Read on Twitter
Why do models for organizing work in tech companies fall into either the “mission control” (auftragstaktik) or “command and control” categories?
Those are borrowed from the military.
Why not models borrowed from the arts? Like a TV writing room, or improv, or jazz.
Those are borrowed from the military.
Why not models borrowed from the arts? Like a TV writing room, or improv, or jazz.
This really struck a chord with people! (Didn’t expect it)
One important missing element seems to be that tech practitioners aren’t “in their element”.
i.e. Work has to be legible in order for collab to happen, because there is very little shared context.
Whereas in jazz… https://twitter.com/sagar__dubey/status/1360882750341980168
One important missing element seems to be that tech practitioners aren’t “in their element”.
i.e. Work has to be legible in order for collab to happen, because there is very little shared context.
Whereas in jazz… https://twitter.com/sagar__dubey/status/1360882750341980168
I wonder what makes tech (by tech I’m referring to computing) such a low-context environment to be operating in.
Alan Kay’s theory is that CS courses don’t teach the history of computing. So folks aren’t aware of what to build on.
Arts courses, on the other hand…
Alan Kay’s theory is that CS courses don’t teach the history of computing. So folks aren’t aware of what to build on.
Arts courses, on the other hand…
You can’t take any media or arts course without being steeped in the rich history of film, music, art, graphic design.
There are museums, magazines, documentaries dedicated to exploring past bodies of work. “Retrospectives”.
Computing, on the other hand, is incredibly myopic.
There are museums, magazines, documentaries dedicated to exploring past bodies of work. “Retrospectives”.
Computing, on the other hand, is incredibly myopic.
Another possible reason is that practitioners in computing don’t all come from a computing background. So you have people from business, media, etc.
And none of these practitioners have a shared context beyond the trivialities on Clubhouse, Twitter, and Hacker News.
And none of these practitioners have a shared context beyond the trivialities on Clubhouse, Twitter, and Hacker News.
No reason why a lack of history or shared context should lead to military organization being the “default” though.
It’s strangely incompatible. In software companies you’re creating things, in militaries you’re destroying things.
It’s strangely incompatible. In software companies you’re creating things, in militaries you’re destroying things.
Some people pointed out that those models I mentioned don’t scale to 10+ people.
Why not? Something to reflect on.
Why not? Something to reflect on.
One counterpoint is Yahoo.
“The worst consequence of trying to be a media company was that they didn't take programming seriously enough … They didn't want to be a bunch of hackers. They wanted to be suits. A media company should be run by suits.”
http://www.paulgraham.com/yahoo.html
“The worst consequence of trying to be a media company was that they didn't take programming seriously enough … They didn't want to be a bunch of hackers. They wanted to be suits. A media company should be run by suits.”
http://www.paulgraham.com/yahoo.html
So media companies are run by suits, suits run things like the military, we are back to square one!
Perhaps, instead: What do “hacker-native” orgs look like?
Open source and DeFi projects give a glimpse into potential alternatives.
Perhaps, instead: What do “hacker-native” orgs look like?
Open source and DeFi projects give a glimpse into potential alternatives.
