Comment by malfist
3 days ago
I work at $FANG, every one of our org's big projects go off the rails at the end of the project and there's always a mad rush at the end to push developers to solve all the failures of project management in their off hours before the arbitrary deadline arrives.
After every single project, the org comes together to do a retrospective and ask "What can devs do differently next time to keep this from happening again". People leading the project take no action items, management doesn't hold themselves accountable at all, nor product for late changing requirements. And so, the cycle repeats next time.
I led and effort one time, after a big bug made it to production after one of those crunches that painted the picture of the root cause being a huge complicated project being handed off to offshore junior devs with no supervision, and then the junior devs managing it being completely switched twice in the 8 month project with no handover, nor introspection by leadership. My manager's manager killed the document and wouldn't allow publication until I removed any action items that would constrain management.
And thus, the cycle continues to repeat, balanced on the backs of developers.
Of course the reason it works this way is that it works. As much as we'd like accountability to happen on the basis of principle, it actually happens on the basis of practicality. Either the engineers organize their power and demand a new relationship with management, or projects start going so poorly that necessity demands a better working relationship, or nothing changes. There is no 'things get better out from wisdom alone' option; the people who benefit from improvements have to force the hand of the people who can implement them. I don't know if this looks like a union or something else but my guess is that in large part it's something else, for instance a sophisticated attempt at building a professional organization that can spread simple standards which organizations can clearly measure themselves against.
I think the reasons this hasn't happened is (a) tech has moved too fast for anyone to actually be able to credibly say how things should be done for longer than a year or two, and (b) attempts at professional organizations borrowed too much from slower-moving physical engineering and so didn't adapt to (a). But I do think it can be done and would benefit the industry greatly (at the cost of slowing things down in the short term). It requires a very 'agile' sense of standards, though.. If standards mean imposing big constraints on development, nobody will pay attention to them.
You forgot c) we're in a culture where people jump ship every 3-5 years. There's no incentive to learn from mistakes that you don't talk about at the next company, nor any care for the long term health of the current company.
>a sophisticated attempt at building a professional organization that can spread simple standards which organizations can clearly measure themselves against.
We have that as a form of IEEE, but it really doesn't come up much if you're not already neck deep in the organization.
> 3-5 years
That's maybe in Europe. Plenty of US developers those days have a litany of ~1-2 year stints at FAANGs and startups du jour in their CV.
2 replies →
Jump ship every 3-5 years because if you don’t, your wages will stagnate. A prophet has honor except in his own home as it were.
True although perhaps that is part of (a), things move too fast.
It "works" only on a certain timescale. We don't have sufficient incentives and penalties to make things fail quickly. A relevant example in the tech world is data breaches. If data breaches resulted in a thorough public audit and financial/criminal penalties for the managers who pushed for speed over safety, they would no longer "work".
> If standards mean imposing big constraints on development, nobody will pay attention to them.
Unless there are penalties for not doing so.
> tech has moved too fast for anyone to actually be able to credibly say how things should be done for longer than a year or two
But that's just it. If things are moving so fast that you can't say how things should be done, then that tells you that the first thing that should be done is to slow everything way down.
I agree wholeheartedly that collective action is how we stop balancing poor management on the backs of engineers, but good luck getting other engineers to see it that way. There's heaps of propaganda out there telling engineers that if they join a union their high salary will go away, even though unions have never been shown to reduce wages.
I don't like unions because one bad hire can destroy a whole team, and the option to remove that hire is worth more than any benefit a union can give me.
I also think people here misunderstand what unions do. Unions are inherently conservative (small c) institutions that aim to protect the status quo. Improving processes is not a fundamental goal to unions. We saw this with the ILA that fought to essentially ban automation in the ports that would drastically increase efficiency because of the belief that this would reduce union jobs. It's foolish to think software unions wouldn't end up becoming like this.
21 replies →
I've worked places that refuse to fire low performers and its hard for it to not be toxic. I'm not saying this outcome is a forgone conclusion of unions, but my union experience is that poor performers take even longer to get rid of and I'm not sure I would be interested in that sort of environment again. This is more of an implementation problem than philosophical, but theoretically good and practically bad is still just bad.
4 replies →
My hunch is that software engineers are averse to unions because they correctly perceive that unions are a wide angle away from the type of professional organization that would be most beneficial to them. The industry is sufficiently different that the normal union model is just not very good and has a 'square leg round hole' feeling.
For instance by and large the role of organizing to not to get more money but rather to reduce indignities... Wasted work, lack of forethought, bad management, arbitrary layoffs, etc. So it is much more about governing management with good practices than about keeping wages up; at least for now wages are generally high anyway.
there are also reasons to dedend jobs/wages in the face of e.g. outsourcing... But it's almost like a separate problem. Maybe there needs to be both a union and a uncoupled professional standard or something?
12 replies →
Guess that's why gamedev is the one region where this is really starting to gain momentum. High salaries were already not a thing, and tend to mean nothing if you're laid off after 3 years of development for the release of a new game.
Though I think Gen Z in general will be making waves in the coming years. They can't even get a foot in the door, so why should they care about "high salaries"?
People aren't going to try to wrest control from management because some project is going off the rails. No one has any particular faith their coworkers will run anything better, and the pay checks show up regardless.
A union might help improve wages and working conditions in some organizations (although I personally wouldn't want one). But there is zero chance that a union could ever achieve widespread improvement in software architecture, methodologies, or project management. We don't have much consensus on the right way to do things, and what worked well in one circumstance often causes disaster in another.
I don't think unions are the right thing here, you just need to get together as a team and talk with your higher ups, that's a far smaller scope than where unions normally come in.
But I totally agree, I think people are too compliant and fear banding together to have influence on higher ups. I'd argue in most places the engineers have far more power than they realize since they are in high demand due to shortages of qualified personnel. (at least in many countries in Europe)
There are tons of factors in play though that I believe contribute to this like some employees being friends with their higher ups not wanting to hurt their careers, not wanting the tough discussions, the repercussions if management says "no" etc..
3 replies →
How about licensure and liability instead? That’s the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the rest of the engineering world. Sure it’s a guild system with a new name, but if the bridge collapses, somebody is going to be in a courtroom.
5 replies →
Has union labor resulted in measurable improvement in production outcomes in any industry they’re found in? I don’t think going from “managers are unaccountable for failure” to “nobody is accountable for failure” is a good thing.
I think introducing more competition at higher levels may be better than eliminating it below. This should be happening because I’m pretty sure most PMs could be replaced by an LLM.
How about we transition from “managers are unaccountable for failure” to “managers are accountable for every failure by default and are sued and have houses confiscated within two months of a case being open”? That must include CEOs as well though, not just some bootlicker PMs.
Executives are generally incompetent everywhere and of course they'll introduce a reality distortion field where none of them are ever accountable. That should be obvious to anyone. Question is why do all working people keep allowing it to happen. But the answer to that is also known and quite depressing, too.
2 replies →
Have you done any research into this or are you just assuming unions lead to bad outcomes because you've been propagandized for decades about it?
> This should be happening because I’m pretty sure most PMs could be replaced by an LLM
Says a lot about your understanding of these things.
10 replies →
For one project I got so far as to include in the project proposal some outcomes that showed whether or not it was a success: quote from the PM “if it doesn’t do that then we should not have bothered building this”. They objected to even including something so obviously required in the plan.
Waste of my bloody time. Project completed, taking twice as many devs for twice as long, great success, PM promoted. Doesn’t do that basic thing that was the entire point of it. Nobody has ever cared.
Edit to explain why I care: there was a very nice third party utility/helper for our users. We built our own version because “only we can do amazing direct integration with the actual service, which will make it far more useful”. Now we have to support our worse in-house tool, but we never did any amazing direct integration and I guarantee we never will.
Glad to hear that $FANG has similar incompetency as every other mid-tier software shop I've ever worked in. Your project progression sounds like any of them. Here I was thinking that $FANG's highly-paid developers and project management processes were actually better than average.
Same, I think this one post may have cured me of a life long (unrealized) obsession with working at FANG.
Those processes take longer, and waste more money. At no point will I believe they don’t waste it in the first place.
They can afford to try a lot, why try better?
Reminds me of the military. Senior leaders often have no real idea of what is happening on the ground because the information funneled upward doesn't fit into painting a rosy report. The middle officer ranks don't want to know the truth because it impacts their careers. How can executives even hope to lead their organizations this way?
By not relying on direct reports for all their information.
Well the US has lost every military conflict it's entered for the past 70 years. Since there's been no internal pressure to change methodology, maybe the US military doesn't view winning as necessary.
Those past 70 years weren't about winning. It was about making sure the enemies lost more out of it. The US is large and relatively stable and hasn't had to face extended war on its soil since the Civil War 170 years ago. There's no true skin in the game for those who start these wars.
2 replies →
> Well the US has lost every military conflict it's entered for the past 70 years.
Operation Just Cause? Desert Storm?
And, depending on how you look at it, the US won the war in Afghanistan and Irak, but lost the peace afterwards.
3 replies →
For how much power they have over team organization and processes, software middle management has nearly no accountability for outcomes.
Is it middle management that has no accountability, or executive? Middle and line managers are nearly as targeted by layoff culling as ICs these days in FAANG. The broad processes they're passing down to ICs generally start with someone at director level or higher.
In my experience it is the constant shifting of goal posts due to execs chasing the next shiny thing, or demanding a feature that they saw somewhere, or heard from client (singular, not plural)
I've seen plenty of incredible engineers let go because of "performance issues" that were just poor project management and goal posts that moved so fast waymo should study them to improve their self-driving capabilities.
Shit rolls downhill and there's a lot more fuss when an engineer calls out risks, piss-poor planning, etc. than any actual introspection on why the risks weren't caught sooner or why the planning was piss-poor.
> For how much power they have over team organization and processes, software middle management has nearly no accountability for outcomes.
Can we also address the fact that “software spend” is distributed disproportionately to management at all levels and people who actually write the software are nickel and dimed. You’d save billions in spend and boost productivity massively if the management is bare bones and is held accountable like the rest of the folks.
that's how the inner sanctum engineering in Apple worked, just like you proposed, at least from 15 years ago to within the last 10 years. i could have been in a very lucky time window to have had that luxury, but it had been an Apple mandate to not have deep hierarchies at least in engineering.
2 replies →
The real question is why would smart competent people continue working under management with blatant ulterior motives that negatively affect them?
Why let their own credibility get dragged down for a second time, third time, fourth time, etc…?
The first time is understandable but not afterwards.
Astronomical salaries probably has something to do with it.
12 replies →
There's a high switching cost with substantial information asymmetry. Good places are hard to find in some absolute sense and it's hard to evaluate whether a new team is actually going to be good or not. And even if you do find a good team, there's no guarantee it'll last past the next reorg.
In today’s market it’s mostly because of the lack of other options to earn a livelihood
serious answer - you find a team with a good direct manager who handles all the upward interactions themselves, and then you basically work for that manager, rather than for the company.
Rent wont pay itself. Switching jobs has costs.
If you think our ability to measure developer productivity is bad, look into what we can do to measure manager productivity.
TL;DR your realistic options are snake oil that doesn’t work, or nothing.
Keep that in mind next time anyone’s talking about managing through metrics & data or whatever bullshit. All that stuff’s kayfabe, companies mostly run on vibes outside a very-few things.
^ This. Not at FAANG, but I am too familiar with this.
This is why software projects fail. We lowly developers always take the blame and management skates. The lack of accountability among decision makers is why things like the UK Post Office scandals happen.
Heads need to be put on pikes. Start with John Roberts, Adam Crozier, Moya Greene, and Paula Vennells.
So much of the world, especially the world we see today around corporate leadership and national politics makes much more sense once you realize this fundamental law:
People who desire infinite power only want it because it gives them the power to avoid consequences, not because they want both the power and the consequences.
The people who believe that with great power comes great consequences are exactly the people who don't want great power because they don't want the weight of those consequences. The only people who see that bargain and think "sign me up!" are the ones who intend to drop the consequences on the floor.
I was a developer for a bioinformatics software startup in which the very essential 'data import' workflow wasn't defined until the release was in the 'testing' phase.
> wouldn't allow publication until I removed any action items that would constrain management.
Thats what we call blameless culture lol
“I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by.” ― Douglas Adams
Did they go off the rails at the end, or deadlines force acknowledging that the project is not where folks want it to be?
That said, I think I would agree with your main concern, there. If they question is "why did the devs make it so that project management didn't work?" Seems silly not to acknowledge why/how project management should have seen the evidence earlier.
Where I now work, in the government, all the devs are required to be part project managers. It’s a huge breath of fresh air. The devs are in all the customer meetings, assist in requirements gathering, and directly coach the customers as necessary to keep pushing the work towards completion.
This came about because our work isn’t too diverse but the requirements are wildly diverse and many of the customers have no idea how to achieve the proper level of readiness. I do management in an enterprise API project for a large organization.
Both happy and sad to know that the sh*t show is pretty much the same in FAANG as any regular corporate environment.
There are many pressures and this is all about a lack of transparent honesty about what the real priorities are. Getting the project done properly may be #1 priority but there's priority 0 and 0.1 and others which are unspoken because they don't sound good.
Obviously you work at AMZN. This is the most Amazonish HN comment I’ve ever seen.
FAANG cargo cults are all around. Too many CEOs and VCs imagine they can succeed like Bezos by the bold strategy of hiring ex-Amazon executives and imitating Amazon's culture and HR practices.
[dead]