Regardless of the root causes, one truth is inescapable: That widespread eagerness to find smarter, more fulfilling ways of working has dwindled. Fatigued developers have retreated, finding comfort in self-protection rather than striving for better.

A Faint Flicker of Hope

We did rally together toward a vibrant vision of leaner workplace cultures. For a few bright years, we dared dream the next big breakthrough would be nurturing more joyful ways of working and relating.

That glimmer still flickers under the rubble of abandoned buzzwords and dismantled visions. But rekindling it invites rededication to a progress that few seem able to muster lately. Complacency has become the new normal. And the need for pride in work just an echo from history.

Semper Mirabilis.

Metacluelessness: The Plight of Being Unaware

What is metacluelessness? Simply put, it refers to the lack of awareness about one’s own lack of awareness or knowledge. In other words, metacluelessness is a state of being clueless about being clueless. It’s a predicament that plagues us all to varying degrees, cutting across boundaries of education, intelligence, and experience.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

This phenomenon is closely tied to the Dunning-Kruger effect, a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate their abilities and knowledge in areas where they are, in fact, incompetent. Named after the psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, this effect explains why the least skilled individuals often have an inflated sense of their expertise, while the truly knowledgeable tend to underestimate their capabilities.

The Perils of Metacluelessness

Metacluelessness can have far-reaching consequences, both personal and societal. On an individual level, it can lead to poor decision-making, missed opportunities, and stagnation. When we are unaware of our own blind spots, we fail to seek the guidance or education that could help us grow and improve.

In a broader context, metacluelessness can contribute to polarisation, conflict, and the spread of misinformation. Those who are metaclueless about their lack of knowledge on complex issues may cling to their beliefs with stubborn certainty, dismissing contrary evidence and fuelling divisiveness.

A Lament, Not a Criticism

It’s important to note that metacluelessness is not a personal failing or a character flaw. It’s a universal human condition, a byproduct of our cognitive limitations and biases. Recognising and acknowledging one’s metacluelessness is, in fact, a sign of wisdom and humility – a willingness to admit that there is always more to learn.

The Path to Self-Awareness

So, how can we combat metacluelessness? The first step is to cultivate self-awareness and intellectual humility. We might choose to embrace the fact that our knowledge and understanding are inherently limited, and remain open to new information and perspectives. Reading widely, in depth, and outside of a narrow field helps too. I’d recommend in particular the works of notable psychotherapists including R.D. Laing, Marshall Rosenberg, Virginial Satir, Viktor Frankl, and Carl Rogers.

Surrounding ourselves with diverse viewpoints and seeking out constructive feedback can also help us identify our blind spots. By engaging in respectful dialogue and actively listening to others, we can gain insights into areas where our understanding may be lacking.

Lastly, we might choose to foster a culture of lifelong learning, recognising that education is an ongoing process, not a finite destination. Whether through formal education, self-study, or simply keeping an open and curious mind, we can chip away at our metacluelessness, one lesson at a time.

In the end, metacluelessness is not a criticism or a judgement – it’s a lament, a recognition of the inherent limitations of the human condition. By embracing this reality with humility and a commitment to growth, we can navigate the complexities of our world with ever greater wisdom and understanding.

Does Taking Sides Help?

Supporting Agile is like supporting Hamas, or Israel, or the Palestinians, or Ukraine, or Russia, or the USA, or China, or…

This opening might shock you, but it’s an intentional jolt to invite reflection on how we often automatically pick sides. I’ve spent years criticising Agile, but recent world events have helped my see the folly of this. In the Middle East and elsewhere, any sane person would support PEACE. (Of course, sanity seems in direly short supply, presently). Similarly we might choose to aim for better meeting folks’ NEEDS in organisational practices. Instead of partisan stances, why not focus on what really matters: achieving results that speak to the needs of everyone involved?

Why Do We Rush to Choose Sides?

Choosing a side can feel satisfying. It simplifies complex issues and gives us a team to root for. However, partisanship often blinds us to the nuances that exist in any conflict or approach. Whether it’s in international relations or ways of working, like Agile, blind allegiance and partisanship never results in beneficial outcomes.

What’s the Cost of Partisanship?

The cost is steep. Partisan views stifle creativity and close us off from alternative solutions. We become invested in the success of our chosen side or approach, disregarding other approaches that offer better results. Specifically, pro-agile or anti-agile now seems to me to be highly partisan, and a similar folly. I propose we get off the taking sides bandwagon and move towards attending to folks’ fundamental needs.

What Outcomes Do Folks Need?

Instead of wallowing in partisan mire, let’s focus on folks’ needs. These can vary, but generally include:

• Products and services that best* meet folks’ needs.
• A workplace environment, ways of working, and organisational culture that best* meet folks’ needs.
• [Further suggestions invited]

Each approach, including Agile, has its merits and drawbacks when it comes to these outcomes. By taking a needs-based stance, we can adopt a blend of approaches tailored to specific needs, rather than attempting to shoehorn everything into a one-size-fits-all approach.

How Do We Move Forward?

To move away from partisanship, we might choose to:

1. Identify whose needs matter, and what those needs might be.
2. Surface and reflect on shared assumptions and beliefs.
3. Acknowledge our biases.
4. Educate ourselves on different approaches.
5. Align on desired outcomes.

This isn’t just applicable to Agile; it’s a principle we can apply universally. Whether it’s picking a side in a conflict or choosing principles and practices for organisational improvement, we might choose to free ourselves from the limitations of partisanship.

Final Thoughts

Partisanship is a tempting trap, offering the illusion of simplicity in a complex world. But it’s a trap that often leads us away from the outcomes folks need. By acknowledging this, we can pave a more effective, less divisive path forward, whether we’re discussing international relations, social change, or the best* approaches for organisational success.

*Here, may I suggest that “best” means “meets all the needs of all the folks that matter”.

What Happened to the Thrill?

When I first started working with computers, I revelled in the challenges and the opportunities for learning. The sense of accomplishment and the thrill of solving complex problems were genuinely exhilarating.

And to Employee Happiness?

However, my initial enthusiasm took a nosedive when I rubbed up against the corporate world. What caused this transformation? Many argue that the corporate environment has a knack for leaching joy, replacing it with turgid egocentric managers intent on feathering their own nests at everyone else’s expense.

What’s Wrong with Corporate Culture?

In corporates, the methods used to assess and drive performance often benefit these self-serving managers rather than the well-being of the workforce as a whole. Indeed, even the very pursuit of “performance” is a theatre of fiction.

Does Autonomy Matter?

The absence of autonomy in a hierarchical corporate structure further dampens the spirit. Employees lose the joy that comes from freedom and independent decision-making, turning work into a mere series of tasks.

Autonomy often serves as a cornerstone for employee happiness. The freedom to make decisions, solve problems and contribute ideas fosters a sense of ownership and, by extension, joy. But is autonomy a valued principle in the corporate world? Unfortunately, more often than not, the answer is no.

Corporate structures frequently operate within rigid hierarchies where decision-making power is concentrated at the top. Managers assign tasks and set directives, leaving little room for employees to exercise autonomy. This top-down approach not only diminishes individual contributions but also robs employees of the satisfaction derived from autonomous action.

Furthermore, when employees feel that their role is reduced to following orders, engagement plummets. The absence of autonomy turns day-to-day tasks into a checklist to be ticked off rather than a series of meaningful contributions. This lack of freedom directly contradicts the human desire for autonomy, leading to disengagement and, ultimately, a less joyful workplace.

So, does autonomy matter? Unquestionably. Granting employees a degree of autonomy can reignite the sputtering fires of joy and engagement, leading to a more productive and happier workforce. Corporates that recognise the value of autonomy take a significant step towards restoring the joy so often missing from the workplace.

Does Mastery Matter?

Mastery, or the drive to become proficient in a skill or field, can be a significant source of joy for many. But does it hold any water in the corporate setting? Unfortunately, the pursuit of mastery often takes a back seat in corporates, sidelined by short-term goals and immediate deliverables. The emphasis on quick wins and immediate results eclipses the long-term satisfaction that comes from mastering a skill or a domain.

Furthermore, the race for promotions and recognition can dilute the pure joy of mastery. Instead of gaining proficiency for the sheer pleasure of it, skills development turns into a competitive sprint, dictated by performance evaluations and peer comparisons.

So yes, mastery does matter, but it’s often undervalued or even ignored in the corporate world. Recognising the importance of mastery could be a step towards reintroducing joy into the workplace, benefiting not just the employees but also contributing to a more skilled and engaged workforce.

Does Shared Purpose Matter?

Shared purpose can be a potent catalyst for workplace joy. When employees feel they are part of something bigger than themselves, motivation and satisfaction often follow. But how well does this concept fare in the corporate landscape? Generally, not as well as it could or should.

In many corporates, the overarching goal is clear: increase shareholder value. While this aim is valid from a business perspective, it rarely stokes the fires of individual passion or a collective sense of purpose. Employees find themselves working to benefit a distant, often faceless, group of stakeholders rather than contributing to a cause that has personal or societal meaning.

Moreover, when managerial focus is primarily on self-advancement or departmental targets, the notion of a shared purpose becomes fractured. Employees start to feel disconnected from the mission of the organisation, contributing further to the drain of joy and satisfaction.

So, does shared purpose matter? Absolutely. A unified goal not only brings people together but also instills a sense of meaning in daily tasks. To reignite the lost joy, corporates should look beyond mere profits and metrics, weaving a tapestry of shared purpose that each employee can contribute to and feel proud of.

Is Work-Life Balance a Myth?

Promises of work-life balance often remain unfulfilled. With no clear boundaries, employees experience burnout, which contributes to a cycle of joylessness.

The term “work-life balance” is bandied about in corporate circles, regularly cited as a perk or aspiration within companies. But how often is this balance truly achieved? Regrettably, it’s way more espoused than actual in many corporate settings.

In the push for self-aggrandisement and personal wellbeing of executives and senior manager, work demands often spill over into personal time. Employees find themselves tethered to their jobs through smartphones and laptops, blurring the lines between work and life. The upshot is a skewed balance that leans heavily towards work, pushing personal time and activities to the fringes.

This lopsided equation isn’t just detrimental to personal lives; it also drains the joy out of work itself. When employees can’t switch off, the chance for relaxation and rejuvenation dwindles, leading to increased stress and burnout. The absence of real work-life balance adversely affects not just individual well-being but also overall job satisfaction.

So, is work-life balance a myth? In many corporates, unfortunately, yes. But it doesn’t have to be. Companies that genuinely commit to work-life balance as a tangible practice rather than a buzzword can contribute to a more joyful, engaged workforce. Maybe enlightened corporates might choose to stop paying lip service to work-life balance and start making it a lived reality for their employees.

What About Personal Growth?

Corporates typically offer limited scope for personal growth. Focused on role-specific skills, companies overlook the broader aspects of development, reducing the job to a set of mundane activities rather than a platform for holistic growth.

Personal growth is a factor that contributes to an individual’s overall sense of happiness and well-being. However, its role in the corporate setting is often underemphasised, overshadowed by the focus on immediate performance indicators.

Companies frequently provide training and development opportunities, but these are usually confined to vain attempts to moderate behaviours, or on improving skills that directly benefit the organisation. This approach tends to neglect broader aspects of an individual’s personal and professional development. The result is a narrowed scope for growth that pertains solely to the job at hand, leaving little room for the nourishment of other facets like emotional intelligence, leadership qualities, or even hobbies and interests that can enrich lives.

The absence of opportunities for holistic personal growth can lead to stagnation. Employees may find that their roles become monotonous and unfulfilling, devoid of the challenges and learning experiences that bring joy and meaning to work.

So, what about personal growth? It’s crucial but often overlooked in the corporate agenda. A shift towards including personal development as a core part of employee growth can make work more fulfilling and joyous. After all, an individual is more than the sum of their job-related skills, and recognising this can be a step towards creating a more joyful and engaged workforce.

A Pit of Despair

In my own experience, the joy I initially found in computer-related challenges has descended into a pit of despair when involved with corporates. What was once a playground of innovation and problem-solving has for many become a bland, monotonous treadmill of routine. The constant grind, coupled with the absence of creativity and personal growth, transforms work into something far less fulfilling than it could be.

This despair isn’t just a personal anecdote but a sentiment that resonates with many who find themselves caught in the corporate machinery. The mental toll this takes is widely underestimated. Over time, the absence of joy and fulfilment leads to a range of problems, from decreased productivity to more serious issues like burnout and serious mental health concerns.

The “pit of despair” isn’t merely a dramatic term; it’s a reality for many. When a workplace fails to nourish the human aspects that make life worthwhile, it risks creating an environment where despair thrives. Therefore, addressing the factors that contribute to this state is not just an individual necessity but also a corporate imperative.

Can Corporates Change?

It’s not all doom and gloom. With a shift in focus, companies can recalibrate their methods to foster a more human-centric approach, aiming for a win-win scenario where both profits and joy can coexist.

Final Thoughts

Corporates don’t have to be joy-draining monoliths. By reevaluating the way they operate, these institutions can not only better their performance but also enhance the lives of the people who make that performance possible.

Agile development has promised to be the panacea for a host of problems that software development teams face. Yet it has devolved into approaches characterised by rigidity, misinformation, and top-down control. As we navigate the murky waters of agile adoptions, and Scrum, Kanban, etc. implementations, two Orwellian statements echo and reverberate:

1. “The further society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” (Widely attributed to George Orwell, although its direct origin is debated)
2. “The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.” (From Orwell’s “1984”)

These quotes invite us to pause and reflect on some of the deeply rooted issues within the agile community.

Drifting from Truth

As agile approached take the corporate world by storm, we’ve seen the predominance of ‘agile theatre’. This is where the word ‘agile’ is on everyone’s lips, but its principles aren’t in their actions. Teams may host daily stand-ups or retrospective meetings, yet fail to embrace a culture of openness and adaptability.

So, what happens when someone calls out these inconsistencies? Often, they’re sidelined or labelled as ‘not a team player’. This mirrors the sentiment of the first Orwell quote: the further the agile community drifts from the core agile tenets of transparency, inspection, and adaptation, the less it appreciates individuals who remind it of its original values and goals.

Note: While this quote is widely attributed to Orwell, its direct origins are a subject of debate.

Erasing the Past, Embracing the Lie

Agile practices have also seen shifts that compromise their foundational principles. For instance, “being agile” now often means “doing Scrum” or “implementing Kanban”, with little regard for the contextual needs of an organisation. Past failures are conveniently forgotten, and the cycle of ‘new agile initiatives’ is continuously rebooted, with no one daring to question the perpetual loop of erasure and overwriting.

This phenomenon resonates with the second Orwellian statement. We erase our past failures and adapt convenient narratives. The lie—that we’re fully agile—becomes our truth.

Will There Ever be an Agile Reckoning?

Is it time we revisit the principles that make agile a truly transformative approach? Rather than ostracising those who call out our flaws, might we choose to view them as allies in refining our approach? And instead of erasing our failures, might we choose to inspect and adapt, using them as valuable lessons?

In a world where the ‘Agile Industrial Complex’ has all but erased the ideals of the original Agile Manifesto, taking a leaf out of Orwell’s books might be our best hope to navigate through the fog. And remember, just like in Orwell’s world, the pursuit of truth starts with critical thinking and the courage to challenge prevailing narratives

The philosopher George Santayana once remarked,

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Perhaps he was onto something, especially in the realm of interpersonal relationships and collaboration. In our world today, a tragic comedy plays out daily between minds and hearts:

You ignore my ideas because they’re unfathomable; I ignore your ideas because they’re stupid.

And while this back-and-forth may seem like a mere disagreement, it carries a weighty cost.

The Stifling of Unfathomable Ideas

Let’s first tackle the issue of “unfathomable” ideas. Ideas that challenge convention, defy logic, or seem too radical often find themselves on the fringes, overlooked or outright dismissed. But isn’t it these very ideas that have driven humanity forward? Think of Galileo championing the heliocentric model of our solar system, or the Wright brothers believing in flight despite widespread skepticism.

Innovation often demands that we break from the norm and dare to imagine. When we label an idea as “unfathomable,” we might be turning our backs on the next big breakthrough. After all, progress is rarely linear, and disruptive ideas are named so for a reason.

The Rejection of “Stupid” Ideas

On the other side of the coin, deeming someone’s ideas “stupid” is a blanket rejection, often rooted more in ego and personal biases than in a careful consideration of the idea’s merits. Labeling ideas as “stupid” stunts dialogue and collaboration, leading to a stagnant environment where only the loudest or most dominant voices are heard.

Moreover, what seems “stupid” in one context might be brilliant in another. The very foundation of respectful collaboration is that no idea is stupid; it’s all about quantity, with the faith that quality will emerge. Dismissing ideas outright denies the possibility of them evolving into something practical or innovative.

The Collective Cost

So, where does this leave us? With a world rife with missed opportunities. For every “unfathomable” idea shunned, we may miss out on groundbreaking advancements. For every “stupid” idea dismissed, we lose the potential for creative solutions.

The real tragedy is that these lost opportunities don’t just affect the individuals involved; they impact all of us. The innovations not pursued, the solutions not found, and the collaborations not formed can set entire communities, industries, and even civilizations back.

The Path Forward

So, how can we step away from this harmful cycle? By embracing humility, open-mindedness, and a willingness to communicate.

• Humility: Recognizing that we don’t have all the answers allows us to approach ideas, no matter how unconventional, with a curious mind.
• Open-mindedness: Even if we believe an idea won’t work, exploring its roots might lead to an alternate, viable solution.
• Communication: Instead of outright rejection, pose questions. Understand the why behind the idea, and perhaps, through dialogue, refine or combine ideas into something greater.

Summary

In conclusion, the dance of egos, where ideas are dismissed either for being too outlandish or too simplistic, is a dance that serves no one. Might we tune into the rhythm of collaboration, understanding, and shared growth? Maybe, then, we can hope to harness the full spectrum of human potential and ensure that the world isn’t left the poorer for ignored ideas.

In every institution—whether in politics, business, or broader community contexts—we frequently observe those in authority saying one thing and doing another. It’s not just about broken campaign promises or managers who preach work-life balance while flooding inboxes at midnight. This inconsistency has far-reaching implications, especially when considering the concept of pragmatic legitimacy.

Espoused Theory vs Theory in Action: An Introduction

Chris Argyris’s groundbreaking insights shed light on this phenomenon. He distinguished between “espoused theory” (what people claim they believe) and “theory in action” (how they actually behave). For example, a leader might verbally prioritize team input (“espoused theory”) but may sideline their team in decision-making processes (“theory in action”).

Impacts of Inconsistent Leadership

1. Erosion of Credibility: A clear disparity between words and deeds erodes leaders’ credibility. When words are at odds with by actions, followers and stakeholders are left questioning the authenticity of the leader’s commitments.
2. Mistrust and Cynicism: Inconsistent actions breed skepticism. Over time, this could dampen motivation and commitment, leading stakeholders to question the leader’s genuine intentions.
3. Ambiguity and Misdirection: When words don’t match actions, it creates confusion about actual priorities, making it difficult for subordinates to align their actions with organisational and leaders’ goals.
4. Organisational Dysfunction: This kind of behavior can fuel conflicts, inefficiencies, and cultivate a culture of disillusionment.
5. Undermining Pragmatic Legitimacy: Perhaps one of the most profound impacts is on an organisation’s pragmatic legitimacy. When stakeholders perceive that an organisation’s actions aren’t aligned with its stated goals or aren’t beneficial to them, its pragmatic legitimacy is compromised. A lack of pragmatic legitimacy means stakeholders doubt the organisation’s capacity or willingness to fulfill its promises or meet their needs, which can result in decreased support or commitment from these stakeholders.

Bridging the Divide: Recommendations for Leaders

1. Enhance Self-awareness: Leaders should continuously introspect and seek feedback. Recognizing one’s inconsistencies is the first step to addressing them.
2. Foster Open Communication: Encouraging an environment where individuals can voice concerns about perceived discrepancies promotes accountability and transparency.
3. Prioritize Consistency: Leaders should evaluate if they can truly align with what they promise, setting achievable expectations to maintain credibility.
4. Acknowledge and Amend: When discrepancies arise, leaders should admit them, apologize, and take measures to correct their course.
5. Continuous Learning: Regular training sessions emphasizing the importance of consistency in leadership can be instrumental.
6. Lead by Example: If leaders advocate specific values or principles, they must personify them in their actions.
7. Tend to your pragmatic legitimacy: By becoming more consistent in aligning saying with doing, thereby improving your legitimacy, stakeholders will lend increased support and commtiment to your initiatives and directions.

Navigating the Discrepancies: Recommendations for Those on the Receiving End

It’s often challenging to be on the receiving end of inconsistent leadership. It can be demotivating, confusing, and sometimes even detrimental to one’s mental health. If you find yourself in such a situation, it’s essential to take proactive steps to preserve your well-being and sanity.

1. Seek Clarification: If you notice a discrepancy between words and actions, ask for clarification. There might be reasons or perspectives you aren’t aware of. By seeking a clearer understanding, you can align your expectations accordingly.
2. Maintain Open Communication: Foster an environment where you feel empowered to communicate your feelings and perceptions. This not only helps you address potential misunderstandings but also lets leaders be aware of their inconsistencies.
3. Document Everything: When you see inconsistencies, make a note of them. This isn’t about “keeping score” but about having a reference point for discussions or to ground your own understanding of events.
4. Find Support: Confide in colleagues or friends who understand the situation. Sharing experiences can provide validation and sometimes lead to collective solutions or coping strategies.
5. Set Boundaries: It’s essential to protect your mental and emotional well-being. If you’re consistently receiving mixed signals, it may be necessary to set clear personal and professional boundaries to avoid burnout.
6. Seek External Mentorship: Connect with mentors outside your immediate work environment. They can provide an outside perspective, offer advice, or sometimes just serve as a sounding board.
7. Engage in Self-care: Engaging in activities that relax and rejuvenate you is crucial. Whether it’s reading, exercising, meditating, or pursuing a hobby, make sure you have an outlet to destress.
8. Consider Professional Counseling: If the inconsistency in leadership begins to take a toll on your mental health, consider seeking professional counseling. Therapists can provide coping mechanisms and strategies to navigate such situations.Organisational therapists can support organisation-wide initiatives to help reduce discrepancies between words and actions.
9. Evaluate Your Position: If you find the environment to be consistently toxic with no signs of change, it may be worth considering a change. Your well-being should always be a top priority. “Change your organisation, or change your organisation”.

Remember, in environments where leaders are inconsistent, it’s essential to prioritise your own personal well-being. By taking proactive steps, you can navigate the challenges while ensuring you remain grounded, supported, and mentally resilient.

To sum it up, pragmatic legitimacy is crucial for any organisation, and leaders play an integral role in upholding it. By aligning their words with their actions, leaders can reinforce trust, maintain credibility, and ensure that stakeholders see the organisation as a beneficial and aligned entity.

Whether it’s in the realm of marketing, leadership, or everyday life, we sometimes stumble upon generalisations that, while audacious, serve to make us think deeply about inherent human behaviours and prejudices. One such claim was popularised by Seth Godin in his provocative book title, “All Marketers are Liars”. Borrowing a leaf from his book, let’s explore the argument: All managers are morons. And yes, I’m serious.

Definitions First

Managers: When we speak of managers, we aren’t just talking about middle-management or those who supervise a small team. The term ‘manager’ here covers a broad spectrum, from team leaders to high-level executives. Anyone with responsibility for directing or overseeing the work of others, setting objectives, and ensuring goals are met falls under this definition.

Morons: Rather than referring to the derogatory term rooted in early 20th-century psychology, we’re defining a ‘moron’ as someone with little to zero self-awareness and self-knowledge. It’s a reflection of our inability to introspect, evolve, and comprehend our impact on the world around us.

Argument 1: All People are Morons, All Managers are People. Therefore…

It might be hard to digest, but we’ve all displayed ‘moronic’ behaviour at some point. Each one of us has found ourselves in situations where we’ve lacked self-awareness or understanding about our actions and their repercussions. It’s a part of the human experience.

1. Cognitive Biases: We humans are wired with a host of cognitive biases that skew our perspective. For instance, the Dunning-Kruger effect makes people believe they’re more skilled than they truly are. This lack of self-awareness can lead to overestimation and underperformance.
2. The Blind Spot: Everyone knows someone who can’t see their flaws but can easily point out others’. That’s because, inherently, we all have a blind spot when it comes to self-perception. And this is compounded when lack of curiousity perpetuates this blindness.
3. Emotional Hijacking: Emotions often cloud our judgement. Whether it’s anger, sadness, or immense joy, strong emotions can lead us to act without considering the consequences, a definitive sign of lack of self-awareness.

Argument 2: Following Fads

Managers, being humans, are susceptible to getting lured by the latest trends and fads. Without critical evaluation, they might adopt methods or tools that aren’t beneficial in the long run, just because they’re currently popular.

Argument 3: Ignorance, Compounded by Indolence

A manager’s ignorance, when coupled with laziness, lack of curiosity, or failure to study and ground decisions and actions in proven theory, will have detrimental effects. It can lead to missed opportunities, wrong decisions, and inefficiencies. We might call this “seat-of-pants” management.

Argument 4: Accepting Things at Face Value

Managers, like any other individual, generally take things at face value. Instead of delving deeper, asking probing questions, or experimenting to discover underlying truths, they accept the presented information, leading to potential misconceptions or errors. Cf. William Kingdon Clifford on “The Ethics of Belief”.

Argument 5: Driven by Self-Interest

Self-interest generally overshadows all managers’ decision-making. While it’s natural to have personal ambitions and guard one’s own well-being, it becomes problematic when those interests conflict with the team or company’s greater good.

Argument 6: The Fundamental Attribution Error

This cognitive bias, widely prevalent, involves attributing someone’s actions more to their character than the situation they’re in. For managers, this can result in misjudgements about team members’ intentions or capabilities whilst holding their own decisions and behaviours to an entirely different standard.

All Managers are People

Managers, be it at the basic or executive level, are humans first. Their rank doesn’t exempt them from the human condition. Hence, if all people have moments of being ‘morons’, so do all managers.

Drawing the Analogy: Marketing and Management

Seth Godin’s claim that “All Marketers are Liars” wasn’t intended to insult every marketer. Instead, he explained that stories sell, and marketers are essentially storytellers who might sometimes stretch the truth for a narrative.

Likewise, “All Managers are Morons” isn’t a sweeping statement of their incompetency. It’s an acknowledgment of their humanity and fallibility, a call for introspection and growth.

The Call to Self-Awareness

The goal of this post isn’t to undermine managers – although I have serious issues with the whole idea of management – but to highlight the human tendencies they, like all of us, might exhibit. Recognising these tendencies is the first step to growth. Managers may choose, especially those in influential positions, to understand these inclinations and continuously strive for self-awareness.

In conclusion, while “All Managers are Morons” is designed to provoke thought, its underlying message is clear: it serves as a reminder of our shared human frailties. Managers, at all levels, might choose to be conscious of these pitfalls, striving always for improvement and betterment, whilst maybe considereing alternatives to the whole idea od “management”.

Further Reading

Hamel, Gary. (2011). First, Let’s Fire All The Managers. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-managers

In an increasingly digital world, understanding software and product development, as well as business acumen, is paramount. However, statistics indicate that a surprising 97% of managers and even 80%+ of developers lack a comprehensive, practical understanding of these areas. This disconnect negates their ability to successfully navigate and contribute to their organisation’s goals and purpose.

Despite occupying roles that necessitate people knowledge and strategic insight, many managers remain disconnected from the fundamentals of software development, leaving them ill-equipped to support their teams positively. Similarly, a significant proportion of developers lack an in-depth understanding of the development lifecycle, from design to deployment and maintenance, resulting in inefficient workflows, dysfunctional working relationships, and subpar products.

Furthermore, a limited understanding of business fundamentals can stunt an organisation’s growth. This is because it prevents individuals from appreciating the broader commercial context of their work, thereby leading to strategies that fall short of maximizing goal attainment.

The pervasive lack of understanding in these crucial areas highlights the benefits of diligent curiosity and lifelong experimentation.

In a world of AI, numbers, and machines,
Where computers hum with artificial dreams,
Does steel and code and pixel ever glean,
The human touch, the heart behind the screens?

Why look to tools to mend our deepest cracks,
When cogs and gears know not of empathy?
It’s we who breathe, who feel, who love, who act,
In our own souls lie the solution’s key.

With every byte, each bit and silicon chip,
We’ve woven webs of knowledge, power, might,
But at the core, beneath each fingertip,
It is the human heart that holds the light.

For tech can answer what, when, where, and how,
But in the why, AI does falter, bow.
Though technology holds a stellar charm,
It cannot comfort, cannot hold a hand.

No software feels, no hardware can disarm,
The pain a human heart must understand.
The Chatbots dance with lightning speed and grace,
Yet, they lack the tender rhythm of our pulse.

People, not tech, could steer our pace,
For human warmth no AI can ever convulse.
In wisdom’s quest, let’s not become enslaved,
To cold precision, to sterile, soulless power.

Remember it’s through people lives are saved,
In every minute, every precious hour.
Technology, a tool, a servant be,
While human spirit, the master, ever free.

“Business is not an exact science” is a phrase often heard in corporate corridors and meeting rooms. It’s a near universal assumption, but one which is not supported by the scientific evidence.

A deeper understanding of this phrase highlights a rather intriguing aspect – the inherent need for those in charge, the decision-makers, to want it to be so.

In an exact science, laws and theories remain constant. The predictability they provide allows for clear, unambiguous paths to solutions. If business were recognised as an exact science, decision-making would be deterministic. However, this undermines the role of leaders, reducing them to mere implementers of pre-defined formulas. Leaders and their lackeys claim their art lies in making decisions amidst uncertainty, demonstrating the ability to take calculated risks, and applying intuition and experience where data falls short (a.k.a. HiPPO – highest paid person’s opinion). To maintain this dynamic, those in charge need business to remain neither a science nor exact.

A parallel is observed when we talk about “dealing with people.” This phrase encompasses a broad spectrum of situations, from human resources to customer relations, from team building to conflict resolution. People, with their diverse backgrounds, perspectives, emotions, and motivations, are incredibly complex. If dealing with people were accepted as an exact science, every interaction would follow a more or less predictable pattern. But again, those in charge need it to be seen as different from that.

If dealing with people were reduced to an exact science, leaders fear their highly rewarded personal touch, empathy, and agency would lose its kudos – and premium.

In definitive terms, leaders actively choose to uphold the notion of business and dealing with people as non-exact sciences to preserve their role as highly rewarded key decision-makers. Their profiles are enhanced by the unpredictability and intricacies of these domains. If every business decision or human interaction could be distilled down to a precise formula, leadership would lose its gloss.

Furthermore, this narrative is conspiratorialy upheld by consultants, analysts, and other business intermediaries. Their existence and remunerations rely heavily on the continued perception of business and human interaction as art forms that demand expert insights, not exact science.

Implicitly, they understand that their sponsors, primarily composed of business leaders, favor the preservation of this “non-exact” paradigm. Consequently, they conspire in maintaining the fiction, weaving it into their advice, thereby safeguarding their relevance and demand.

The Agile House of Cards

The Agile-technical industry complex can indeed be likened to a house of cards, precariously balanced yet vulnerable to the slightest disturbance. Agile, the software development model touted for its adaptability and focus on incremental, customer-centric progress, is often lauded as the ideal approach. However, the complete absence of any scientific or theoretical underpinning for Agile is a glaring shortcoming. And one that nobody wants to talk about.

Its practices and methodologies are founded on heuristics and anecdotal experiences rather than robust empirical data or time-tested theories.

Moreover, Agile’s supposed benefits, such as enhanced productivity, increased customer satisfaction, and expedited delivery, largely rest on unverified claims. There is an alarming dearth of rigorous, peer-reviewed studies that confirm these benefits definitively.

Furthermore, Agile’s emphasis on adaptability and quick response to change, although seemingly beneficial, can lead to volatile project scopes, ever-shifting deadlines, and mounting technical debt. These factors can undermine the stability and predictability crucial to the success of a project.

In essence, the Agile paradigm, despite its current dominance, appears to be an edifice built on sand. Its fundamental principles lack rigorous theoretical grounding, and its touted advantages are not substantiated by empirical evidence. Like a house of cards, it seems Agile may be one disruptive breeze away from collapsing, and its dominance in the tech industry is more a result of hype, ignorance and trend-following rather than any solid, scientific foundations.

Ignaz Semmelweis

The tale of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, a 19th-century Hungarian physician, is a poignant lesson from history about the risks of ignoring empirical evidence. Semmelweis, often referred to as the ‘savior of mothers’, made a groundbreaking discovery: that childbed fever, a leading cause of death among women in childbirth, could be significantly reduced if doctors simply washed their hands with chlorinated lime solutions. Despite solid data supporting his assertion, Semmelweis’s peers rejected his claims, reluctant to accept the notion that they could be the carriers of disease. Tragically, the subsequent years saw egregious and unnecessary loss of life, only to have Semmelweis’s hygiene protocol later adopted as the standard.

Incredibly, despite clear evidence, and over a century of progress, studies show that healthcare professionals today still frequently neglect hand hygiene. This lapse not only perpetuates the risk of infections but also symbolizes a broader issue: the disregard for clear evidence in professional practices (and cf. Compassionomics).

Drawing an analogy, the field of software development offers a strikingly similar scenario. Despite decades of research suggesting that management practices are the rock upon which software projects so often founder, many developers and organisations still fail to address the issue. The reasons might vary, ranging from tight schedules to a lack of understanding of their importance, but the result remains the same: sub-optimal outcomes that could otherwise be avoided.

This recurring pattern of ignoring evidence in favor of established practices or convenience is not just an issue in medicine or software development, but can be found across various fields. It underscores the deeply ingrained human tendencies of resistance to evidence and pervasive cognitive biases. We often favour our existing assumptions and beliefs, even when confronted with compelling evidence that suggests we might better choose to think or act differently.

In conclusion, the case of Ignaz Semmelweis serves as a stark reminder of the importance of embracing evidence-based practices, however uncomfortable or inconvenient they may be. Both in medicine and software development, and indeed in every field of human endeavor, we might choose to keep our minds open to new evidence, be ready to question our established practices, and be willing to change.

The stakes are high: the health of our patients, the quality of our software, the progress of our societies, and ultimately, the advancement of our collective human knowledge.

It is clear that to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, we must learn to balance our intuition and experience with the humility to acknowledge and adapt when evidence points to a better way. It is a lesson that Dr. Semmelweis, with his chlorinated lime solutions, would want us to remember.

What is it that makes people, particularly those in positions of power and authority, seem so cruelly blind to the needs of others? Could it be that the Antimatter Principle, which encourages us to focus on attending to folks’ needs, is simply lost on those who rise to the top?

Is it possible that “the system” in most organisations unwittingly selects for promotion and responsibility those with shortfalls in empathy, compassion, and interest in the needs of others? Perhaps there’s a hidden flaw in the criteria used to evaluate leaders, resulting in the ascension of individuals who prioritise their own ambitions over the well-being of their team members.

Might we also consider that folks in positions of power may develop a sense of entitlement, leading them to overlook the feelings and concerns of those they perceive as beneath them? If so, how can we, as individuals and as a society, work towards changing this and foster a more compassionate approach?

Let’s not forget, though, that there are certainly people who do exhibit empathy and a genuine concern for the needs of others. What sets them apart from the rest, and how can we nurture these qualities in future generations?

In conclusion, it’s a curious conundrum why some people in power can be so seemingly blind to the needs of others. Whether it’s a product of the system selecting for certain traits or a gradual development of entitlement, organisations might choose to recognise the importance of empathy, compassion, and the Antimatter Principle in creating a more nurturing and supportive environment for everyone.

Everyone in the software industry (managers excepted) knows the following is true, yet nobody wants to talk about it:

Effective software development is entirely incompatible with typical (hierarchical, command-and-control) management.

After 50 years in the industry, I’d go so far as to say:

Effective software development is entirely incompatible with ANY known form of management.

Corollary

Place managers in charge of software development and it can NEVER be ANYTHING but ineffective (high costs, low quality, poor due date performance, lack of innovation, etc.).

NB Applies more broadly, beyond the domain of software development, too.

Reasons

The reasons for this incompatibility can be explained as follows:

1. Creativity and innovation: Software development is a highly creative and innovative process that often requires developers to think out of the box, experiment, and come up with novel solutions. A hierarchical management structure stifles creativity and inhibits the free flow of ideas, emphasising, as it does, strict adherence to rules and policies.

2. Responsiveness and flexibility: In the rapidly changing world of technology, software development teams need to be responsive and adaptable in order to respond quickly to changes in requirements, market conditions, approaches, and user feedback. A command-and-control management style, which relies on rigid plans and mandated approaches, tools, makes it difficult to impossible for teams to pivot and adapt as needed.

3. Collaboration and communication: Effective software development relies on close collaboration and communication among team members with diverse skills and expertise. Hierarchical management structures create barriers to communication, with information flowing primarily up and down the chain of command, rather than freely among team members.

4. Autonomy and motivation: Software developers tend to be highly skilled, motivated individuals who thrive on autonomy and the ability to make decisions about their work. Command-and-control management undermines their motivation by imposing external control and limiting their decision-making authority.

The broader point being made in the corollary statement is that traditional hierarchical management is never the best fit for software development, and that organisations might choose to consider alternative organisational styles and structures that are more conducive to the unique demands of software development.

This idea can indeed apply beyond the domain of software development, as many industries are increasingly recognising the need for more responsive, collaborative, and flexible management approaches to drive innovation and adapt to rapidly changing environments.

Personally, I’ve always chosen self-worth, both for myself and for others.

Finding a job often requires individuals to compromise their self-worth in exchange for strict obedience to workplace rules and policies. This trade-off can result in employees feeling disengaged from their positions. In simpler terms, when job seekers prioritise pleasing their managers, conforming to existing shared assumptions and beliefs about work, and fitting into the workplace mold, they find themselves ignoring their own needs and values. This leads to feeling disconnected from their jobs and overall dissatisfaction and disengagement.

Unfortunately, many workplaces are structured in a way that rewards blind compliance instead of encouraging personal growth and self-expression. When employees suppress their unique traits and conform to the company’s expectations, they might secure a job, but they risk losing their sense of identity and motivation.

For a healthy work environment, employees and managers alike may choose to recognise the importance of individuality and self-worth. When people feel valued for who they are, they are much more likely to be engaged and committed to their roles. Ultimately, this leads to a more productive and satisfied workforce.

Prepare to embark on a thrilling exposé, where we unravel the tangled web of Agile’s alluring illusion, and reveal the startling truth lurking beneath its glossy veneer – a revelation that will leave you questioning everything you thought you knew about software development!

You know, there’s an old saying that goes, “You can put lipstick on a pig and call it Agile, but it’s a waste of your time and annoys the pig.” It’s such an apt description of the Agile approach to software development, don’t you think? I mean, people talk about how Agile is the be-all and end-all solution to software development woes, but in reality, it’s just one big lipstick-covered pig.

Even when organisations follow Agile to the letter, it never seems to work out as expected. The whole system is supposed to be about flexibility and adaptability, but so often it just ends up being a convoluted mess. Sure, you have all these meetings, sprints, and stand-ups that give the appearance of progress, but it’s really just a bunch of people running in circles.

And let’s not even get started on the endless stream of buzzwords and jargon that’s constantly thrown around in Agile environments. It’s like some twisted game of corporate Mad Libs that doesn’t actually result in any tangible improvements.

So yeah, you can slap a coat of Agile lipstick on your development pig, but don’t be surprised when it doesn’t magically transform into a streamlined, efficient machine. More often than not, you’ll just end up with a frustrated pig and a whole lot of wasted time.

At every opportunity I ask this question, and the answer is always overwhelmingly “No”.

Dr. W. Edwards Deming is a highly influential figure in the world of business, management and quality control, yet many people have never even heard of him.

This is a surprising fact given that his ideas and principles have helped to transform countless organisations around the globe.

Deming’s philosophy is centered on the idea of continuous improvement, where businesses are encouraged to constantly improve their products, services, and processes. His 14 points and System of Profound Knowledge have become a blueprint for achieving this goal, emphasising the importance of appreciation for a system, quality, and employee engagement.

Despite his impact, many people remain unaware of Deming and his contributions to modern business practices. This makes me sad, as his ideas provide a roadmap for businesses struggling to remain competitive in today’s rapidly changing world. By learning more about Deming and his principles, organisations gain valuable insights and strategies for success.

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Agile development, we loved thee so,
Yet now thy flame is flickering low,
And all the world grows dimmer in our sight.

Once thou wert young and full of fire,
A new way of working, a bright new dawn,
We dreamed of all the things thou couldst spawn,
And all the ways thou couldst lift us higher.

But now we mourn thy fading grace,
Thy light that once shone bright and bold,
Now flickers weakly, frail and old,
And leaves us lost in this darkened space.

No more the sprints that flew so fast,
No more the stand-ups sharp and bright,
No more the retrospectives to shed light,
On how to improve, how to make it last.

Agile development, we bid thee adieu,
Thou wert a bright star in our sky,
And though now we say our fey goodbye,
We’ll hold onto the lessons we learned from you.

Are HR professionals well-meaning but inept? As crucial as their role may be, their lack of competence in key areas can lead to disastrous outcomes. From misunderstanding company culture to botching employment law, the consequences can be far-reaching. Read on to discover the pitfalls of HR ignorance and its impact on employees and the company’s bottom line.

It is often said that HR people are universally well-meaning, but this does not necessarily translate into competence. While it is true that HR professionals may have the best intentions, their lack of knowledge and understanding in key areas can lead to disastrous outcomes.

One of the main areas where HR professionals fall short is in their lack of understanding of company culture. HR professionals are often brought into an organisation to help maintain a positive work environment, but they may not have a good grasp of what makes that environment positive in the first place. This can lead to policies and practices that are at odds with the company culture, and can ultimately cause more harm than good. Ignorance of even basic psychology and human motivation is lamentable.

Another area where HR professionals may lack competence is in their understanding of employment law. While HR professionals are expected to be experts in this field, many do not have the necessary training or experience to make informed decisions. This can lead to legal issues for the company, and can put employees at risk.

HR professionals may also lack competence in communication. They may not have the skills to effectively communicate with employees, leading to misunderstandings and confusion. This can create a negative work environment and can damage the company’s reputation.

In conclusion, while it is true that HR professionals may have the best intentions, their lack of competence in key areas can be detrimental to both employees and the company as a whole.