Grady Booch delivered the following axiom at BrainstormTECH last week: “The average work of the average worker is average”. At first, it sounded perfectly rational. But on second take, I got really bothered by this. It’s based on an assumption of bad, average, and good as being static attributes of a person that I find whole fully offensive and narrow minded.
In my experience, we’re all capable of bad, average, and good work. I’ve certainly done bad work at times and plenty of average work. What I’ve realized is that the good and the exceptional work is at least as much about my environment as it is about me. Average environments begets average work.
Good people do bad work or worse all the time
Just think of all the great people and startups that have disappeared into some big borg of a company, only to come out after a few years on the other side with little to show for the trip. Even so-called exceptional people can do unmemorable work when they’re placed in inept environments.
Or think of how easily good people can be made to do bad things when put under the right circumstances. The Stanford Prison Experiment is a good example of the banality of evil.
That’s not to say that we’re all created equal and that star power can be unlocked with hippie music and sandals alone. Just that there’s a ton of untapped potential trapped under crappy policies, poor direction, and stifling bureaucracies. People waiting to do great work if given the chance.
No one can be a rock star without a great scene
So if you want your team to excel, quit thinking about how you can land a room full of rock stars and ninjas (note to recruiters: even if these terms weren’t just misguided, they’d be tired by now anyway). Start thinking about the room instead!
Here are three questions to think about as you begin to self-diagnose your environment:
- Do you value effort over effect?
Someone who stays up all night working is a hero, but getting the work done and leaving early marks someone who isn’t a “team player”. - Do you trust people to do the right thing?
We don’t count vacation days and we give everyone a company credit card but require no real expense reports. - Do you encourage questioning?
Ending discussions with “because I want it like that” or explaining policies with “because that’s the way it is”.
But most importantly, stop using the perceived quality of your team as an excuse for why you can’t try or follow new ideas. That’s a self fulfilling prophesy that’ll never fail to disappoint. Humans are incredibly eager to live down to low expectations.
P.S.: You’ll know you’re committing this fallacy when you start your comment to a Getting Real post with “but that would never work here” (it probably would, you just need the courage to try), “sure, you can do that because you have a team full of star players” (we have star players because we do it like that), or “we can’t all just do it like that” (don’t worry about all, just worry about you — and you probably could).
Justin
on 28 Jul 08An incredibly accurate assessment. Studies have shown the importance of environment in improving childhood learning - and that’s just focusing on the physical environment, to say nothing of culture. Your reference to the Stanford prison experiment is a brilliant one, which I had not thought of before - proof that expectations, environment, and culture can quickly reshape anyone’s ethos.
I’m currently contracting for an organization in which there is NO natural light where everyone sits—it’s an incredibly dismal environment, and it begets dismal work. I have no idea whoever came up with the idea of cubefarms, but they certainly don’t improve productivity in any way. Open environments that encourage communication (a la Google) or creativity (the personalized nooks of Pixar) go a long way towards creating a physical environment that improves work.
Unfortunately, in a culture that encourages the increase of (short-term) profit with the merciless cutting of cost, any unnecessary expenses on improving the environment are often seen as frivolous.
Anonymous Coward
on 28 Jul 08Luckily, I work at a place that doesn’t mind if I take off a little early or come in a little late so long as the things on my plate are being taken care of. I know plenty of people that don’t and that are expected to hang around the offices for hours after the standard closing time because otherwise it looks like they aren’t preforming up to the standards the rest of the team.
And damn if this isn’t the biggest morale boost. Given this, I don’t mind staying up until extremely late to hunt down the last bug before a release. I don’t mind getting called at 2pm on Sunday when I’m relaxing because of a production bug that sprouted up.
The physical aesthetics of an office might be a huge factor for some people, and those are important, but for me it’s always been about how management treats the rank-and-file (and how big of a distinction there is between the two.)
condor
on 28 Jul 08Based on no evidence other than my own experience I’m beginning to believe that while nature blesses some people with greater ‘assets’ (talent/intelligence/charisma etc.) than others, there’s more than enough variance in environment/personal choices/drive etc. to significantly influence output and more than compensate for the lack of those assets. Human potential is a very deep well.
David Andersen
on 28 Jul 08I wonder how much of the problem of valuing effort over effect is because managers don’t recognize good effect, don’t understand how to get it and thus use effort as a proxy?
Dave P
on 28 Jul 08David, one of the best articles you’ve written, I think.
One thing I'd like to add though, is that in my years managing people I've noticed that this whole concept of not leading people around with a string (or giving them the environment to be exceptional) is so foriegn that some of them reject it outright.They just can’t cope in a productive environment because they’re either, a) not mature enough to self manage to this extent or b) not able to do anything but regurgitate, due to years of learning and performing in the wrong environments.
While this is a minority, I think it serves to be stated explicitly. Right people + right environment == results, squared!
David Andersen
on 28 Jul 08“Human potential is a very deep well.”
Absolutely. In my experience as an athlete and a coach, I’ve seen many examples of this. Setting the bar high ends up having a lot of people jumping much higher than anyone – including themselves – thought they could jump.
Jesper
on 28 Jul 08Anonymous Coward: I have no idea if you made the connection or even intended to do so, but when David talks about environment above, he doesn’t just mean how the workplace looks like.
Environment is about how the workplace looks like aesthetically and how it feels like. It’s about statistical and geological factors like how much you make, severance pay, vacation and where the workplace is located. But more than anything it’s about people’s attitude towards each other, towards work itself, towards the company and towards clients. If that’s okay, it can forgive a lot of other aspects, but every part of it can be improved to improve the environment as a whole.
LBDG
on 28 Jul 08I second the “best article you’ve written” comment, and add that the PS at the end was an absolutely classic “getting real” ending :)
Jake
on 28 Jul 08Incidentally, this is some of what Joel Spolsky discusses in Joel on Software, and I take some of his work as a base for my discussion of how to find grant writers, generalizing from programmers to intellectual workers more generally in a fashion similar to this post.
Charles
on 28 Jul 08Culture is by far the biggest factor. If you include culture in the domain of “environment”, I agree. If not, I disagree.
(Legal eagles define environment and culture as the same, e.g. “hostile work environment”)
Keith
on 28 Jul 08There are places where the expense card example won’t work because of government regulatory oversight, but I agree with the gist of the article completely. Very well thought out.
Aside from the financial thing there aren’t many places that couldn’t make the environment better somehow. Look at how much money has been poured into FISH! training (http://www.charthouse.com/content.aspx?name=home2)around the world!
Finding a good group of people should be about finding people that work well together. Sometimes people with questionable skillsets make incredibly important and valuable contributions to a project becaues they add something to a team.
John T. Kennedy
on 28 Jul 08“It’s based on an assumption of bad, average, and good as being static attributes of a person that I find whole fully offensive and narrow minded.”
Not at all, it’s based on the concept of average. Everyone can’t be above average David, regardless of their dynamic qualities and regardless of environment.
You may want to say that anyone can be above average. That may be true, but it in no way conflicts with Booch’s observation.
Hugo Stevens
on 28 Jul 08David,
This has to be my favorite single post. Not only because you explain in a very practical way what Bob Sutton and Jeffrey Pfeffer have been arguing for years about getting great results from normal people and how expectations affect outcomes, but especially because of the ending. Or to say it differently, Want great work from your team? Get out of the way and get rid of the excuses; most of them are probably your fault anyway.
Mark Holton
on 28 Jul 08Culture is so key.
Anonymous Coward
on 28 Jul 08I couldn’t agree more. The environment was the main reason I left my last position.
Pamela
on 28 Jul 08As a manager and an employee, I have found that the above article is absolutely true. I became a manager a few years ago and was given the team of “problem” people. They didn’t perform or weren’t focused on team efforts. So I spent a lot of time with them and found out what was important. I began making open schedules and let them move from 9 – 5 to 6 – 2 to avoid traffic. That helped, so I started to think outside of those lines. If they wanted to work the first four hours of the day and the last four that was fine.
Then it came to me. It’s not the hours; it’s the work. We started in March of this year cataloging the work. We worked out a strategy to manage the flow and check in once a week. My team is now the highest performing team. Their engagement is high and the product is solid.
Vlad
on 28 Jul 08I’ve been working at a company part-time for the last 4 years (working on my college degree). I have no real vacation days but I can take a vacation whenever I want. So far, I’ve never had any problems because I’m trusted to “do the right thing”. On average, I take about the same amount of vacation time as anyone else…
Justin
on 28 Jul 08@Pamela Your technique seems so rare in the tech industry. I think we’re still trying to manage 21st century jobs by Industrial Revolution standards.
Jesper
on 28 Jul 08That’s true, but you can perform above your own average level, when the average level is defined as somewhere around halfway between the absolute worst and the absolute best you can perform.
Justin
on 28 Jul 08Another thing that drives me crazy about some cultures is the limits placed on use of the internet. Blocking pr0n is obviously sensible, but blocking anything else - instant messenger, gmail, etc - is downright insulting, and frequently counterproductive. My current contract location even blocks Evernote, even though I use it to keep track of code snippets and other programming errata.
Bottom line, if you can’t trust your employees to use the internet acceptably, you shouldn’t employ them. Likewise, if your employer isn’t comfortable enough to let you use a computer without the internet nannying, then you probably shouldn’t work there.
john
on 28 Jul 08“The average work of the average worker is average”.
#If “average work” is regarded as baseline for the average worker, then the above is true for all workers, right? Statistics are tricky, and I’m not good at them.
So maybe we’ll
john
on 28 Jul 08So maybe we’ll have to say: the average worker can increase their baseline performance with a positive environment, but on the whole, their work will fluctuate around their baseline.
So two workers, in the same environment, will have different baselines, right?
So some people are smarter than others, regardless, and a truly exceptional person can overcome even horrible enviros, right?
So the comment is correct, but perhaps not as accurate as could be, given we all have a fluctuating baseline dependent on environments.
Damon
on 28 Jul 08I tend to agree, but only to a point. I also believe that more people don’t want this environment you speak of than do. You’ve got to pick those who want it. The trick is to provide an environment that attracts the right people.
I don’t care how much trust and support you give a bunch of TSA agents, they will still be TSA agents at heart. You’re talking about people who were attracted to the polar opposite of the environment you want to foster. Trying to encourage them to act like hipster software developers just isn’t very helpful.
You gotta let people be who they are.
Steve Freeman
on 28 Jul 08Alan Kay wrote somewhere that it took him years to realise that the special culture when he was studying at U. Utah, in the early days of ARPA, made him smarter. I’ve experienced the same effect a couple of times in my life, and I think it also explains why industries still gather in clusters. I’ve been trying to get back ever since :)
Ed Sumerfield
on 28 Jul 08A great article that really hits home. However, it is a little biased towards one side of the equation.
In reality, good and bad do exist, like it or not. The world is not all teddy bears and candy canes.
Some developers suck. Some suck all the time, some only sometimes. We could measure a developers effectiveness by the % they suck each day.
This isn’t a bad thing. Reality says that if I suck, I need to learn. I look forward to finding where I suck so that I know what to learn. We can’t be frightened of being bad.
Having level set that concept I must agree completely that the environment/culture drives the ability of every person to excel. This is a primary requirement of a work environment.
However, when building a team, you can not close your eyes to the relative levels each person may excel to.
One of the pieces of magic that comes up in a positive environment is that we are able to exclaim to the team that we suck and the team can redesign the environment to minimize the chances of that happening again.
Open failure in a poor environment doesn’t exist, so there is no opportunity for improvement.
Anonymous Coward
on 28 Jul 08I’ve been working at a company for just under a year. I was recruited under the guise that as long as you got your work done, you could leave at 1 if you wanted to. I worked my ass off for on average 5 hours a day until I was told that others were “starting to notice.” Now I sit at my desk from 9-5 while actually probably working just under two hours a day.
Morning Toast
on 28 Jul 08I’ve found myself in an interesting situation where my actual environment is quite nice. Relaxed setting, extremely casual dress, plenty of time/places to brainstorm…even “team building” activities like video games…all the little cute thinks you might expect. A truly comfortable working environment…
...BUT…with all that I don’t sense a lot of trust from management. Too many egos clash and inhibit real progress, and not enough “Do you trust people to do the right thing?” = Not a productive environment.
I can smash most of my work in a few hours over a few days in a week, but doing so leaves me worrying about someone noticing my “wasted time,” which isn’t a good feeling. So the result is spreading out work which can lead to gaps in thoughts, inconsistent quality, etc.
Out of the three bullets mentioned, as a worker, I value trust and effect over everything else. Working hard should not be judged by hours worked but quality of the results. Anyone can work a crazy hours but that doesn’t mean the produce wonderful things. Is it really my fault if I can finish the day’s work in a few hours and others can’t? And you hired me as an expert in my area…let me be that expert and great things can happen. If you think you’re the expert, that will just add weight to the boat.
Bob Leano
on 28 Jul 08This is the first DHH blog entry that I can agree with. It is free of arrogance and holier-than-thou crap that is a DHH signature move.
Andrew
on 29 Jul 08I think you’re spot on. I think this is especially the case for highly creative people – a free environment will allow them to deliver significant output but a frustrating environment crushes them. We tend to judge people as being productive or dead weight and ignore the underlying factors – suitabilty for role, nature of environment, family situation, health, goals, etc.
I don’t think many people do themselves any favors, however, clinging to jobs they hate. In leaving a job I hated this year I had conflicting advice: 1) Push through it, don’t give up, focus more, try harder, we all have things about our jobs that we we hate, versus 2) Follow your heart, do what you can do best, quit if you’re in a cul-de-sac (from Seth Godins book ‘The Dip’).
Number 2 is right. Choose number 1 for too long and you’re accept mediocrity and consigning the rest of your career to frustration and hopelessness.
Other good resources – Sir Ken Robinson’s talk ‘Do schools kill creativity?’ on TED, and Howard Gardner’s seven types of intelligence.
We’re not all the same – we have different skills and interests that require different environments and types of work (and thank God for that).
Scott
on 29 Jul 08“Confidence is contagious. So is lack of confidence.” – Vince Lombardi
Craig Newkirk
on 29 Jul 08@Morning Toast
No one can give you permission to be an expert except yourself. Do the work, ask the questions, be the person / worker YOU think you ought to be. And if your environment isn’t conducive to that, then change it.
I only say this because it’s a challenge I’ve had to face. I’ve learned that I expect more from myself than any person or institution ever will, and that’s because I know subconsciously what I’m capable of. When I lower my own personal expectations and standards to that of others before living up to my own personal standards of excellence, I end up disappointed and worried that someone will notice. However, when I do the best I can do at any given point, any disappointment and self-doubt is immediately erased.
Bacon Today
on 29 Jul 08Its amazing what happens when you instill your trust in others. That trust spreads throughout a working environment like wildfire and allows all the BS to get out of the way and great things to emerge.
If someone on your team shows a lack of trust toward others, just let them know personally that you trust they’ll look inward and see that others can accomplish great things in ways they may never have dreamed.
Miyuki
on 29 Jul 08I have been told by my senior for years; “Great Environment, for Great Work”.
John T. Kennedy
on 29 Jul 08@Jesper
“That’s true, but you can perform above your own average level, when the average level is defined as somewhere around halfway between the absolute worst and the absolute best you can perform.”
1. I don’t think that definition of average performance is even coherent. What’s your absolute best?
2. It’s certainly misleading because it’s not what most people mean when they say: “He’s an average performer.” If Michael Jordan or Garry Kasparov performed halfway between their best and worst, if that even makes sense, I think few would be tempted to call them average performers. If Kasparov had been half the player he was he’d still be better than at least 90% of all players, not average in a reasonable sense.
3. That can hardly be what Booch meant. He surely didn’t mean that nobody improves. I’d be astonished to learn that Booch doesn’t think people perform better in better environments – he clearly wasn’t saying you won’t produce better code if your boss stops hitting you in the head with ping pong balls at random intervals. My point is that there is nothing objectionable in what Booch said, in fact it’s nearly a tautology. It looks to me like David badly misconstrued Booch. There’s nothing in this piece that contradicts Booch.
Anonymous Coward
on 29 Jul 08WFH
Don Schenck
on 29 Jul 08I have a customer (I’m a self-employed .NET developer) that has a very average environment. The work is mediocre—well, not mine, because the same passion that drives someone to be self-employed also drives them to do great work.
It’s tough to go there in the morning. Imagine working in a library with 25-year old books; that’s the feeling you get.
Good point, in my opinion.
@Bob Leano: What you perceive as “arrogance” is simply the self-confidence that we very successful people carry around with us. You’ll not be successful without an ego. That’s my opinion.
dj lemon
on 29 Jul 08i wonder how you could convince your boss that the average space needs to be spiced up without having the money factor be overwhelming. being in cubes sucks.
Don Schenck
on 29 Jul 08@dj lemon: You could come in some weekend and tear down some cubicles. THAT would get some attention!
I cut the intercomm speaker wires at a place I worked once; it was too annoying when trying to code. No one ever said a word…
Keith
on 29 Jul 08That works over here too.
Aida
on 29 Jul 08I completely agree with this article that environment is HUGE factor. The only thing I would add is that its really about mutual reprocity, the only way you get exceptional peformance in that environment are to have the people who believe in the mindset of the environment. You can’t take a any narrow minded joe and expect him to evolve and put him in there and expect it to just work. What I’ve learned is that for it to work, everyone on the team needs to believe in it.
The environment makes people aspire to be greater and in turn the people continue to aspire for a greater environment.
Ro
on 29 Jul 08Great insight D2H—this helps gives credit where it’s due.
This reminds me of the “Fish Philosophy” video: it is almost impossible to change a work culture (i.e. work environment), and a good work culture is essential to a successful business, so you must create a positive work culture from the get-go.
It’s not mainly the physicality of the workplace that creates the culture; mainly it’s the leadership—they must be not just smart and hardworking, but ethical, respectful, trusting and generous… and hire for those qualities first and foremost.
sensei
on 30 Jul 08Hey! I didn’t spent 12 years in ninja school just so you could tell me I’m not a ninja, thank you very much! :-)
NL
on 30 Jul 08Very well put.
I think trust is so fundamentally important that it frustrates me when I feel like I am not trusted by the company I work for. Having transitioned from a small to medium to huge company through 2 acquisitions in the last year, I’ve noticed that the bigger an organization, the less trust there is. I understand the problems with having to manage tens of thousands of employees worldwide, but if you can’t trust them, why hire them in the first place? The most frustrating thing is finding out important company news through a press release before receiving an announcement about it internally. Nothing says “we don’t trust you with important information” than pulling something like that.
Thankfully, on a smaller level, within the group I work in, the environment is very different. There is trust, effect is valued over effort, and questioning is usually encouraged. It’s just hard to reconcile this micro-environment with the larger corporate environment.
This discussion is closed.