The epistemology of software quality – Studies show that human factors most influence the quality of our work. So why do we put so much stake in technical solutions?

It really boggles my mind the extent to which the factors discussed here get ignored, in favor of arrangements that produce mediocre work and a stressed out environment. I watched that take hold at my own workplace - I wasn't a software developer, but our company did make software. I helped to manage our customer service end of things, and for a little while actually got to see what it looks like when you do focus on stuff like consistent scheduling and the well being of people.

They were phenomenal. They could approach damn near anything and get it to a workable place, if not fix a problem outright. Most problems, got handled at the first hurdle too. Escalated shit became rare, and what did make it to me often didn't need any specialized help; my coworkers had done everything, and what was left was to just make it plain to folks a lot of the time. My coworkers were knowledgeable, and when they weren't, they trusted each other enough to ask for what they didn't know or couldn't do.

I watched all that come completely apart and a big chunk of why that was, was a shift in focus to process over well being. The impression leadership gave was that you just needed to implement the right strategy, twist the knobs in such a way, and that would somehow, magically keep the team 100% efficient 100% of the time. No consideration of things like what the incentive structure actually looked like, or whether we were creating a good environment. And nevermind that as these changes took hold, the quality of everything severely degraded. Individuals no longer had the drive nor the skill to really handle what was coming. Everything became escalated for no other reason than "I am the only one who knows what to do". Management would scratch their heads continuously, and constantly tweak processes that simply weren't relevant. They treated folks like machines and just sort of dumbly kept asking themselves why shit was going wrong. They'd change another process, it would produce worse results, and they wouldn't ever accept responsibility for causing that outcome. The worst was implementing a ranking system - you've got a team with very low morale, very little trust, and very little coordination, and basically tell that team "ok, now only about 1/5 of you are getting a raise at all so you better be good", and then make the raise shit in the first place (like, less than a dollar an hour shit, annually). You've removed really all positive incentive from the system, and forced competition. Guess what happened? Folks turned on each other and set to work gaming this silly ranking system. There is no coordination now because folks are more concerned with looking better than each other, than with actually being good at what they're doing. Those who appear the best get praised, and their inefficiencies end up metastasizing in an environment with zero accountability. Everyone knows too, so really the prevailing notion is "I'm just here till I have enough money to leave". There is no possibility of this team operating as well as it used to. The things that made it what it was, were replaced with inadequate alternatives.

Point of all this to say, the article is right by my measure. I've seen it work. I've also seen just how badly it can all fuck up when you shift the focus back to technical solutions over folks' well-being. Its not even about what's moral or something, this approach simply produces better results. Entry level folk learn things. Mid level gets experience with directing and delegating. Leadership gets to spend time being helpful and encouraging (instead of chasing folks down to finish stuff and come to work). Managers get more time to actually do the real job and help get folks up the damn ladder. At least personally, that's what I saw my purpose as, and the end result of all this was the destruction of that possibility. When it became clear their approach meant my reputation was being damaged, I left.

It's not hard to do. It's not some big mystery how to organize work to achieve better productivity, unless you're the sort who refuses to acknowledge how a human body tends to operate. Then it does become a big mystery, because there isn't actually an answer to "how do I make this fish climb this tree". You can't. Maybe you can throw it and get it high up there, but it will fall back down and flop on the ground and you've nothing to show for it. Just a dead fish.