> Maybe all this goalsetting, OKRs and such is exactly the problem with the industry,
Yes, yes it is.
That is also a symptom of a bigger problem: management doesn't really have to be useful for the company, they merely have to _appear_ to be. Exceptional management is nearly invisible, which is great for companies, bad for careers.
The solution? Managers will make noise and a lot of it. Part of this requires crazy deadlines. If the ship is not creaking it's not being pushed hard enough. Attrition? Bad culture fit, we work hard, we play hard. "I delivered <project> months ahead of schedule" sounds way better than "I delivered it on time" - nevermind that the "delivered" project is a buggy mess noone uses and will require a lot more effort to get to an acceptable state.
We should be praising progress. Not everything should be a 'sprint', it should be a 'march'. What's all the sprinting for?
Most deadlines literally don't matter. Motivated teams that are able to perform their best work do matter.
> when most people just want to put in an honest day's work and progress.
> We should be praising progress. Not everything should be a 'sprint', it should be a 'march'. What's all the sprinting for?
I'm of two minds on this statement. On the one hand, "sprint" isn't meant to be taken literally in the scrum metaphor, in that teams aren't supposed to be trying to cram in as much stuff as humanly possible. But at the same time, the idea of each two-week period needing to have concrete goals, and failure to meet those goals being a negative indicator, is a major issue.
For me, the value of having deadlines, or something resembling a deadline, is to make it easier to get started. Once I've actually got the ball rolling, it's less important that the schedule actually resembles the plan, insofar as it doesn't affect other people. But my experience with scrum teams is that progress isn't seen as good enough. You have to execute on the plan, at least as far as scheduling is concerned, and cut corners if you have to.
The issue is this rigid equivalency of plan = commitment, and therefore deviation from that plan = failure. No, a plan does not necessarily mean a commitment. A plan lets you get started without spending so much time in decision paralysis. Once you're moving, the real plan evolves.
Yes, yes it is.
That is also a symptom of a bigger problem: management doesn't really have to be useful for the company, they merely have to _appear_ to be. Exceptional management is nearly invisible, which is great for companies, bad for careers.
The solution? Managers will make noise and a lot of it. Part of this requires crazy deadlines. If the ship is not creaking it's not being pushed hard enough. Attrition? Bad culture fit, we work hard, we play hard. "I delivered <project> months ahead of schedule" sounds way better than "I delivered it on time" - nevermind that the "delivered" project is a buggy mess noone uses and will require a lot more effort to get to an acceptable state.
We should be praising progress. Not everything should be a 'sprint', it should be a 'march'. What's all the sprinting for?
Most deadlines literally don't matter. Motivated teams that are able to perform their best work do matter.
> when most people just want to put in an honest day's work and progress.
This.