It's interesting how quickly the author trivializes competitive pay as a motivation for attracting developers over vague management practices that matter more for employee retention than actually attracting them. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that pay wasn't as competitive as the hiring manager would like to believe.
Also pair programming contrasts directly with the promotion of autonomy
I couldn't agree more, i shifter from software engineering to software architecture exactly to pursue autonomy.
I was so tired completing user stories that I knew will be either too expensive to maintain or plain useless that decided to climb up towards the source, and help people set up requirements and measurements loops.
So yeah, why do people hire software engineers who are extremely good at analytical thinking, and then try pre-digest every bit of requirement?
Because when you don't, at least ~50% will complain that the ticket isn't well specced enough.
For every person who wants autonomy there is another who would rather be on auto-pilot, mindlessly coding up arbitrary ticket JIRA-1234 with a Twitch window open on their 2nd screen.
From the article, which I find to be a nice read, this part particularly rings true to me:
"Pick team leaders wisely. A team leader is not an average developer with secretary duties no one else wants to carry out. A team leader is an inspiring master craftsperson; the role model; a person other teammates aspire to become. A team leader promotes technical excellence, spreads optimism, mentors people, and gives away the most interesting tasks to others."
I like these attempts to build a useful model of software companies, but this particular attempt is quite mediocre. The best attempt I've seen was the Gervaus Principle book. The colorful chairs and ping pong tables are there to distract the employees, to turn the workplace into a kindergarten. Once you remove all that, employees will grow up and become even more expensive.
I do. But in my sports club, where I'm training 4 days a week. I play in a league competitively. In the office playing ping pong is not interesting at all.
At work I'd rather prefer a pool. In the US I used to work after office hours poolside.
I'll add to this: for me, the office game was (eventually, after many years) a gateway into more serious playing at the club.
Yeah, I'm now a better player than most at work, but I wouldn't say work games aren't interesting to me. I have so many fundamentals to work on! It can be a challenge for me to even consistently hit a ball back in a way that a novice can continue the rally (especially when dealing with a trickier shot).
I definitely think the higher level games are crucial for success, too; I just find that I get some value out of almost any game (if I look for it).
The part about how companies destroy autonomy demonstrates a lack of understanding of one's place. What they are describing is what people expect in a leadership position, not an individual contributor position. Expecting the construction worker to have the autonomy to decide the design of the house is simply moronic. That's the difference between being a developer and being the product owner. Granted, the product owner needs to know what they are doing, which is the actual problem they are not identifying in this article. It's all about leadership, and people starting as individual contributors who first learn to lead themselves and their egos, growing in their role through the five levels of leadership, being mentored and becoming a mentor before becoming someone with the power and authority to be a product owner. Know it all developers haven't mastered level 1 yet, let alone their egos. They are simply the kid who wants to horde all the toys and haven't learn to respect the toy owners let alone that the toys aren't theirs.
Also pair programming contrasts directly with the promotion of autonomy