
DHH: Speaking Again and Making Way to Many Assumptions - Curtis McHale - curtismch
http://curtismchale.ca/2012/08/23/dhh-speaking-again-and-making-way-to-many-assumptions/
======
irahul
> Rules aren’t All Bad

I don't see <http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3223-the-end-of-formality>
mentioning "all rules are bad". It specifically mentions the kind of business
formality they/he considers bad.

>> When did you last hear a programmer or designer clamor to wear a suit to
work?

>> No more personal secretaries, memos on official letterhead, meetings that
must happen in person.

>> We wear the same clothes, use the same technology. It’s a liberation of the
mind and it’s the new world order.

If there was a point comparing business formalities with teaching a child
formalities, I am completely missing it. All analogies, by definition, are
inexact(or else they won't be called analogies), but this one isn't an
analogy; it's more like a strawman. The blog post author is deliberately
ignoring that DHH's blog is specifically talking about pointless, bureaucratic
bullshit viz. forcing programmers to wear suits. That is in no way analogous
to teaching a child to say please and thank-you.

> You get your tasks accomplished, listen to your boss. Why do we do those
> things? Because it’s a formality, but we have to do it.

I won't say accomplishing tasks is a formality. But more importantly, I would
rather not discuss it as the author again deliberately ignores that DHH's blog
is talking about a very specific set of business formalities and accomplishing
tasks isn't one of them.

Also, depending on the economy and my personal beliefs, "listening to your
boss" formality is very limited. If you come over to my desk and ask me not to
use vim as we are trying to standardize text editors, I would politely ask you
to take a laxative, take a dump and then come back when you aren't full of
shit, or don't come back at all.

> The thing that DHH (and almost all other internet celebs) forget is that
> they are speaking from a position of privilege. They’ve ‘made’ it and thus
> can afford to say anything they want while they race expensive cars. While I
> have a successful web design business, I’m 100% willing to admit that I’d
> take pretty much any job that wasn’t morally objectionably to keep a roof
> over my kids head.

What's the fixation with strawman? What exactly is the author responding to?
All I see in DHH's blog post is he doesn't like business formality.

------
doktrin
I agree with the underlying _spirit_ of this post in that I too often find DHH
insufferable. However, I agree with his [DHH]'s point, and disagree with some
of the arguments the OP made.

#1. Office Formality

"You don’t steal other’s lunch out of the fridge. You get your tasks
accomplished, listen to your boss. Why do we do those things? Because it’s a
formality, but we have to do it."

Frankly, no. This argument relies on an extreme implication that simply was
never made. Obviously DHH wasn't implying that an office environment should be
purely anarchic.

Put plainly, the fact that I _do my job_ and _don't steal_ has very little to
do with office formality. I'm _sure_ I don't speak for solely for myself in
this regard.

#2. Company Culture [aka. Nokia, RIM and IBM]

I believe his [DHH]'s point with regards to company culture is quite valid.
IBM simply should not be lumped together with RIM and Nokia, as they have
successfully pivoted towards different business models. It was very much a
"which of these things is not like the others". Pointing out that IBM is a
successful company does not undermine his original point, although he was
incorrect to use them as a supporting argument.

RIM, and Nokia in particular, suffer from an internal inability to capitalize
on their creative teams. Nokia's deficit in this regards is actually quite
well documented.

------
bradleyland
Meh, have some faith in the reader. Nothing you read will apply to your
life/business 100%. You have to be smart enough to know what's relevant and
what's not. Also, authors often use strong language, because no one wants to
read a flaccid diatribe. If you're worked up about it, the author got what he
wanted.

~~~
jeremyjh
What did DHH say that was relevant?

~~~
bradleyland
I can't answer that for you, because it's all relative to your goals. Maybe
nothing at all.

This is why some people are effective, and others are not. Some people get
hung up on whether someone else is right or wrong, while others take what's
useful and move on.

------
why-el
I hope the author realizes there is a difference between raising a kid
(requires legitimate use authority != rules) and doing business.

------
davej
DHH is talking about something very specific: the role of formality on
creativity and creative individuals.

Curtis is taking about rules in business organisations. Formality and rules
are not the same thing. Creative people and business organisations are not the
same thing.

His examples are subsequently skewed. IBM may be a thriving business but are
they considered a highly creative company? Also, what has raising a kid got to
with anything, DHH is not offering parenting advice and there are no parallels
with running a business.

While Curtis is tearing apart his straw men, he seems to have missed the point
of the article.

------
bhughes
If you're hiring the right people, you shouldn't need a formalized rule that
says "don't steal people's lunch from the fridge" (an example given).

------
tkahn6
This is probably the most confused rhetoric I've seen on the front page of HN
in a while.

