1. 14
  1.  

  2. 5

    This is great:

    When we are surrounded by artifacts and systems that represent an earlier way of doing things, it is almost like they have a magnetic pull. What we believe is possible depends upon what we’ve experienced and it’s unfortunate that many people haven’t experienced great culture, teams, or technical practice. Training, workshops and books can help but they aren’t real experience; they are borrowed experience. They aren’t the same as a real work environment.

    Social and cultural forces (often hidden) determine almost everything else. Trying to solve problems solely by imparting technical knowledge is doomed to fail.

    1. 3

      Sounds like good advice, but easier to say than successfully do I think.

      Good onboarding is hard work, and will impact the gateway team’s productivity. It could hamper their morale too, if their new hires keep being moved to other teams just when they start finding their feet. Though if the hiring rate is not too high, it might be sustainable.

      If I was hired for my unique skill set I would be a bit sceptical joining if the hiring team wanted me to spend several months with an unrelated team first. If the hiring team are just after warm bodies, rather than key skills, this would be less of an issue. If any internal transfer from the gateway team would work, and any “old-timer” was willing to move, they could have their hire immediately and the gateway team would get the backfill.

      If the hiring rate is higher, to the extent you’re adding teams, you might be better off growing the gateway teams beyond their comfortable size and splitting them.

      1. 1

        Perhaps explicitly task those people with bringing the better status to an existing team, giving people explicit institutional buy in while avoiding people despondently finding other places to work.