As much as I appreciate the underlying point (as I understand: not focusing on metrics to the detriment of the employee experience), it is a challenge to use DHH and 37Signals as the lens. That company has had many challenges - two years ago, nearly a 1/3rd of their employees all quit because of how the leadership team operated (https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/3/22418208/basecamp-all-hands-meeting-employee-resignations-buyouts-implosion).
I'm also curious how the above aligns with their creation/use of Shape Up, a methodology with a pretty fixed/prescriptive approach. Having used it in the past, it tends to build an organization focused solely on status, rather than on building/delivering.
Agreed on most points. As I've written in the post, I see them flirting with Deming's philosophy, but not in a totally connected and cohesive way. Yet, in spite of that, they're still making a quality product. Were Deming around today, I think he'd not be surprised, but remark that there's still an obligation to deliberately improve, and that comes from knowing what to do to accomplish it. In The New Economics, he observed:
"Do not confuse coincidence with cause and effect. True: anyone could make a list of companies that are doing well, even though their management follows one or all of the [aforementioned] bad practices. These companies are saved by good luck, coincidence, having a product or service that commands a good market. Any of these companies might do much better were the management to learn some theory of management...
Likewise, one may find companies that are trying to do everything right, yet are having a hard time to survive. They would be still worse with bad management. How much worse, no one could know."
Re: Shape-Up, I think any in-house designed framework needs to be viewed through the theory that informed its creation, and it certainly won't work for everyone. There's a reason they chose to abandon anything Agile-like, 6 week iterations, the use of betting to promote projects while demoting others, etc. Copying it without understanding the underlying theory is, as Deming observed, "to invite disaster".
As much as I appreciate the underlying point (as I understand: not focusing on metrics to the detriment of the employee experience), it is a challenge to use DHH and 37Signals as the lens. That company has had many challenges - two years ago, nearly a 1/3rd of their employees all quit because of how the leadership team operated (https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/3/22418208/basecamp-all-hands-meeting-employee-resignations-buyouts-implosion).
I'm also curious how the above aligns with their creation/use of Shape Up, a methodology with a pretty fixed/prescriptive approach. Having used it in the past, it tends to build an organization focused solely on status, rather than on building/delivering.
Agreed on most points. As I've written in the post, I see them flirting with Deming's philosophy, but not in a totally connected and cohesive way. Yet, in spite of that, they're still making a quality product. Were Deming around today, I think he'd not be surprised, but remark that there's still an obligation to deliberately improve, and that comes from knowing what to do to accomplish it. In The New Economics, he observed:
"Do not confuse coincidence with cause and effect. True: anyone could make a list of companies that are doing well, even though their management follows one or all of the [aforementioned] bad practices. These companies are saved by good luck, coincidence, having a product or service that commands a good market. Any of these companies might do much better were the management to learn some theory of management...
Likewise, one may find companies that are trying to do everything right, yet are having a hard time to survive. They would be still worse with bad management. How much worse, no one could know."
Re: Shape-Up, I think any in-house designed framework needs to be viewed through the theory that informed its creation, and it certainly won't work for everyone. There's a reason they chose to abandon anything Agile-like, 6 week iterations, the use of betting to promote projects while demoting others, etc. Copying it without understanding the underlying theory is, as Deming observed, "to invite disaster".