I chose the old photo banner art (Photo by Debby Hudson on unsplash) because most of my recent interviews have felt more like a memory test than a competency test. “Tell me about a time a family member gave you some advice, what was it and how did your life change as a result? Did you send them a thank you card? What was on the card?” Yikes, I don’t remember!
The DORA research group at Google recently came out with an AI capabilities model and capability number 1 is to have a “Clear and communicated AI stance”. Given my experience so far talking to other leaders and on the ground, here’s my proposal for what an effective AI stance could look like: Core Philosophy LLMs should amplify engineering cognition, not automate it This means… Human Ownership: Engineers must remain the authors and owners of production logic.
Individual and team accountability is critical for any high functioning team, I believe that this is often a concern for senior management, especially when considering an agile transformation, and can be difficult to attain. At the points in my career that I have seen senior management push back on the adoption of agile methodologies, the main areas of contention has been around the feeling of losing “control” over the delivery roadmap.
I get it… I think… “No Surprises” management is intended to ensure that people aren’t hiding bad news from their colleagues (let’s face it, usually their boss or some other superior) so that we’re not horribly surprised at the last minute that, for example, our project is 6 months late. Boom! Instant high-functioning team! Everyone feels safe and surprises never happen…. Or at least, god help you if they still do happen, because I was very clear that I don’t like surprises!
How often have you heard the phrase “We don’t have the resource” or “How many resources will it take?” Quite apart from the dehumanising nature of the word “resource” (should we, in response, say “that’s a good question, management resource number 3”?), people are not automatons who are all equally skilled/motivated coding machines that can be assumed to be equally effective in all scenarios. People each have unique skills, ways of working, areas of experience, interests and relationships with others that all matter heavily in terms of getting the best results, or getting anything at all.
How are you engaging your team? Are you running a regular appraisal cycle where everyone’s individual score is totted up and ultimately dictates financial reward (pay increase, bonus, share options) or, on the other side of the scale, performance improvement plans? How are you finding this? Do people who get the financial rewards become more engaged and effective throughout the year? Do those on the performance improvement plans “pull their socks up” and become superstars now that they know they’re not performing to expectations?
Copyright (c) 2015 - 2025, Paul Blay; all rights reserved.
Template by Bootstrapious. Ported to Hugo by DevCows.
