> The best way to handle situations like this is to leave, quickly!
If you find these situations frustrating, I agree. There is little hope of changing how software development is done in these companies.
> Companies that operate like this don't last long, because someone else will come and out compete them.
I take it that you haven't worked in many corporate environments. This is how software development is done in many, if not most, large companies. Their only competition are other companies with the same processes. Smaller companies can operate more quickly, and sometimes this can be a variable that helps with disrupting established behemoths, but it's usually not the primary one, and it takes many years to do so.
> I take it that you haven't worked in many corporate environments.
I'm mid-career and I have worked in all different sized companies. That's why I explained how to avoid these situations.
You don't have to put up with being a pawn, nor should you encourage others to put up with working conditions like this.
Edit: I was in situations like the article describes twice.
The first time was when I tried to start a company. It took me over a year to realize the guy I was working with was just an "idea person," who couldn't stop letting his imagination run away. We could never work on a hypothesis, because every other week he had a new idea and wouldn't follow through on last week's idea.
The other time was a startup where I built an industry-leading product. It was usually middle management and inexperienced people who acted like the article described. Upper management would intervene, and often people who acted like the article described got pushed out of the company.
I'm only disagreeing with your assertion that companies that work like this don't last long. They do, and if they get disrupted by competition, this way of working is not the biggest reason for it.
> They do, and if they get disrupted by competition, this way of working is not the biggest reason for it.
I interviewed with a company that was "disrupted" precisely because of this way of working. (They have a well-known interrupt-driven culture.) They were a major vendor, and were trying to move their business into the area that finally disrupted them. (They were a major choice in software projects in the late 1990s and early 2000s, then lost business due to competition, and then changes in the 2010s really ate into their market.)
I took the interview for "career development," and generally planned to decline the job unless it was huge bucks. During the interview, when I asked the manager about interruptions, it became clear that they were the kind of place that the article described, and that's why their initiative is an "also ran."
Anyway, in the area they were trying to move their business to, no one generally considers them a major player. Their three major competitors are mentioned all the time, but their name rarely comes up.
I consider them disrupted at this point: Both in their product that had success in the 1990s and 2000s, and in their ability to adapt to market conditions established in the 2010s and firmly expected today. They could move into today's market if they had a better way of working, though.
If you find these situations frustrating, I agree. There is little hope of changing how software development is done in these companies.
> Companies that operate like this don't last long, because someone else will come and out compete them.
I take it that you haven't worked in many corporate environments. This is how software development is done in many, if not most, large companies. Their only competition are other companies with the same processes. Smaller companies can operate more quickly, and sometimes this can be a variable that helps with disrupting established behemoths, but it's usually not the primary one, and it takes many years to do so.