[nSLUG] Software Engineers and Creative Management

Baha Baydar bbaydar at gmail.com
Mon Sep 21 01:31:29 ADT 2020

No guarantees about the formatting....

Why are CEOs failing software engineers?
Gene Bond @GeneTBond bio

The one thing that’s drilled into your head as a business major and leader
is, “here is how you succeed.” Accordingly, you are taught best practices –
things you do to optimize success. As you would expect, you are taught
about past successful companies, “here’s how they succeeded.” They teach
you about great business leaders, people who have succeeded. You are taught
how to do business planning in order to optimize your chances of success,
and they teach you how to finance your attempt at success. In effect,
signing up to be a business or finance major is an act of self-determined
success, and the entire system is a culture that naturally values, and in
effect worships, success.

Here is the rub: new value is a function of failure, not success; and, much
of software engineering is about discovering new value. So, in effect,
nearly everything you are taught as a business major or leader is seemingly
incompatible with software engineering. Allow me the time to explain how
this is so, why it matters, and what we should do about this situation. I
promise you, in its entirety, the following is something you’ve never heard
before, and the ramifications of ignoring the advice herein most assuredly
leads to unhappy software engineers. As an industry, we've been
perpetrating the same management mistakes on developers for several decades
now. It's either time to fix this problem or be disrupted by those that
already have.

The shortest of management histories as to how we got here, in 3 parts
Traditional management often fails software engineers for honest reasons
that have to do with the essence and root purpose for the existence of
management, and certain gaps which are yet to be filled by management
theory, educational systems, and practices. To understand these gaps which
manifest as systemic failure that negatively impact software engineers and
other creative types, we must first understand the problems that our
current management systems were created to solve.

There are three dominant forms of management, two are well known, but the
third is barely known or understood at all, and all three are critical to
the realization of value. In historical order by which they were discovered
is Financial Management, Business Management, and Creative Management. The
next three sections are a short summary of the three dominant management
systems, the problems they overcome, and the type of value for which they
were invented to govern. To best understand why CEOs are failing software
engineers, the essence and properties of these three forms of management
must be clearly understood.

Part 1, Financial Management (aka. Liquidation Management to govern Liquid
The problem being solved in 1602 was the vast need for cash to build more
ships. Namely, how was The Dutch East India mercantile company going to
fund the effort to meet the high growth and high demand for Asian silks,
spices, coffee, tea and wine. The answer came in the form of modern
capitalism, granting shares in the enterprise to the public in exchange for
cash to build more ships and hire more crew. It worked beautifully, the
funds began to flow in from the newly formed public market, and the Dutch
East India Company quickly became a powerhouse in global trade.

This was the nexus moment of the birthing of the financial industry and
financial management. But our take-away from this historic moment is as
follows: think of public markets as a management system for transmuting
value; ergo, financial management was formed in order to optimize the
transformation of one form of value (coin/gold/cash) into another form of
value (tangible and intangible assets: ships, companies, recipes and
patents) that have a higher return or fulfill a deeper purpose, and when
desired, to liquidate said investments back in to cash to invest in the
next highly valued venture. The purpose of Financial Management is to
manage liquidity, and its practices are to conserve, develop and exploit
cash, usually in the form of investments or loans. Therefore, this type of
management is better thought of as Liquidation Management as it primarily
manages the liquid form of value that we typically refer to as cash.

Liquidation management is naturally return-on-investment (ROI) oriented.
So, the most natural way to motivate effectiveness in this type of work is
to give financial team members a small stake in any higher than expected
returns achieved, and a small piece of cash efficiencies achieved. This is
usually done by establishing reasonable financial targets with
corresponding bonuses.

Part 2, Business Management (aka. Replication Management to govern
Replicated Value)
In the 1890s, as a result of the electrification of cities and an abundance
of cheaply manufactured steel from pig iron, the world was in the midst of
the second industrial revolution. Rapid growth was being fueled by
sprawling railways, a swiftly expanding electrical grid, and an abundance
of factories powered by an array of newly created, electrically powered

The over-arching problem being solved by Fredric Taylor and Henry Gantt was
the absence of an effective and reliable system to manage industrial work,
particularly manufacturing. The problem was three-fold:

Incentives were wrong – workers got paid a small flat fee for the day
without respect to productivity, even when the equipment wasn’t working
which was occasionally viewed as a feature by the crew
Work practices were wrong – each man did his job as he felt best without
respect to the sustainability, effectiveness and needfulness of motion
which often resulted in “slack,” down time when either the equipment or
labors could not work
Management was clueless – management practices tended to be governed by
friends of the elite who never learned to do the actual work, pushed what
work they had downward, and managed badly from abstraction
The solution came in the form of Fredric Taylor’s “Scientific Management.”
A system of management which leverages time and motion studies to establish
sustainable, documented best practices for all workstations in the factory.
Given established best practices that were timed by Taylor using a
stopwatch, reasonable production quotas could then be enacted, which if
achieved, as Gantt proposed, should result in bonuses for both management
and workers. As a side benefit, factory output and time-to-delivery of an
order could be calculated with a high degree of precision. Thus, given
established times for known work practices, uniform materials and known
recipes/designs, reliable master planning was now possible.

The combination of establishing sustainable best practices that are easily
trained (Taylor), and aligning incentives based on known, reasonable,
production goals (Gantt) worked astoundingly well. Before and after results
documented by Gantt in his book, “Work, Wages and Profits,” showed as much
as a 300% improvement in factory productivity by using Taylor’s system of

As it turns out, adoption of a scalable management system which has actual
improvements in results is a big deal.

The system worked so well, that Gantt was solicited by the military to help
with ship and munitions production. The corresponding increase in ship
production and factory output proved to be beneficial to the United States
as it entered World War I, and arguably, subsequent improvements in
production over the following 21 years were, in large part, responsible for
winning World War II. As it turns out, adoption of a scalable management
system which has actual improvements in results is a big deal.

This was the nexus moment for modern business administration and the
birthing of management science. But our takeaway from this historic moment
is as follows: scientific management is a system that takes known recipes
and practices and transmutes them into valuable (desired/needed) replicated
goods; ergo, business management was formed to effectively replicate known
value, and known recipes, using best practices, elimination of waste, and
high-quality predictive planning.

As replication work is naturally date driven according to expectations set
with the customer during the sales process, the best way to motivate staff
to do this repetitive, labor intensive work, is to provide them a bonus for
achieving or surpassing reasonable production goals that were set to meet
the demand, and to align management incentives to the production goals such
that management is incentivized to help the staff achieve their time-boxed

“Engineering management is largely taught as a specialized form of business
management, whereby much of the same thinking used to optimize
manufacturing, unfortunately, gets applied to creative pursuits such as
software engineering and product design.”

Part 3, Creative Management (aka. Creative Management to govern discovery
of New Value)
As liquidation management (finance) emerged out of the need to fund new
ventures, and replication management (business management) was formed out
of the need to scale production of replicated value, similarly, creative
management has naturally emerged out of the need to scale the discovery of
new value.

What is Creative Management? Creative management is one of three dominant
forms of value management. Its purpose is to establish a system of
management that enables and motivates creative staff, such as software
engineers, writers, designers and artists, to discover and realize new
works of value. Creative management is also the lead system in new ventures
and productions, having been established to optimize the discovery and
realization of previously undiscovered value in the form of new works, new
productions and new solutions.

However, we have not yet had a nexus moment for creative management, though
elements of successful creative management systems are beginning to emerge
as modeled and practiced in several recent tech companies. Traditionally,
engineering management has been the concrete expression, or proxy, for
creative management applied to technical endeavors. However, engineering
management is largely taught and practiced as a specialized form of
business management, whereby much of the same thinking used to optimize
manufacturing, unfortunately, gets applied to creative pursuits such as
software engineering and product design. This approach to engineering
management is the natural extension to Taylorism; but applying replication
management techniques to creative work is a systemic mistake that actually
disadvantages companies that are developing software – this is because the
skills, workflows and founding principles for discovering new value are
almost entirely different from those needed to efficiently replicate value.
Whereas replication management is focused on transmuting recipes and
ingredients (discovered value) into replicated goods (replicated value) by
a committed date, creative management is passionately attempting to
discover new recipes, to meet unmet needs, through a series of value
attempts, most of which fail. Therefore, the purpose of a creative
management system is to find previously unknown recipes (unknown value) and
transmute it into discovered value – new recipes and new ingredients.

Since at present, we have no formalized understanding and teaching
regarding the role of creative management, we must look to empowered
creative leaders of dominant companies to understand the practices and
policies that best fill the creative management void. It is these types of
leaders that have the power to setup supporting management systems that
best enable creative staff, such as software engineers, to do the work of
discovering new value. In alignment with management systems theory which
postulates that management most know how to do the work, virtually all of
the leading technical companies that are creating new value and
transforming the world are led by people who have professionally done the
work of creating new things for several years. It’s also interesting to
note that many of these leaders are software engineers. Though this is only
correlation, not causation, it does strongly imply that the skill set
needed to create new value (new recipes, new designs, and new solutions) is
significantly different than the skill set needed to replicate or liquidate
existing value.

The problem being solved by empowered creative leaders, the true proxy for
a creative management system, is how do you best motivate and enable your
staff to rapidly discover new value? Their systemic solutions are too
extensive to document here; but in brief, know that the systems these
creative leaders have put in place proceed out of who they are as creative

“Move fast and break things” – Zuckerberg
“Every day is day one” – Bezos
“If you're changing the world, you're working on important things. You're
excited to get up in the morning.” – Page
“We do lots of Stuff. The only way you are going to have success is to have
lots of failures first” – Brin
“When something is important enough, you do it even if the odds are not in
your favor.” – Musk
“Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they
can't lose.” – Gates
In summary, though system embodiments vary, the above quoted creative
leaders share the following creative system principles:

You learn by failing, and new value comes from a critical mass of new
So, fail often, fail quickly, but fail smartly (failure without learning is
Build platforms, practices and cultures that help people discover value
Relentlessly discover new value, even when the odds are against it
Empower your creative staff to transform the world by solving meaningful
Practically speaking, these creative principles take the form of equipping
and empowering teams to make a series of rapidly evolving value attempts.
These value attempts are passionately revised and improved upon until a
candidate solution achieves market traction. Thereafter, additional
features may be added to the solution to facilitate deeper market
penetration. The work of the creative team is deemed to be successful when
the end user needs are reliably satisfied by the new solution.

In order to maintain and foster creative motivation throughout the creative
process, many of these leaders employ some form of shared conception, a
desire to pursue a common compelling need, which forms a strong shared
attraction. There are four elements to these strong attractors:

Need – a thing that needs to be created, something that’s missing from life
Belief – belief it can be created, that the idea is possible, even viable
Opportunity – a career opportunity to create that thing, a chance to do it
Anticipation – shared anticipation of the better, envisioned future
These elements form a strong attractor and shared conception is the
practice of sharing and iterating the same strong attractors with
investors, customers, creative staff and management, thereby aligning
customers, staff and management on a set of highly anticipated emerging
solutions. Not surprisingly, this form of creative motivation is often
present in Silicon Valley startups, including many of the dominant
companies established by the leaders quoted above.

How do you best motivate software engineers? You attract them to
significant, life changing work by elevating the need, the thing that's
missing from life or society, a problem that needs to be solved, and
extending a personal, creative opportunity to solve that problem. Software
Engineers are motivated to solve epic problems with solutions that people
love. Continuously communicating to them the "why?" is critically
important. Knowing why enables software engineers to evolve technical
solutions that best fit customer needs.

The best way to motivate creative staff is to attract them to meaningful
work through the use of strong attractors. Sure, you must also pay creative
staff well enough to meet their standard of living; but, as Maslow points
out in his theory of human motivation, beyond physical and safety needs,
people have a need for esteem, recognition, and actualization. Just having
a real possibility of meaningfully fulfilling these higher order needs is
enough incentive to strongly motivate the heart and minds of most creative
workers, even in the presence of pressure and adversity which often
accompanies the solving of difficult problems through intense periods of
failure. All greater transformational works of value are, necessarily,
sustained by this type of motivation.

It is important to understand, when motivating software engineers and
creative staff via the use of strong attractors, that all four elements
must be present. In other words, the staff must believe in your vision, and
the envisioned solution or outcome must actually be viable. There
necessarily must be a real opportunity to actualize the envisioned product
or service, and the staff must catch the envisioned outcome such that they
share your anticipation of that better future. When any of the four
elements of a strong attractor are missing, the staff’s motivation will be
crippled, resulting in under tones of creative drifting, frustration,
apathy and possibly even despair. Therefore, it is super critical to have
viable strong attractors that are in pursuit of a real opportunity and
genuine needs.

Three Types of Management for Three Types of Value
Our takeaway from the above history is that there have been three dominant
forms of management. Each naturally proceeding out of the type of value
they manage, and each having their own optimal practices and associated
means of motivation.

In order to avoid making the same systemic management mistakes, I have
become convinced that it’s super important to understand our history (how
we got here), namely that value is an organizational force that resulted in
the creation of our existing management systems, and yet we must learn from
our emerging future which is driven by the discovery of new value (where we
are going), lest we are doomed to amble around in our ignorance. Before
proceeding to advice regarding what CEOs can do differently to better
support their software teams, let’s be certain we are on the same page
regarding our understanding of value and where we are going. For the sake
of brevity, allow me to just blurt out the obvious observations:

Firstly, for our purposes here, let’s agree that: value is the reliable
fulfillment of unmet needs without mitigating-levels of chaos

Let’s also agree that dominant management systems are a derivative of the
nature of value

That value comes in four forms: undiscovered, discovered, replicated and

That value (the fulfillment of unmet needs) is achieved by transmuting
value through each of the four states using the three dominant forms of
management systems

Each value transformation system has an input value type and an output
value type

That these value transformation systems have their own unique forms of work
and motivation

That the 3 value systems form 1 value fulfillment cycle (solution
fulfillment, order fulfillment, cash fulfillment)

It is this big picture, which as management, we are working to refine,
filling in the gaps, and perfecting its practices. Namely: value is the net
result of a value fulfillment cycle comprised of:

3 types of management systems
working together to transmute 4 types of value
by discovering products and business solutions
that reliably meets customer’s needs
without chaos
The tip of creative management is learning to think of the value
fulfillment cycle functionally as a high velocity change engine that takes
value attempts often in the form of minimal viable products and design
studies, having some associated customer development (see Steve Blank,
customer development) effort running in parallel with the
engineering/solution effort.

What is the value fulfillment cycle? The value fulfillment cycle is the
process by which unknown value is discovered, replicated, and monetized.
This value-oriented process is at the core of all businesses and consists
of connected workflows that serve three separate functions: solution
fulfillment, order fulfillment, and cash fulfillment. The overarching cycle
is overseen and governed by three dominant management systems: creative
management, replication management, and liquidation management –
traditionally considered to be creative/engineering, business, and
financial management. Each of the three value management systems have
differing practices and a differing means of motivation that directly tie
back to the type of value they are transmuting; yet all three must work
together in order to effectively realize value.

This sort of value-oriented thinking is driving creative management to
actively automate and commoditize the value fulfillment cycle. In so doing,
they are breaking down classically siloed constraints that slow down the
discovery of value. Why? Because these silos, often the result of
department-oriented thinking, have the effect of slowing down realization
of value by serializing the discovery of value, discovery of chaos and
discovery of customers. So, to break down these silos, in part, many of the
mentioned creative leaders are empowering small teams of creative staff to
swing for the fences (doing the full value cycle) on big, important
problems, and they are having a great deal of success. Because, as it turns
out, having an over-arching management system that reduces the time it
takes to discover and actualize value is a big deal.

How are CEOs failing software engineers?
First, many companies are lacking an effective creative management system,
and from the above history lesson, we can correctly infer that healthy
companies are always a combination of the three dominant types of
management. For example: every exceptional restaurant has an executive chef
to do the creative work; hosts, waiters, porters and line chefs to do the
replication work; and, an accountant to effectively cashflow the
enterprise. To stay healthy, all three types of management must be
empowered to hold each other accountable to the pursuit of satisfying the
needs of the customer.

We also know that companies that do not have an effective creative system
either die over time, or they are tied to another entity that is doing the
creative work. Sure, there are some exceptions; but in general, if you are
lacking a thriving creative management system, you are definitely impeding
the discovery of new value, and you become a prime target for what Clayton
Christensen termed as “disruptive innovation.” This is essentially the
process whereby market leading companies are gutted by smaller entities
that are discovering new value at much higher rates than traditional
companies. Stop and consider for a moment, “what happens when larger
companies with more funding figure out how to stay disruptive by using
creative management systems that empower lots of small teams?” Of course,
there are several tech companies that are doing this now, and they are
disrupting traditional businesses at an exponentially, increasing rate.
This is due, in no small part, to their successful creative management

Considering the above history again, it should be clear that not having an
effective creative management system is a huge gap in the value fulfillment
cycle. If this gap remains unaddressed, the market will solve the problem
by investors, over time, moving their money to entities that are
discovering new value at higher rates. So, if you have this kind of
systemic void, it’s really in your best interest to address the gap as soon
as possible, and I would encourage you to give some serious consideration
to empowering an effective creative management system.

Also, as it turns out, the three things that software engineers
overwhelmingly want from management, when asked, is for management to:

Provide a clear sense of purpose, vision and mission
Invest in my growth by having opportunities for advancement
Grant autonomy and delegate authority
In other words, software engineers want to function in small empowered
teams that are hotly pursuing meaningful value which could potentially
transform their community, the company, and their lives into some epic,
next level thing. When you think about their response, it kind of sounds
like the basis of an effective creative management system that pursues new
value. That’s likely because many software engineers are, at their very
core, creative staff that yearn to pursue new value and, given their
answers, they are in effect begging management to provide the big-picture
charters under which they can actualize their creative force. My advice to
you is to let them do it. But it is critical that these teams have a clear
mission charter and budget, and that they also have the supporting roles
needed to succeed embedded in the team itself.

Second, new value (fulfilling previously unmet needs) is the by-product of
applied new learning that is gleaned from an often-painful series of
individual- and group level- failed value attempts. To put some meat on
better understanding this point, new products that truly address new points
of need (new value) aren’t a function of time and money; instead, they are
the result of learning from hundreds of small failures that must
necessarily occur in the pursuit of discovering a new solution (new value).
When Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook’s mantra, “move fast and break
things,” he was simply giving his team permission to learn quickly by
unleashing tens of thousands of value attempts. In point of fact, most
smaller products are the result of hundreds of failed individual value
attempts and dozens of failed group level value attempts, and large
products and services are the result of tens of thousands of failed
individual value attempts, and hundreds of failed group level value

Given this understanding, I have five points of advice for CEOs of
companies that do software engineering:

Since learning from failed value attempts is the only path forward to
discovering new value, our goal must be to get the cost of failure down
(not the number of failures), and the rate of learning up. One of the
easiest way to achieve this goal is to get the size of the teams down by
investing in individual and small team level value attempts.
The next thing to do is make sure your teams have the research, promotion,
and analysis skills that are needed to rapidly discover actual need, and to
rapidly test and learn from their solution attempts. Lacking these skills,
your teams may never discover industry changing value as their rate of
learning will simply be too slow to compete.
Next, invest in platforms and tools that speed your team’s ability to make
value attempts. Why? Because, often a platform can help with customer
discovery and doing solution promotion, as well as gathering the metrics
needed for learning and analysis, all of which can amazingly increase the
speed at which your teams discover value. Since you are going to be making
a lot of low-cost value attempts, you really should invest in automation
that speeds value discovery.
When discovering new value, drive to value; when scaling discovered value,
drive to date. Meaning: don’t gate value discovery by setting arbitrary
release dates. In effect, a release date is nothing more than saying to the
team, “we are going to give up on discovery of the actual needed value by
<insert arbitrary date here>.” Of course, that’s nonsense. Also, dates
don’t increase the rate of learning from failure; they in fact have the
opposite effect, the team will be much less likely to discover the value
needed as they will actually increasingly fear failure as the date
approaches, and they will therefore slow down the rate at which they are
breaking things, which effectively puts an end to new learning – no more
bugs found, no more value found. If the customers need hasn’t been met yet,
it’s just a huge waste and confusing to all involved to release something
that doesn’t actually meet the need. It’s even worse to release something
by an arbitrary date that has the appearance of meeting the need but is
riddled with business risking- or life risking- levels of chaos.
When motivating the team, the correct motivation pattern to apply to the
discovery of new value is shared conception using strong attractors. Go
back and reread the creative management section regarding motivation, it’s
worth a second look, if not a third.
Here’s the most important bit of advice to CEOs and leaders of software
Some people think, in order to best foster a creative learning culture, you
should celebrate failure; personally, that’s a bridge to far for me. But,
at a minimum, you must at least endure failure, and if it’s possible for
you, full-on embrace the failure that’s always associated with discovering
life changing value.

I promise (take me up on this), that if you set out to fail every day by
taking truly new and different value attempts from which you learn, at the
end of 90 days, you will have a small pile of new value. It’s just
impossible to fail that much, unless you’re not learning, and not discover
some truly new bits of value. Even better, if you and your favorite team of
50 engineers do the same exercise of taking value attempts for 90 days, and
you aggregate those bits of value together along the way, you quite often
have the basis for an industry leading product or service that you might
even spend the rest of your career improving and delivering, and the world
would be a better place for you having done that.

Personally, I am still shocked by the number of times I consider my failed
value attempts to be waste. I am also appalled by the number of times that
I deliberately avoid starting from a blank page; instead, I almost always
reach for the safety-blanket of Google in hopes of finding someone else’s
work to leverage – an existing known, good, starting place. It’s as if,
deep down inside, I am ardently, even violently, trying to avoid the
failure that comes hand-in-hand with starting from a blank page. Perhaps
you can relate to the thought, “why waste time starting from a blank page
when you can be way more successful starting from some known good place?”
The truth is, “new” necessarily means you better not be able to google your
idea, because if you can, it isn’t new, right? Yet, in place of embracing
failure by taking new value attempts, I find myself starting out each new
day doing something that I already know, a thing that I'm already good at,
because that makes me feel valuable.

This is best referred to as failure avoidance syndrome, and I promise that,
as CEOs or leaders, we have a bad and almost creatively lethal dose of it.

What is failure avoidance syndrome? Failure avoidance syndrome is a common
and even normal sociophysiological condition that causes us to associate
productivity and value to the completion of known tasks, while avoiding
attempts that will likely lead to failure. Failure avoidance is,
straight-up, a combination of success conditioning and brain chemistry, and
it leads to us feeling that starting from a known good place is more
valuable. This phenomenon is due, in no small part, to how our brains, in
response to the thrill of successfully completing a rewarded task, releases
euphoric chemicals that strongly reinforce the behavior that led to
success. Conversely, the disappointment and menace often associated with
failure results in our brains releasing a different set of chemicals that
act to dissuade us from making additional mistakes (even, and especially,
new value attempts) that might threaten our safety, social acceptance, and

The net effect of our success-based conditioning and our natural brain
chemistry is failure avoidance. In other words, discovery of new value is
actually safe guarded by a sociophysiological curse that most commonly
manifests as a natural, strong aversion to failure. However, when doing
creative work, we must find positive ways of pushing past the chemically
reinforced sense of waste and failure avoidance.

This necessarily means that the journey of discovering life changing value
requires us to endure large amounts of failure. For me personally, I’m
learning to embrace the failure of taking daily value attempts versus
comfortably filling my days with planned success; it’s a big step, but one
that I’m committed to doing.

In summary, for better value discovery results:

Empower individuals to take daily value attempts
Use light weight value attempts and amplified learning
Drive to value, not to date
Seed your creative teams with research, promotion, and analysis skills
Avoid forcing individuals into the same ways of thinking about a problem
Encourage your creative staff to move fast and break things
Embrace failure, celebrate learning
Personally, fail more often. If you’re not failing, I promise you, you
aren’t learning, and you’re therefore likely not leading your industry
either, seriously.
Regarding the institutions who are setting up management to fail software
Listen up Ivy League educators and macro economists. Take note of the three
(not two) types of dominant management systems. Whereas you can align the
motivation of workers and management within the same type of work, aligning
motivations across types of work (such as replication to creative) that are
dissimilar in nature using the same incentives isn't a thing. It doesn't
work. It can't work. It's confusing, frustrating, and demotivating when a
system of management is ignorantly applied to a type of work that it cannot
possibly, effectively govern. Yet, as a ‘modern’ society, we've created a
prevailing global management system that perpetrates this offense
repeatedly. Just stop it. Seriously, it’s ineffective, it’s upsetting to
your developers and creative staff, and in the long run, it’s in no one’s
best interest.

While you’re at it, go back to your management textbooks and curriculum and
write in Creative Management, and go back to your economic models and
factor discovery of new value into your theories of economic growth. Also,
many of you need to go back to your companies and apologize to the
developers and creative staff to whom you aren’t listening.

In closing, if you are genuinely interested in speeding the realization of
value, spend some more time studying value fulfillment theory: the cycle by
which unknown value gets discovered, replicated, and transmuted into cash.
And then, consider reorganizing your company to unleash the creative force
of your software engineers.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 1:23 AM Mike Spencer <mspencer at tallships.ca> wrote:

> > https://iism.org/article/why-are-ceos-failing-software-engineers-56
> >
> > Any comments?
> 100% javascript page, no text.  Can you post the text?
> --
> Michael Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada       .~.
>                                                            /V\
> mspencer at tallships.ca                                     /( )\
> http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/                        ^^-^^
> _______________________________________________
> nSLUG mailing list
> nSLUG at nslug.ns.ca
> http://nslug.ns.ca/mailman/listinfo/nslug

Baha Baydar
bbaydar at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nslug.ns.ca/pipermail/nslug/attachments/20200921/1750754f/attachment.htm>

More information about the nSLUG mailing list