<commit_before># I will never - notes

Absence of feedback loops, Chinese whispers games

There is a very good video explaining industry issues, one of them this from a city veteran:

VIMEO

The "master/slave" mode has another the added benefit of killing feedback loops: being on the "slave" side asking for additional instructions, disambiguations is let's say not encouraged. On top of that usually having an opinion or turning someone off is a punishable offence. The first implication of this is that what should be developed is not what the "client" side has on it's mind, even if we accept that the "master/slave" model is an OK way to do things, but what the "slave" side understood on the first - and only - communication circle. The rest has to be deduced or assumed.


What I have heard more than once, as if people have copy pasted is the following: "Let's do what we got told to so that we will be OK, and then they will see that it didn't work". Well if you are so sure that it will not work, why not bring it up before committing any resources in the first place?

The bad c-word

The c-word that is almost never used is "context". Following up from the interaction analysis between people and departments, it's immediate consequence is that requests or better orders come without context: "Do this".

People are supposed to be blind and indifferent on why they should "do this" and how it serves the company goals and strategy. What the company wants to do for a specific year or term is usually communicated on a yearly event with some elements of a show (lights, microphones for big ones, celebratory presentations for smaller ones) and then it gets forgotten until the next year's session.

In one of the companies that I used to work for, I was very upset because the stuff that was communicated to me did not make sense and seemed inconsistent. After I expressed this to the CEO communicating that it affected my capability to deliver results. He was very polite and on the first given opportunity on his busy schedule we had for a long walk in the park near by on which he picked up some cases and explained to me the whys and hows of his decision making process and how this translated to what he I was asked to do. Everything was perfect until some weeks afterwards I realised that we left the discussion with two completely different takeaways: I had thought that this walk was him saying to me: "this is what we want to achieve in this phase, there was no time to communicate it properly, this will not be the case from now on" while what he was communicating, I assume, was: "I can understand that you have the right to be worried, there is some thought on how I tell you to do what to do, now from now on do as you are told and do not worry / it is not your job to worry". In other words we both affirmed that providing no context was what was happening, for my interlocutor this was the way things should stay, for me there was something wrong.

## For intro

Because the places that I have worked for are stated in my CV, which is publicly available, or can be retrieved from a linked-in search, I did not want to refer to specific people or companies as I did not ask for their permission while there is always the possibility of legal implications. The examples that I mention are stories from me and other people mixed and remixed together. So although the material is true the specific incidents are not as they are an accumulation of facts from different places, times and people. Where I supplied concrete stories such as experiences of me, I changed names or other details essentially to anonymize them.<commit_msg>Family friend scienttific observation<commit_after># I will never - notes

Absence of feedback loops, Chinese whispers games

There is a very good video explaining industry issues, one of them this from a city veteran:

VIMEO

The "master/slave" mode has another the added benefit of killing feedback loops: being on the "slave" side asking for additional instructions, disambiguations is let's say not encouraged. On top of that usually having an opinion or turning someone off is a punishable offence. The first implication of this is that what should be developed is not what the "client" side has on it's mind, even if we accept that the "master/slave" model is an OK way to do things, but what the "slave" side understood on the first - and only - communication circle. The rest has to be deduced or assumed.


What I have heard more than once, as if people have copy pasted is the following: "Let's do what we got told to so that we will be OK, and then they will see that it didn't work". Well if you are so sure that it will not work, why not bring it up before committing any resources in the first place?

The bad c-word

The c-word that is almost never used is "context". Following up from the interaction analysis between people and departments, it's immediate consequence is that requests or better orders come without context: "Do this".

People are supposed to be blind and indifferent on why they should "do this" and how it serves the company goals and strategy. What the company wants to do for a specific year or term is usually communicated on a yearly event with some elements of a show (lights, microphones for big ones, celebratory presentations for smaller ones) and then it gets forgotten until the next year's session.

In one of the companies that I used to work for, I was very upset because the stuff that was communicated to me did not make sense and seemed inconsistent. After I expressed this to the CEO communicating that it affected my capability to deliver results. He was very polite and on the first given opportunity on his busy schedule we had for a long walk in the park near by on which he picked up some cases and explained to me the whys and hows of his decision making process and how this translated to what he I was asked to do. Everything was perfect until some weeks afterwards I realised that we left the discussion with two completely different takeaways: I had thought that this walk was him saying to me: "this is what we want to achieve in this phase, there was no time to communicate it properly, this will not be the case from now on" while what he was communicating, I assume, was: "I can understand that you have the right to be worried, there is some thought on how I tell you to do what to do, now from now on do as you are told and do not worry / it is not your job to worry". In other words we both affirmed that providing no context was what was happening, for my interlocutor this was the way things should stay, for me there was something wrong.

## For intro

Because the places that I have worked for are stated in my CV, which is publicly available, or can be retrieved from a linked-in search, I did not want to refer to specific people or companies as I did not ask for their permission while there is always the possibility of legal implications. The examples that I mention are stories from me and other people mixed and remixed together. So although the material is true the specific incidents are not as they are an accumulation of facts from different places, times and people. Where I supplied concrete stories such as experiences of me, I changed names or other details essentially to anonymize them.

Family friend scientific observation:

I was talking about my experiences and observations with a family friend that has worked with many US-Americans and Britons extensively in the past. He told me more or less this: "Do you know what I believe is the difference between those two? If what you do wields results, people from the USA even if they don't understand how you operate, will come to you and say: 'How much do you want to come to work with us?', Britons will first try to ignore it as if it never occurred and if you persist they will try to stop you even if your methods are right and the results OK".
{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02618987660538907, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.235992089650626, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 3, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
{'dir': 'git-commits-cleaned', 'id': '3998900', 'n_tokens_mistral': 1784, 'n_tokens_neox': 1722, 'n_words': 1424}