“Collaboration” is bullshit
joanwestenberg.com
joanwestenberg.com
Teams are how you do big stuff. I’m really good at what I do, but I’ve been forced to reduce my scope, working alone. I do much smaller projects, than our team used to do.
But the killer in teams, is communication overhead, and much of that, is imposed by management, trying to get visibility. If the team is good, they often communicate fine, internally.
Most of the examples he gave, are tools of management, seeking visibility.
But it’s also vital for management to have visibility. A team can’t just be a “black box,” but a really good team can have a lot of autonomy and agency.
You need good teams, and good managers. If you don’t have both, it’s likely to be less-than-optimal.
On my second team, the visibility theater took over, upper management set and reset and reset and reset our direction, and nobody was happy. In retrospect, I should have said no immediately. Trusting and empowering your people is hard to beat.
They could review PRs and commits and specs to get visibility and reduce comms overhead, if they had the skills and time.
The non-technical manager also takes great conveniences in making technical people spend their time translating things. But no one ever asks the manager to learn new skills as much as they make developers do it.
I don’t know how to design and integrate systems and products, and write code, because I was born that way. I had to learn.
Likewise, later on, I had to learn project management, and product management, and the language of business so I could communicate effectively with those lacking a background in technology. Again, wasn’t born that way: had to learn.
But in a quarter of a century, the number of people on the commercial side who’ve bothered to learn enough about the technology side to have an informed conversation? Very few. Probably count them on one hand (the naive way: not using binary).
And bear in mind we’re talking about businesses that were heavily if not totally reliant on technology and the delivery of technology solutions for their continued existence.
You’d think a few more of these people would want to take a bit more responsibility for those outcomes, and maybe be a bit less disruptive to productivity, given their livelihoods have often depended on the success of said outcomes.
Like I say: interesting, isn’t it?
Otherwise yeah there’s really no point.
literally everything else is work off the kanban board or backlog.
in my teams everyone was told to decline all meetings unless it explicitly led to the completion of a weekly planned story/task. this way all meetings for the team have a clear agenda and end in mind.
for mandatory external meetings & running interference with external parties, there are ways to insulate the majority of the team from that.
the point was in a 40 hour work week, it's reasonable for 15% of it to spent in coordination meetings, while 85% is directly related to progress.
Usually the retro is after the demo when other folks leave the room / drop from the zoom :-)
If the Scrum Master or whatever their title schedules any other repeating process meetings, fire them.
It was almost like they required the standup as part of the process but never used it the way it should be used.
That's why the most effective teams are wolf packs - roughly 6-10 highly performant members where communication overhead is still low enough that it barely matters, but have enough people to be way more productive than an individual.
Obviously there's a minimum level of competence you need to have for this to work. The smaller the team the less freeloaders are tolerated.
You want to break a team of 10 in half if you can. Not always easy. But if you can manage it, do it.
I think the author has identified that most organizations both fail at effective collaboration, and also use collaboration to paper over their failures.
I think the author maybe over-corrects by leaning on the idea that "only small teams actually get stuff done", and honestly I don't think anyone should be using SLA Marshall/Men Against Fire as an analogy for like... office work (if nothing else, even if you take his words at face value, then the percentage of US infantry who fired their rifles went up from 15-25% in WW2 to ~50% in Korea due to training improvements), but I can get behind the idea that a lot of organizations are setup to diffuse responsibility.
I also do think it's interesting to think about building the Pyramids. For the vast majority of people involved... I don't think modern audiences would call their work relationship or style "collaborative". Usually we use "collaborative" in opposition (at different times) to "working alone", "working with strict boundaries", and "being highly directed in what to do". Being on a work gang, or even being a team foreman is very much "no working alone", but those were also likely highly directed jobs (you must bring this specific stone to this specific location by this time) with strict boundaries.
The author says, "The collaboration industry has spent a fortune obscuring a dirty truth: most complex, high-quality work is done by individuals or very small groups operating with clear authority and sharp accountability" which means collaboration can work... in the right environment and with the right people. I work in R&D and I could not imagine not working in a collaborative environment. It's not reasonable to have expertise at everything and it's understood that things have to get done no matter whose name is on the ticket/story.
I also agree on you calling out Men against Fire example as well. That's not a collaboration issue, that's a training issue (amongst other things). And that problem went away as you said.
> By 1946, the US Army had accepted Marshall’s conclusions, and the Human Resources Research Office of the US Army subsequently pioneered a revolution in combat training which eventually replaced firing at ‘bulls eye’ targets with deeply ingrained ‘conditioning’ using realistic, man-shaped ‘pop-up’ targets that fall when hit. Psychologists know that this kind of powerful ‘operant conditioning’ is the only technique which will reliably influence the primitive, mid-brain processing of a frightened human being. Fire drills condition terrified school children to respond properly during a fire. Conditioning in flight simulators enables frightened pilots to respond reflexively to emergency situations. And similar application and perfection of basic conditioning techniques increased the rate of fire to approximately 55 percent in Korea and around 95 percent in Vietnam.
This piece is more of a whine about a certain kind of office culture, which the author - unreasonably - generalises to collaboration as a whole.
There's likely a lot of money to be made by identifying and defining good vs bad collaborative cultures.
Both are real. But a lot of "good" practices are more cargo culty than genuinely productive, and the managers who really do make it work seem to get there more by talent and innate skill than learned effort.
It's not a linear scale. A lone wolf can't produce the latest Assassin's Creed game. A committee can't produce Stardew Valley or Balatro. They're different capabilities, not a simple matter of more/less.
But there’s a huge difference between communication and collaboration as infrastructure to support individual, high-agency ownership, and communication and collaboration as the primary activity of an organisation. Which, if we’re honest, is what most collaboration-first cultures have actually built.
I’ve come to think those magic teams where the chemistry is just right are rare in a career.
I’ve been a part of two out of my dozen or so teams.
That kind of full-bore magic has only happened for me once. But it was fun while it lasted!
This seems like a good time to point out something an early mentor shared with me: you can rate all jobs on 3 scales.
1. Do you enjoy the actual work? 2. Do you enjoy the people you're working with? 3. How's the pay?
If you get all 3 of those metrics over a "C", you're incredibly far ahead of most people. My golden-team job was a AAA job. My current job (where I get a taste of great teamwork, though since I'm leadership now it's different) is an B, and A, and a C+/B-. I've been here 18 years as a result.
What organization, skills, leadership is required to explore a jungle for gold is very different from what organization, skills and leadership is required to run a gold mine.
So we get explore-exploit tradeoffs, satisficing vs optimizing choices etc.
All of the collaboration artifice that the author is referring to seems to me to always be a futile attempt to meet "the date". That software development might itself be _inherently_ unpredictable is never even considered, even though there are a lot of reasons to suggest that it is: by definition, the software you're developing has never been developed before, or else you could just use the thing that already exists.
I had a glimmer of hope in the late 90's when the agile manifesto was published - everything about it seemed to me to read "software development activities can't be coordinated like a wedding banquet can, but you can at least make sure that everything is tracking toward a shared understanding". I guess I shouldn't have been surprised when "Agile" became "tell me exactly what you're going to do and how long each step will take" almost the instant of its inception.
They'll forgive you if you're slightly late, they'll hate you forever if you ask for more money.
Agile works really well if you have a good product owner that has secured appropriate budget for the level of uncertainty in the endeavor & can make decisions and not be overridden by extrinsic forces. Everything else is negotiable.
Then I thought: Sure but management made the devs promise these things. We don't do it of our own volition (exceptions prove the rule - some people are conditioned to do it of course).
Time estimates are always hard, not only in programming. And outside of programming one of the main insecurities is customers changing the plan or wanting adjustments. This is the side you can't really control, so it is best to get a feeling for the customer, their communication patterns and their expectations early on and factor it in. The other insecurity is tough problems you encounter during the programming phase. How well you can deal with those depends a lot on how experienced your programmers are and how much they were involved in the inital process.
The truth is that the latter insecurities make up a main part of the whole thing and it has to be okay to tell a customer you can't give them an estimate before you know some more details.
R&D usually is budget constrained at the company or division level (% of revenue) and you can only ask for it once a year. Next year's budget time determines if you get more or less. Time constraints come indirectly (proof of progress for budget expansion or more importantly declining revenue from existing products),
But the only way management knows how to hold R&D accountable to ship is with dates as a forcing function, and those dates are often invented or organized around industry events (conferences, press events, etc).
There are other ways to manage progress, dates are the most common lever. That can work but can be abused by bad management. I've usually preferred shops that say "it ships when it's ready", but they require special circumstances to maintain funding and measure progress. In general if what you build is more important than when it ships, "it ships when it's ready" is better than hitting a date with a dud. So long as there's value for the budget and a way to measure it.
Often your salary is not on that budget, so if it takes you twice as long but you don't have to buy/hire/use AWS, winner.
Hah! You just gave me an idea for a new methodology. Date-bound delivery.
- The business tells you what they want, as they do
- The business tells you when they want it, as they do
- The team does not say how long it will take. Instead, they say what they think they can deliver in the time allotted.
- As the date nears, more edge features get trimmed
- As the date arrives, something is always ready to deliver, no matter how miniscule
Such a methodology would ensure delivery, but not necessarily the contents of that delivery. Post mortems would no longer discuss why something took so long, and instead would focus on why features were cut.
If, as you say, the date is always more important, wouldn't such a methodology be worth trying?
I loved it and I think it was one of the more productive development methodologies I've ever seen. It made sense, it was honest, it required no heroics, and it improved our long-term design work by forcing us to break every grand plan down into a series of incremental deliverables.
every week, something is delivered, and is demoable, with approved tests from the business. That thing represents the most important thing to the business relative to the risk prioritization from engineering & usability prioritization from design.
every week, priorities can adjust, etc. and the cycle continues. hitting the actual 'release date' becomes much more knowable when you see the tangible date-driven progress on a regular cadence.
The business does not care about week long deadlines. They need something on May 23 so they can achieve _______.
My understanding of Scrum (not representative of all agile, I know) is that the velocity is supposed to be tracked and used for better predictions. In my experience this takes a very dedicated core of people who are intent on making it happen. In other words, usually it doesn't happen.
But date-bound delivery is already our default mode of operation. We just don't like to admit it. We are going to deliver something on this date; we just don't know what, yet.
However the point of the weekly cadence is that the business does care about adjusting scope and priority towards hitting that deadline on May 23, so that they know what they're going to get on May 23 and have the power to adjust it.
Especially if the goal of what is delivered on that date is not clearly defined. It almost never is.
Most projects can be summed as "give me $X, I'll come back in 6 months, and ask for more time and money". or "here you go"... "that's not what I wanted".
It's a key risk mitigation toward a hard date to know every week if you're still getting what you wanted.
Velocity is overblown as a metric. It's one metric among many that can signal a few things (e.g. quality problems because bug fixes are overtaking features) but isn't as much of a lever as some say.
It has a major practical problem:
> The team does not say how long it will take. Instead, they say what they think they can deliver in the time allotted.
If the team doesn't think they can deliver something that the business feels is non-negotiable, the two are at an impasse. The methodology gives no way to resolve this impasse.
And this problem is exacerbated because the business will frequently be wrong about what they want and when they want it by, and the team will frequently be wrong about what's achievable by the given date. And both parties know this, and it starts to affect how they interact with one another when discussing dates and deliverables.
And to make things even more confusing there's often some amount of unacknowledged deception. Sometimes when the date arrives everyone collectively just pretends that the thing has been delivered in full. Because it doesn't actually matter whether it has.
That meant, that as the inevitable schedule crunch arrived, the things that were tossed in the skip were not important.
I call it "Front of the Box/Back of the Box." I basically got the idea from The Simplicity Shift[0].
But sometimes/often it doesn't matter that you delivered 70% by the agreed date, since less than say 90% is useless.
We have an upcoming deadline. By a given date, some government system shuts off and another must be used. By then the customers must run functionality tests to prove their software handles the new system.
If all of those tests don't pass it doesn't matter that we got most of them by the shutdown date. Customers won't get access to new system and their production halts, not acceptable.
Scenarios like this is quite common for us.
I have a mixed relationship to it, but the scope cutting part of it works extremely well.
The focus it brings on focusing on the problem solved rather than on the concrete solution is also healthy I feel.
I think the smaller the organization, the more likely that a software projects has real stakeholders. In bigger, more mature organizations, the experienced players have arranged their affairs so that their career progress doesn’t depend on delivery of software: Late, early, or ever. For instance I work on the “hardware” side of technology development, and I tailor my annual performance review goals so that a deliverable is satisfied when I can demo it with code that I’ve written myself.
Then they proceed to implement the solution in 30”.
Laid off from a startup and moved fo corpos did gave me perspective,the first year working with the team works really well, we managed to get a lot of stuff really done and business were very happy.
And there came the Agile Coaches telling us to "Collaborate" while disguising as a need to serve his own agenda ( as he's also a PO for another squad ). So workshops on Collaboration, Explicit Expectation on PM have all authority and controls PO, for 8 freaking months just to get a competent team to work with a junior team with no agency nor even willingness to be mentored or do anything. So somewhat this incidentally aligns perfectly.
Corporate always manage to hire incompetent people, not firing them, and let others over-compensate for their failures, so yeah, its not really obvious but its there.
I believe the good collaboration can happen, but when people actually go of their ego and start listening and actually doing the work.
If you’ve delivered a bunch and thats been seen then its much easier to advocate for higher pay and call them out when you don’t get it.
Yes.
> deadly to an organization is the collective impulse to avoid giving those people credit when it's due.
No, in fact most office jobs operate this way in the world.
> The collaboration industry has spent a fortune obscuring a dirty truth: most complex, high-quality work is done by individuals or very small groups operating with clear authority and sharp accountability, then rationalized into the language of teamwork afterward. Dostoevsky wrote _The Brothers Karamazov_ alone. The Apollo Guidance Computer came from a team at MIT small enough to have real ownership, hierarchical enough that Margaret Hamilton's name could go on the error-detection routines she personally designed.
Contrast this with the claims of “democratizing knowledge” and the image of a utopia where everyone contributes original work into a black box and expects no credit and no compensation in return (in fact, happily paying for the privilege of using it).
We, humans, like to have created something worthy of kudos. We pull the rope less hard when it’s a collective effort than when the rope is just yours alone.
Collaboration between us is the default (no one exists in isolation), but forcing a particular sense of collaboration onto people is a different thing.
So while the article you linked isn't confused on the subject, and I doubt Marshall was mixing support personnel in with front-line soldiers in his numbers, I do wonder whether there are people who confuse those two numbers: the number of soldiers, sailors, coasties, airmen, or marines who would never be in combat even during times of war, vs. the number who would actually be in combat and not fire.
(The article did address "what if the battle never came near where those particular soldiers were standing?", which was the other question I wondered about).
Not to mention the fact that this was a time of much more serious discipline issues. People were executed for desertion, and despite that many people did. There was also much malingering, up to and including literally shooting oneself in the foot. Is it so hard to believe that some people just hid when battles came?
Id be very surprised to hear from the other person that by Vietnam they had gotten it up to 95% though. My impression was that the most effective move away from this sort of thing was the move to a professional volunteer army, no conscription.
it relies on SLA Marshall's dubious work, and several other examples it uses are difficult to take seriously.
it's similar to Freud, where there are shreds of truth but not really universally true or applicable.
The psychological model it presents is concrete enough for anyone to present evidence against it. You can use the model to make predictions about human behaviour. The same cannot be said a out Freud.
Now, that doesn't mean its true. It merely means it's not complete rubbish.
> Dostoevsky wrote _The Brothers Karamazov_ alone. The Apollo Guidance Computer came from a team at MIT small enough to have real ownership, hierarchical enough that Margaret Hamilton's name could go on the error-detection routines she personally designed
I have good news for you, my jaded friend! What is similar between those people and you? You’re an individual! Therefore you could write another masterpiece yourself, you can be next Notch, next copyparty guy, next Stardew Valley guy and a long list of creations created by an actuallly high-performing individual, not some complainer who is oh so encumbered by stupid social dancing.
Yeah but you'd think not dying involves killing those who want to kill you, or at least shooting at them! Isn't it super interesting to learn that 80% of riflemen don't ever shoot?
b) even if it was remotely true, context matters. Refusing to shoot someone point blank because of reasons is one thing, refusing to go against Tiger 2 is another.
In short, he proved that even AI agents exhibit all the dysfunctions one would normally attribute to human shortcomings / politics / laziness etc.
Either way, I think the point is strong: if the organization is bad, you end up doing mostly work about work which is exhausting.
Small, effective teams with super high accountability are more fun, but don't look "reproducible" or "repeatable".
Shameless plug on my take: https://www.menge.io/blog/where-to-cut/
I'm hopeful that we can use AI models to pressure test better options of social organization etc.
IMO, "ish". You can reliably and repeatedly produce good teams _if_ you reliably and repeatedly invest in your people.
IMO, what's really happening is that small, effective teams aren't _fungible_ - you can't just swap people around without breaking the magic in a team, and you can't just move a team around an organization without similarly breaking the magic (although the latter _is_ way more possible).
IMO, it's sort of an organizational version of "context switching". It takes time for a team to get up to gel and get up to speed. If you're swapping out team members, you break that cohesion. If you move around teams, you (somewhat) reset that "getting ramped up" process.
I wonder if that made it into the training set intentionally, or just as an unexpected side effect of stealing every character of text available on the internet with absolutely no curation?
The answers to basic questions like that already starts to shape behavior. If you pay zero attention to how people behave, and only look at impact of what was delivered you may promote people who optimize for their own work, but make others miserable. If you don't properly weight quality, especially now with AI code gen, you'll promote people who move fast break more things than is reasonable.
We can easily find examples of suboptimal behavior that arises out of poorly shaped rewards incentives at companies. Empire building is one behavior that is the result of managers getting promoted based on headcount. Stack ranking can and has led to people limiting collaboration with peers because someone has to fail in order for someone else to get a favorable rating. Or people avoid riskier work because failure can put you on the hot seat.
> You're part of a team, you're contributing, you're also (measurably) pulling less hard than you would if the rope were yours alone
There’s a perfectly rational reason for this. Success is collective, but failure is individual.
Rewards for the success accrue to the person who represents it to the right people (usually those with the shortest path to the organization root).
For all intents and purposes, the person who gives the presentation did the work.
By default in the dominant culture, most systems come down to individual incentives for individual drive and shame dynamics for collective drive, and that covers a decent chunk of how people are motivated, but leaves out people who are motivated differently and actively harms people for whom these are paralyzing.
others need to fill a gap -- the "insecure overachiever" demographic.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180924-are-you-an-ins...
how do align ruthless sociopaths, gropy / rapey executives, angry mother hens, and phone-it-in interns?
In big orgs there are often people who dont deliver anything at all, so they sabotage those that deliver or try to deliver.
Or it gets stuck in code review cause one colleague likes nitpicking everything endlessly, so you’re stuck changing working code for multiple days.
Or they have questions and want to spend 2-4 hours in a meeting about design and how to do development “better”, bonus points for not writing anything down for future reference, them expecting you’ll keep a bunch of rules in mind. No ADRs, no getting started guides, no docs about how to do deliveries, probably not even a proper README.md, or versioned run profiles or basic instructions on how to get a local DB working (worst case, everyone uses the same shared instance).
Even more points for not even having retrospectives and never looking at stuff critically - why people keep creating layers upon layers of abstractions and don’t care about the ideas behind YAGNI/KISS. More so, no actual tooling to check things (e.g. code style, but also tools to check architectural stuff, and also obviously no codegen to deal with the overly abstracted bs).
It all depends on the project and team a lot. Some people have only had the fortune to work in locales and environments where stuff like that isn’t commonplace but rest assured, it can get BAD out there.
Working in a good team can be better than working alone, sure!
But working in a bad team is certainly worse than working alone.
Especially so when seniority is measured in years or nepotism and you’re told to not rock the boat and shut up cause “we’ve always done things this way”. I'm exaggerating a bit here, but I’m certain that plenty of people work in conditions not far removed from that.
This is definitely how it can feel sometimes, but it's simply not true. The problem really is just poor communication and big knowledge gaps.
I do understand that not all workplaces allow for enough discussion. Arrogant behavior from leadership is just them cracking under the pressure. You should know that you're never the only one noticing it.
Don't get dragged down with them. You can voice your concerns candidly with the right people who care the most about the outcomes and let the chips fall where they may, or you can suffer in silence like they expect you to. It's sad that this is the expectation because these conversations are just as much a part of "collaboration" as anything else. I expect there may be some defensive replies from certain types of people who feel threatened by this idea.
What you should never do is let this stuff get under your skin or take it personally. The fact of the matter is, teamwork is the nature of any business. When people go rogue, it only makes the problems worse. Everyone misses out on opportunities to grow and the project suffers from the lack of coordination to continue long term.
The only reason weak management is allowed to exist is because people never speak up. If you're the kind of person confident enough to speak up, you might be let go but will almost certainly find something better too.
If you're not that kind of person... well then fine go ahead and suffer. Is what it is.
What's depressing is that it's like Fred Books' book never happened: most managers think the way to solve IT problems is just to trow more people / more money at it until it gets solved; and they're all surprised when it doesn't work, but try again the next time anyhow.
If you get a bunch of people in a room and ask them for a design, one person is going to write the design while everyone else gets in the way. That's simply the nature of groups. The one person who writes it isn't even necessarily the best designer—they're just the one most willing to grab the whiteboard marker.
Conversely, if you ask one person to produce a preliminary design, they can leave, gather requirements, do research, produce a plan, and then convene everyone in a room to review it. Now all the abstract hypotheticals have been put to bed, the nebulous directionlessness has been replaced with a proposal, and the group can actually provide useful feedback and have a discussion that will inform the next draft of the design. And once the design is finished, everyone can easily work together to implement it as written. Collaboration is great, after someone has proposed a design.
That's part of what I like about the idea of Amazon's "culture of writing," though I've never worked in an environment like that in practice. Every idea needs to be preprocessed into an actionable memo before anyone tries to have a meeting about it.
Linux and Wayland.
Both are collaborative efforts, one has fairly effective and tyrannical leadership with the best interests of the community in mind. The other is lead by committee with competing interests and goals where they all have veto power.
Those same collaborators are reflected in the distro situation... Here is a group that also has some rather tyrannical leadership but they have dependencies (see the software they run) and some of those folks are sick of the distro's maintainers nonsense, and went to things like flat packs (see Bottles for an example).
> most managers think the way to solve IT problems is just to trow more people / more money
Leadership vs Management, a tale as old as time.
That's before we even think about all the consultants and similar roles where busywork really is work. Then all the organizational or agile roles.
The fact that some product gets shipped and we still have customers is good, because that's what pays for it all, but that is just the foundation we all rest on. Almost like background noise.
Yes, that's a great observation. Not easy to fix though.
Apparently the Taliban find office work far worse than being fighters, so you never know!
Collaboration isn't a process or a management technique -- it is a communication style. If you want collaboration, you can't take random people and use process to "make them collaborate" -- you need to build your team out of people who are collaborators.
Furthermore, collaboration is not at odds with accountability. Most of the highest performing collaborative teams I've ever worked on have people who are each individually highly accountable for their own contributions, and that's a critical part of what makes them a valuable collaborator.
Yes! I would add that IMO the communication style can be learned and there are great rewards for doing so.
I believe the rough statistic that 20% of people on a typical project are contributors. I don’t believe that it’s because the other 80% are losers. IME it’s because no serious effort has been made to include them, make sure they understand wtf is going on around them, and help them solve whatever is holding them back.
If you do this, a) it does work, and b) the need for small teams becomes apparent because the now-onboarded person can’t find anything that isn’t already being worked on, so they (with encouragement) start a new thing. And there are limits to people’s ability to understand what’s happening, especially if they’re inexperienced, and some people really don’t have the skills to contribute, but by and large, building bridges for people is still highly worth doing.
Something like UBI with extra steps.
And perhaps the bigger issue to get over, there perhaps ought not be a moral component to this, in a world where technology + a small number of people can easily take care of ALL actual needs.
that is a meaningless buzzword salad masquerading as a deep insight
Collaboration sucks - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45892394 - Nov 2025 (248 comments)
And FWIW I don’t think you can solve this by always hiring the “best” either, at least not beyond a certain team size.
If folks don't clearly define the finish line, than a project will run out of budget eventually as scope creep turns it back into the same useless mess.
Proper restructuring usually means firing people that do not recognize they are in a business setting. The Big Brain fallacy is a common bias with people too blind to recognize what other professions bring to the table, and ultimately are unproductive in a large project.
Every manager should read Moneyball before building operational teams with HR, and avoid the trap of the costly Big Brain =3
"Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" (2003, Michael Lewis)
https://www.amazon.com/Moneyball-Art-Winning-Unfair-Game/dp/...
And especially "managers" who do zero work will glob onto any project they can and pedantically watch over your shoulder to make it seem like they're doing anything.
My current employment is the first time I haven’t see this, the Pareto Principle.
The reason for this in biology is two fold:
1. Growth is distributed evenly as necessary to fill the containing system whether it is employment numbers or peas in a pod.
2. Resources are distributed to where they are demanded. Higher productivity individuals will consume a disproportionate number of tasks to complete as well as available resources. This difference is often statistically insignificant as a base difference but after compounding 20% of individuals account for 80% outputs and inputs.
Human behavior accounts for the same compounding because numerically growth distinction is similar enough.
In such scenarios nobody wants to stick their neck out at all, everyone hates everyone else.
At a higher level the usual problem is with incentives being different from one team to another. If you want something done you have to start with the incentives rather than expect people to work against them and there does have to be leadership to break deadlocks.
Another example: bugs that are not found by testers - whose fault is that - development or test?
Clarity is just another way in which one person or group try to lay blame.
Those are two different things.
I understand your point.
Guess it boils down to, a toxic environment can make any system not work.
And LLMs is about to make sure that the structural support people are 99% of the team and the people who do most of the work are 1%, orchestrating a team of agents...
* I believe these workflows aren't entirely invented yet; it currently seems to be mostly token-burning with the illusion of productivity, measuring inputs rather than outputs.
The problem with this is conflating *output* for *impact*. A team of lone wolves writing 1k LOC by the hour is good output but not necessarily good impact.
A team with higher coordination overhead and "structural support" will probably have lower output, but if it focuses on significantly higher leverage activities might just have a better impact. The key question is whether that impact is visible and understood (often not) and lots of businesses are bad at understanding leverage.
I see this lone wolf BS from lots of founder types who mistake their own grind for real performance, often missing their own blind spots. I don't disagree that the 80-20% rule comes up and that some people have an outsized contribution overall compared to others, but to say that collaboration is dead as a result is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Im not saying teamwork is not needed, but it for sure should not be #1 indicator for teams.
Vetting for character to skip dycks is till fine in my eyes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne...
Shoot rounds from your m16/ak47 all you want while sitting in a ditch — it’s mostly pointless
50% of the work is done by the square root of the total number of people who participate in the work.
The point of collaboration is to put people together that when combined are greater than the sum of their parts. You take person A individually and they may to X, you take person B individually and they may do Y. But individually X and Y might not be that valuable, it's their combination and the glue that combines them that is valuable.
What the article misses is that yes, 20% do 80% of the work. However, you can't predict which 20% will do 80% of the work. Not only that but it's not always the same 20% that do 80% of the work for all tasks and projects.
Collaboration is the 'glue', that little bit of added information, that combines the work of individuals into truly something great.
The challenge is how do you combine the work of individuals and I can tell you what doesn't work, rigidly planning and executing.
I don't even think in this age it's a "collaboration" issue. We've seen years of mass layoffs at this point and there's little rhyme nor reason. Sometimes being the "producer" saves you, but not always. Hard work isn't rewarded and leverage isn't necessarily respected anymore.
Your best bet these days is "collaborating" with someone high up who can shield you. Not because you're a producer, but because they like you. The illusion of meritocracy has completely collapsed (at least in large companies).
At the beginning of the Battle the weather was terrible, stopping the normal collaboration with the air force. When the weather cleared, collaboration restarted, and both arms could work together much more effectively than the army alone.
It's well written and brought to light a very interesting subject, e.g. "Marshall’s research showed that just 15-20% of riflemen in active combat positions ever fired their weapons".
and i feel that it's a much better way to work.
whenever i need real users feedback, i just ask my wife next to me to test out the features and give end user feedbacks
And if the job is ass like that just get a new job.
Or start your own company.
This article is just a complaint slop, and complainers are just as bad if not worse. Do something.
now there's pretense of doing work. if you're smoking, you tend to shut up and listen to others.
email though good it terms of faster communication, enabled the whole email chain thing to fake as if one is doing work.
Guy concludes the problem is “collaboration”, in general.
Yeah, no.
> Collaborating means the failure belongs to the process.
This is the way that hierarchy fails to scale. The larger a hierarchy, the more "process" must exist to keep it together. Process in a hierarchy must be defined by superiors, and implemented by inferiors, so it is superiors who must own the failure of process, and inferiors who are blamed for it.
> The average knowledge worker maintains accounts across system after system, switching between applications hundreds of times per day.
This is the more serious problem that comes from hierarchy. Work done by a team must become its own isolated context: the project. Anything anyone hopes to be able to do with a computer must be monopolized somehow by an "application". Why? An application is the only practical goal that a project can have. Anything more would have too broad a scope to be manageable.
---
We don't need hierarchy. There is another way to do work, and despite making incredible the tools for it, we have barely scratched the surface.
We have a decentralized internet, email, and git, so why do we keep making applications? Application is not only a reflection of the hierarchy that makes it, it's also a reflection of the environment. No matter how you contribute to the puzzle, your contribution must be a piece. How else could it fit with the rest?
Free software has been struggling with this dichotomy from the beginning, but it's only getting worse. Most of the systems we use are becoming ever more consolidated and impositional. Most people don't configure their system by editing each of the unique config files: they open the GNOME/XFCE/KDE "system settings", and expect it all to stay consistent. Most of what we actually do with computers is facilitated by one of two major web browser engine implementations. Want to make a new window manager? Get ready to build a feature-complete Wayland compositor (probably leveraging the bulk of another compositor's code). Sure, you can use shell utilities, but it's not like we are doing anything new or interesting with them: just transforming text with a careful emulation of a 50 year old environment.
---
There's no clear way to resolve this situation. Software is useless until it can fit as a piece in the puzzle. If we want a system that is not a puzzle, then wouldn't we have throw away all the precious pieces?
Even so, I think we have really lost touch with the original magic of computing. All these isolated contexts are walls that stop us in our tracks. Formats, accounts, applications, frameworks, platforms... all dead ends. Maybe it's time we make a path that doesn't end?
There are two fundamental truths to software, or any real organizational level problem. First, you don't know what the solution is until you have actually built it and are using it and second designing and building something is a non-polynomial growth problem.
The first part of the problem we sort of get, sometimes. The solution is iteration for the same reason it has always been. Assess, step, assess, step isn't just a good way to train a NN, it is also a great way to do pretty much anything where you don't know the optimal solution. Take the gradient of the situation and then take a right sized step in the right direction. Think you can have a perfect design before you start coding? You are basically saying you can take one big step from the start to the end. Either you have a small problem to solve or you are deluding yourself. Successful software is iterative. It always was and always will be. If your retrospective says things like 'if we had just done X from the start' be very careful because you are falling into the hindsight trap. You really couldn't have known X was the right thing. There is a reason you didn't see X. Just accept the iterative nature and own it. Try for appropriate step sizes, do good regular assessments, keep the iterations tight and you will probably be ok.
The second problem, NP growth, is where things really fall off the rails though. People get iterative, they see it work, even if they don't understand what they are really doing, but NP complexity growth is a real killer. The problem is that it actually IS true that if you took more time and put all the pieces together and solved it all as one problem you technically could eventually find the better solution. But more than likely the heat death of the universe will catch you before you do. Oh, yeah, and the total information storage needed to document the combinations tried will likely kill you too. There is only one good solution to NP growth, accept a local minimum and divide and conquer.
NP complexity growth is the foundational problem that needs to be attacked and the why things work or don't. Even more than iterative in many cases. As a problem grows its complexity, the possible number of solutions to check, grows in an NP way. The only solution is to drop the number of options to consider. You have to divide the problem and admit a local optimum is the best practical solution. People -sort of- get this by pretending to break the problem up and give it to different people or teams but then totally blow it. Jira is an example of totally blowing it. So you broke the problem down and you broke the teams into smaller pieces to address those sub problems but then you threw it all in one place again in Jira and you had all the teams in the same standup. You can't do that. That is the point of divide and conquer. You do that and you get lost because the problem just got too big again when you put all the pieces together. Also, communication scales up with people, even without problem size changing. Create too big of a team and the communication eats all the available work. Divide and conquer -requires- not communicating, or at least being exceptionally careful about how you communicate between problems.
The processes and tools we have created and love to use so much are the heart of why things don't work and we need to start admitting that. They give us a false sense that we can make a team bigger or take a bigger problem on. That is a mistake.
If you have done a good job of dividing a problem up, and correctly sized teams, then you have created problems that are clear enough not to need status boards and the like. Sure, go ahead and use them if your small team likes that. Be my guest, but you probably shouldn't. If a team is iterating on their problem and the problem is appropriately scoped then the team knows the state of their entire piece so well that the status boards slow them down. Why put in a jira ticket when you can just deal with it? Why break your internal team communications like that? Team management and project management become easy with small teams since your options are limited and the problem is small so it is all obvious. If you are saying to yourself 'well how will we know the whole thing is on track' well if you divided correctly then every level has a human sized understanding to deal with and is keeping track of their piece. That includes the team that owns teams. They should have designed the teams working for them, and the problems those teams are dealing with, in such a way that the working memory state is enough. They also designed the communication to that team in a way that they stay informed -without- joining that team and in doing so joining all teams. In other words they don't micro manage because that breaks divide and conquer. If any level is lost then the problem may not have been broken down well or has changed. A good iterative team catches this and raises the flag quickly so the divide can happen again if needed. The team leading the team has the job of monitoring to help figure this out, but monitoring in very limited ways so that they don't end up micro managing and collapsing the divisions.
A good military know this and a bad one has forgotten it. In WWII we had task forces for everything. They could stand up a TF, get it training so that it was a coherent entity, execute the mission needed and tear it apart. We were amazing at it. When WWII ended we did big things because we carried our understanding of the operational level of war, how to break apart problems and teams, into industry. We went to the moon. Now however we have standing task forces in the US military that are essentially the leftovers from WWII. We crate new task forces, badly, that are really just the existing ones renamed which means they have their old job and new job and nothing has really been broken out and isolated correctly. We suck at war and a big reason for this is that we have forgotten the operational level of war lessons from WWII.
This is a long rant to get to this final point. The author doesn't get the real reason why '20%' does the work. It is because we hire and create massive teams that can't get anything done because their communication has scaled to 1000% of their capacity. So, naturally, a small core team forms that can effectively communicate and get a job done, by ignoring he other 80%. It isn't the other 80%'s fault, it is the organizations fault for not breaking things up and creating small teams where the size of the problem is understandable and actionable and, most importantly, not re-merging the problem and the teams with stupid things like Jira boards.
The real solution is the same set of solutions that work time and time again. Create small teams. Give them clear problems to solve and the right tools and authority to solve them. Put bounds on what they should be doing so they, and you, don't get distracted. Understand that a problem is an evolving iterative thing and lean into that. If 80% of your workforce isn't doing things then your organization is broken. Start figuring out how to fix it. Collaboration isn't bullshit. It is fundamental. We just need to actually, intentionally, design that collaboration based on the actual things that shape it. NP growth and iterative understanding.
What everybody keeps forgetting over and over again is that software is super complicated even if it can be changed from a keyboard without the use of physical morphing tools.
People who do not themselves generate software are in the position of telling the people who generate software how to do it and what the constraints should be on the outcomes.
Accept that it is complicated and that you cannot know in advance when it will be done unless it is a super simple request.
It is indeed more like oil field exploration than it is like sweeping the floor.
You cannot really know where the solution to a complicated problem lies in advance and therefore you cannot predict how long it will take you to find it.
People on the finance side just need to face the fact that there is risk that cannot be eliminated in advance or even quantified particularly accurately.
If your investors cannot stomach this, they probably need to invest in something other than software development.
Good luck with finding that in 2026.
High performing collaborative teams and teams-of-teams have the ownership culture that he is describing. But they also have a team level view of progress (kanban is one approach, and not a bad one, story backlogs are another, etc.) because any large initiative requires dependency management, throughput flow visibility, and coordination across teams.
Yes, individual small teams with autonomy perform best and should have minimal hard dependencies on other teams. "one piece continuous flow" is similar what he's describing as the optimal team flow with minimal waste, which is what Toyota sought to reach in as many teams as they could. Kanban and such approaches for signaling queues and jobs was a patch when it wasn't possible to get "one piece continuous flow"
But in complex products and projects .. dependencies, uncertainty in requirements, design, knowledge, etc. lead to queues, and thus a need for visibility of the queue. this requires active management of priorities, timelines, risks, and resource allocation, so that it isn't just a blind exercise of "trust me bro".
Progress is also best described as "jobs to be done" (whether user stories, or kanban tasks, or whatever) rather than lines of code or other poor metrics. .. learning things is a job to be done... iterating on design is a job to be done... if these lead to new tangents, restarts, cancellations, code removal, or elimination of bad components, sub-projects, or approaches is just as valuable in the long run as creating new things. All of that requires "collaboration".
I think the issue isn't "collaboration" it is poor "management" and process to organize humans for results.