Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Back to First Principles (GeeCON 2022 Keynote)

Back to First Principles (GeeCON 2022 Keynote)

Culture this, culture that; much has been said about organizational culture, its effects on people and productivity, and very little on how to deliberately and concsiously craft your own. While I don't pretend to have the answers, I have found tremendous value in asking and iterating on the questions themselves.

In this talk we will - instead of hashing out corporate values and mission statements - figure out how to ask (and evaluate) hard questions. By doing that we arrive at something far more fundamental and powerful: an ethos.

Tomer Gabel

May 11, 2022
Tweet

More Decks by Tomer Gabel

Other Decks in Programming

Transcript

  1. Contradiction in Terms — Culture is what is, not what

    we aspire to — An effect, not a cause — But an effect of what? Reed Hastings, “Freedom & Responsibility Culture”, 2009 (SlideShare)
  2. What determines culture? 1. Judgement. - Decisions - Reasoning 2.

    Reliability. - Consistency - Transparency Results Process
  3. Counterexample: Company Values 1. Integrity 2. Mutual respect 3. Teamwork

    4. Communication 5. Innovation 6. Customer satisfaction 7. Quality 8. Fairness 9. Compliance 10. Ethics
  4. Counterexample 1. Integrity 2. Mutual respect 3. Teamwork 4. Communication

    5. Innovation 6. Customer satisfaction 7. Quality 8. Fairness 9. Compliance 10. Ethics 1. Subjective 2. Aspirational rather than actionable “We share knowledge effectively with one another.”
  5. Counterexample 1. Integrity 2. Mutual respect 3. Teamwork 4. Communication

    5. Innovation 6. Customer satisfaction 7. Quality 8. Fairness 9. Compliance 10. Ethics Can easily conflict.
  6. Counterexample 1. Integrity 2. Mutual respect 3. Teamwork 4. Communication

    5. Innovation 6. Customer satisfaction 7. Quality 8. Fairness 9. Compliance 10. Ethics By the way… … credit is due. Source: Oracle core values on Oracle’s corporate site
  7. The Culture-Building Arsenal 3. HR The cynical take: Not their

    job HR represents organizational interests, including in conflict situations
  8. The Culture-Building Arsenal 3. HR The cynical take: Not their

    job HR represents organizational interests, including especially in conflict situations
  9. The Culture-Building Arsenal 3. HR The practical take: It can’t

    be their job Limited or no intersection with day-to-day employee life (i.e. “culture“)
  10. The Culture-Building Arsenal 4. Middle Management The cynical take: Not

    their job Incentivized to facilitate process, not improve culture.
  11. The Culture-Building Arsenal 4. Middle Management The practical take: They

    wish they could Limited autonomy (”company line”), limited authority (“above my pay grade”)
  12. An employee makes a decision. We want that decision to

    be “for the good of the company.” How do we accomplish that?
  13. What’s at Stake? 1. Effectiveness - Sound decision making 2.

    Efficiency - Quick turnaround 3. Security - Employee happiness - Legal/compliance
  14. • Understanding company’s stated (and unstated) goals • Autonomy What’s

    required? 1. Effectiveness 2. Efficiency 3. Security
  15. • Understanding company’s stated (and unstated) goals • Autonomy •

    Trust in the organization • Trust in the employee What’s required? 1. Effectiveness 2. Efficiency 3. Security
  16. Making Progress Axiom I: People want to make good decisions.

    Axiom II: When personally disenfranchised, they are no longer content with “the company line.” Goal I: Empower employees to discern what ”good” means Goal II: Minimize the risk of conflict between the employee’s interests and the company’s
  17. Customer Satisfaction vs Fairness Meet Magda. 1. A brilliant engineer

    2. Wants customers to be happy 3. Hates waking up on call 4. … has woken up 3 times tonight 5. … by an issue she’s been raising flags about for months Photo: Portret Anieli Zamoyskiej by Leon Biedroński (public domain)
  18. Magda’s Dilemma 1. Magda can’t affect change - She doesn’t

    own the backlog - She must implicitly respect someone else’s judgment 2. But it’s her problem - She’s the one waking up! - … and her justified complaints are ignored
  19. Customer Satisfaction vs Fairness 1. Why is Magda so uneasy?

    — Magda is personally disenfranchised — But isn’t “fairness” a company value? — Then why is the situation so unfair? 2. What can Magda do? — Accept the situation willingly — Accept the situation unwillingly — Escalate – what would the VP do? Conflict Ideal outcome Seething resentment Same problem!
  20. What if… 1. … we reprioritize the backlog? - Fewer

    wake up calls - Magda feels vindicated - Promises to clients may slip 2. If acceptable, why didn’t we do it in the first place?
  21. What if... 1. … we reprioritize the backlog? - Fewer

    wake up calls - Magda feels vindicated - Promises to clients may slip 2. If acceptable, why didn’t we do it in the first place? 1. … we stay on course? - Clients are (maybe) happy - On-call continues to wake up - Magda may be on her way out 2. If acceptable, why did Magda feel disenfranchised?
  22. When values collide, which wins? Customer Satisfaction > Fairness or

    Fairness > Customer Satisfaction Ideally, both. Realistically, you must decide.
  23. Quality vs Teamwork Then there’s Paweł. 1. Also a brilliant

    engineer 2. Passionate to a fault 3. When technical arguments ensue, Paweł is there - … argumentative - … but has a good point (i.e. right) Photo: Portret Konstantego Zamoyskiego by Leon Biedroński (public domain)
  24. Quality vs Teamwork Paweł is the dilemma 1. Sincerely wants

    a better outcome 2. … but ends up perceived as a brilliant jerk† 3. … and quality still suffers. † See: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering, Brendan Gregg
  25. What if… 1. … we let Paweł have his way?

    - Quality will improve - Negative impact on team - Productivity loss, churn 2. If acceptable, why was an argument needed?
  26. What if… 1. … we let Paweł have his way?

    - Quality will improve - Negative impact on team - Productivity loss, churn 2. If acceptable, why was an argument needed? 1. … we get rid of Paweł? - Team cohesion will improve - Quality will degrade further - Dissenting opinions unheard 2. If acceptable, why did we put “quality” front and center?
  27. When concluding a meeting, is it more important: … that

    we arrive at the best outcome or … that participants feel good about the meeting? Ideally, both. Realistically, you must decide.
  28. Key Takeaways 1. Culture tells you what you already did.

    Ethos tells you what you should do next. 2. Ask hard questions, refine, iterate. 3. Ethos begets culture. Figure yours out and wield it with pride.