this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
649 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
59709 readers
5518 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You know, I want this to be 100% true, but it's not.
I've been in software development for over a decade and while the managers are definitely high up there on the list of causing problems, I've also worked with enough shitty developers that don't care enough. Then not everyone provides the same level of code review, some people are pretty bad at it and just rubber stamp things, and then a problem gets through.
Isn't this t the manager's fault that those shitty developers are there as well though?
In theory a decent QA team will catch things being done by shitty developers. If your dev and QA is shit, management is shit for letting it happen.
Man I wish we had QAs still at my Mega Corp. They removed the role and saddled development with that responsibility (along with getting rid our our business analysts and putting that also on the engineer's responsibility list).
if they expect you to do a consultant's work, they should pay you a consultant rate
Maybe over an extended period of time, but that's not something people get fired for right away. Also bugs are a fact of life in software, and while some developers may ship more bugs than others, work still needs to get done, and it's often better to try and train and improve an existing employee than fire them too soon.
Kind of but it's not fair to put it all on the manager. Multiple people decided to hire the person. Somebody else approved that code review. People approved the technical design. Why didn't the tech lead raise concerns with the manager about someone's under-performance, etc. it's unfair to just put all blame on the manager.
The idea of extreme ownership is about not saying "not my problem I won't do anything" or blaming your reports. It's about saying I can and should do anything and everything in my ability to fix problems.