From interviewing hundreds and managing dozens, I'd say that this is unfortunately largely accurate and not through anyone's malicious intent, but just human nature.
A good salary helps to mask the reluctance, but deep down most people aren't living their lifelong dream at their day job.
There are many other things we'd rather be doing with our time and I think good managers understand and accept that. Some people are just off the charts innately consistently productive, but most aren't and need motivation to stay focused. Deadlines are a tool that works for some people. Others need praise, others need purpose, others need creative freedom. But deep down I think most of us need some external motivation to stay focused for 6-8 hours a day.
But when you do find that person that can consistently self-motivate, hire them and keep them. It makes everything so much easier.
If a manager in the org, is producing results using a heavy handed approach, you can be sure your boss is going to be knocking on your door to have a little chat about "improving things" in your teams. It's not a bad thing. Pushes good managers to evolve their own systems.
Time boxing projects teaches people to innovate and become more resourceful. I've seen endless scope creep since starting at my latest company where people aren't help to any type of deadline.
I think the best approach is to have deadlines but allow teams to workout how they manage their time during that window.
Some people may legitimately just love working but that isn't a reasonable expectation.
All that said, I think deadlines are terrible, they create a sense of cram and ease which works people out of a habit of working while at work. It's better to hide deadlines at the management level and make sure everything is comfortably budgeted, then just transition from one project or task to the next smoothly, without rushing pressure or the "months" scale of doing a thing that can cause it to never be done.
I worked in a job where overtime[1] was the norm for a while, I hated it, put on stress weight, and don't wish that lifestyle of zombie living on anyone. It builds up extreme resentment and lowers productivity so, as a manager, realize that if your project is pushing a deadline you, the manager, have failed utterly. Then seek help from your employees and try and get it done on time, be open about your mistake, make it clear how you'll address it and, seriously, keep overtime and deadline press to the exceptional case rather than the regular.
[1] Oh hey, for bonus points... where I work in BC overtime for tech workers is, by default, uncompensated... and we have nobody but EA and a compliant local Liberal[2] party to thank for that stupidity.
[2] Not liberal as in leftist, "Liberal"... in fact "BC Liberal" is a term up here as they are the most conservative of the parties.
Very few people are going to want to be a janitor as their lifelong dream. But there are plenty of janitors who take pride in their work, and pleasure in keeping somewhere clean and tidy, and being appreciated for it. Doesn't mean they wouldn't rather be somewhere else much of the time, but as long as they're doing it they find it rewarding to do a good job.
And you know what's going to make it more likely to have that "kind of" person on a janitorial team? Giving them autonomy, trust, responsibility, psychological safety, appreciation and recognition, etc.
And what's going to make it more likely to have janitors who hate their job, take no pride in it, dread going to work every day, try to get away with the bare minimum, etc? Micro-managing, punishing, not giving them autonomy to do the job in the way it makes sense (as they know best as the one doing it), inconsistency, lack of ownership, lack of recognition.
Because it's not a "kind of" person at all. Some people individually wind up in jobs whose duties necessarily have aspects that are intolerable to them personally and ruin their day, and it would be better for everyone if they could find a different job. But if you are managing or working with a group of people who all or mostly seem to be like this... you didn't hire the wrong people, there's something wrong with the environment. (There's something wrong with a very lot of environments).
Or, as OP says:
> When we try to control people, they become less motivated, less inspired, and less innovative; they do the bare minimum work or they just leave.
(And if YOU are in a place where you hate your job, dread going to work everyday, only want to do the bare minimum to escape punishment at it -- please, for your own sake, try to find another! I know that's sometimes easier said than done and you gotta make rent somehow, but if you are in that place it is destroying your soul and sense of self! You know it, you're miserable -- and it does not have to be that way)
I recently read a RAND Corporation research paper from the early 90's about command and control, and it gave me new insight into how a C2 system supports a commander (or in a business case, the CEO).
The things that you mentioned (status reports, daily standups, tickets) are not for "clubbing the workforce", they are for feeding information to the CEO/commander about 3 things:
-does the organization understand the plan the way the CEO does? -is the organization executing the plan correctly? -is there information that requires the CEO to change the plan?
It's not about "the beatings will continue until morale improves".
To put it another way...
We haven't mastered the art of teaching, except to those who have mastered the art of learning
deadlines [...] are designed around the assumption of a
reluctant workforce who have to be clubbed into line
Er, no.Sometimes it's the opposite of reluctance.
Lots of enthusiastic coders will code away endlessly, never shipping, unless there's some sort of deadline even if it's a self-imposed one. We can see this in many creative and/or engineering pursuits. A passionate writer may revise their work for all eternity without deadlines. Etc.
"The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous."
It's from Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Vol. 1, 1776)
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and...
In responsible hands, the graphs and metrics from Scrum or Kanban can be used to demonstrate how policies are actively hurting the development team. The information contained in them can tell more tales than just how we could have gotten slightly more done this week.
There may be a lack of responsible hands. It could be that it always has been that case, and you have to promote processes that don't presume an adequate and consistent supply of such hands. I don't know.
But I do know that marching fast to a drumbeat with no clear destination is road to disaster. That Scrum as it is, and even as it was described, is a giant dumpster fire and I lay an over-large portion of that blame at Schwaber's feet.
Certainly true in some cases but needing data from the areas and people you manage is an essential need of all management, no matter its style. Tickets, stand ups, daily reports, they’re all ways to make the employee or their work _legible_ from the outside. How that legibility is used is another matter.
If you order someone to do X, they might, if you ask, the might. But assume that they will do X and you do it aloud, they more likely to do X than in any other case.
I have stolen because it was assumed that I would. And that's totally not my normal style of operation.
Ours are five minutes long and usually about sharing what we’re all working on and talking about roadblocks.