Skip to main content

Get rid of hierarchy and get less bureaucracy as a bonus.


I've worked in quite a many places, all having different levels of hierarchy and bureaucracy.

I hate that stuff.

If a team needs a tool that they think will help them to do better work, why do a "request" from some manager not let the team decide?

If a team thinks they would benefit of a new coworker, why let a manager decide who and where to hire and not the team.

If team members think they want some yearly reviews, why not let them do those themselves (or just skip those and do something else instead)?

And if there are issues why not let the team sort them out, instead of waiting for a manager to "do their job".

The more I've worked, the more I've started to think that good teams should just be allowed to do all this. Give them the freedom and responsibility, and expect great results. Lead by providing resources, giving feedback, communicating about the vision. Let the team decide what to do, and how to do it. Let people work to their full potential.

Get rid of hierarchy and get less bureaucracy as a bonus <3

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Periodical retrospectives are lame

  "You got nothing, not a single thing?! Well lets just end this here then." I remember well when I said this, being very frustrated. About ten years ago I had been working as a Scrum master for a team some months, and putting quite a lot of effort into planning our scrum teams sprint retrospectives. Lot of work also because I felt we were not getting too much out from them; not very good discussions, very few actions, and even the few actions we did come up with did not stick.  And then it happened: a retro where none of the participants came up with anything to say about the sprint. Regardless of the retro topic boxes, reading of books on retrospectives, getting inspiration from tools like retromat.org, having them in different places, using all kinds of different formats and rainbow coloured post-it notes. Not a single thing. Blank.  So then I said the words, out of frustration, mainly to myself. Why couldn't I get this thing everyone is so hyped about to work? After t

I don't report bugs

I don't report bugs . Bug is such a loaded word that people understand very differently, that instead of using it and explaining what I mean by it I rather just use other words. Like observations, thoughts, surprises, ideas, alternatives, or something similar. (And no I don't use fault, defect, or error either). Bug has also quite a negative connotation. "Reporting a bug" is kind of like telling someone that they've been served. And as we are actually giving away the gift of information, why wrap it in such a nasty package? And maybe more importantly it is very likely that whatever you might have to say is wrong. If not plain wrong, then at least incomplete. So I like to approach the kind of situations with the assumption that I am probably wrong. Cutting off anything that might sound arrogant makes stuff quite a lot easier. Especially after you realise later on that you have been wrong. I leave plenty of observations unreported . I don't want to waste

Testing drunk

(My first blog writing ever.) I've been thinking a long time that it's funny how many bugs I find by accident. Try to do something, make a mistake and boom - a bug is found.  Making the mistakes intentionally doesn't quite work - that's why they are called accidents I guess.. So I've thought of ways to make myself more prone to accidents, coming up with an apparent one; testing drunk. TUI (testing under the influence). So this I gotta try. More to come on that later.