I was looking for a solution to the problem posed but found none.
So that won't scale beyond the individual, which might be acceptable from a Stoic perspective but I doubt that's the solution you're looking for.
Oren Ellenborgen shared my post in today's edition of Software Lead Weekly [1], and in his summary of the post he suggests using Key Failure Indicators (KFIs) to counterbalance Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). From what I understand, the idea is that you observe metrics of success but you also observe metrics of health, and take action if the former starts degrading the latter.
For example, if you want to deliver features more quickly, you might measure the time between a change is submitted for review and the time it's deployed. But if you're concerned that this could degrade quality, you could also measure the number of defects that are identified. If defects increase as delivery time decreases, this indicates the success metric is causing some undesirable behavior. Hope this helps.
Mike, Bubbles, Bunny, Omar, Hauk, etc are not employees or get out and they win or at least get out to live their own lives as they want.
Independent Entrepreneurship is the only way out. It may not work, but you have a chance,
These are not successful lives.
Wage slaves usually work harder to survive. You could go out and live in a van and not hustle at all.
Not all survive, and those that do do not particularly thrive.
The article that OP posted, for example, is a shallow application of the Wire's insight onto software engineering. The solution it recommend is to try to be more aware about gaming metrics, which is as useful in the long run as the phrase "don't be evil". It's telling that most of the comments here don't invoke the article and instead are talking about their own interpretations of the Wire.
Entrepreneurs are systematic slaves too - that is one point of The Wire.
Everyone is embedded in a society, a system, and our choices take us down paths that control the rulesets that apply to us. You can escape certain rules, but you get other rules in exchange (in my experience).
Exactly. I much prefer a good analysis without a proposed solution.
Consider possible second-order effects of policy decisions.
Reevaluate intermediate goals after observing their effects.