Comment by ameister14 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ameister14 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>If async catches on more widely I’m worried it would be the final push to make software development purely transactional and performance/pay would be directly tied to metrics.

Here's the thing; that (a completely transactional relationship between all elements of a team) doesn't actually work well to make good products. Sure, a bunch of companies would probably do it as it's easier to measure worker production that way, but async also requires a different type of management and admin work that has to change as well. A lot of current managers won't be able to hack it, frankly, without the measured 'butts in seats' element.

Personally, I think it should be coupled with an investment in HR to get more qualified and motivated people working on the problem. It's a different concept for business and teams, that's all. Applying the older paradigm is going to be a problem and while a lot of companies will do just that they will also be less successful overall.

> Here's the thing; that doesn't actually work well to make good products. Sure, a bunch of companies (...)

Respectfully,you know nothing about what you're talking about.

Async work is already the norm for some companies, even prior to moves to full remote work. I personally know teams in renowned companies which before COVID already split teams working on products between the US, Europe, and India. They stuck with full async because it worked, and worked better than alternatives.

With COVID, the whole world went full remote due to necessity, and I personally know teams whose output improved significantly with the move to full remote to the point where they stuck in remote by default.

> Personally, I think it should be coupled with an investment in HR to get more qualified and motivated people working on the problem.

I disagree. What I'm seeing is a lazy, conservative mindset of people who feel scared and threatened by a reform shaking up the very core of a system they feel benefits them personally.

respectfully, you completely misread my comment.

"make software development purely transactional and performance/pay would be directly tied to metrics."

That's what doesn't work to make good products. A focus on individual metrics to the exclusion of team dynamics doesn't work that well.

"What I'm seeing is a lazy, conservative mindset of people who feel scared and threatened by a reform shaking up the very core of a system they feel benefits them personally. "

I mean that's kinda what I was talking about with a bunch of managers not being able to hack it. I don't think you get what I was saying; if HR doesn't change, you get the same people trying the same model and applying it to a new framework, which will fail. You need a better focus on the people individually and on the systems you build for them to work well together and that requires a "people" or "HR" department that actually functions well and has investment.

I don't feel like your arguments support your assertion. There are multiple ways to run a company/do business/ship products.

Sure, there are multiple ways to run a company, but people aren't machines. A pure focus on measurables to the exclusion of soft motivation and skill has proven to be less effective. I'm honestly surprised you believe otherwise.

This has borne out time and again from artisan shops to factories to software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com