> If you're engaging in C-suite politics as described in this article, what on earth would be the motivation for writing all this in public? I doubt the situation will evolve favourably to Mr Shore if the leadership team starts reading this.
I didn't get that impression at all from this blog post. I didn't see any "C-suite politics" really at all in this article:
1. At the end of the day, the C-suite is responsible for making the business successful. So it's reasonable to ask for some level of productivity measure, no matter how much engineering objects.
2. I thought the author was extremely insightful about (a) trying to get at the root of what execs really wanted, (b) acknowledging that calculating engineering productivity is notoriously difficult, but then (c) coming up with a best, honest estimate, while still highlighting the potential future pitfalls and the dangers of Goodhart's Law.
In short, I read this article as exactly the kind of engineering leadership a good C-suite would want to keep around and promote.
I didn't get that impression at all from this blog post. I didn't see any "C-suite politics" really at all in this article:
1. At the end of the day, the C-suite is responsible for making the business successful. So it's reasonable to ask for some level of productivity measure, no matter how much engineering objects.
2. I thought the author was extremely insightful about (a) trying to get at the root of what execs really wanted, (b) acknowledging that calculating engineering productivity is notoriously difficult, but then (c) coming up with a best, honest estimate, while still highlighting the potential future pitfalls and the dangers of Goodhart's Law.
In short, I read this article as exactly the kind of engineering leadership a good C-suite would want to keep around and promote.