1. 28

  2. 21

    The worst things in this article are not the “anti-patterns” but the author’s belief in a “meritocracy” (as if skill was the only thing rewarded on in any company, and not biases) and the rejection of a candidate due to “cultural fit” (a great way to form a gross monoculture) - I really hope the software industry soon learns to think of these things as awful ideas.

    1. 12

      Sometimes cultural fit is just a nice way of saying the person would be toxic to the team. I’ve seen it more than a few times with the title-obsessed.

      1. 4

        How could you both have a meritocratic environment and reject people based on a perceived culture fit?

      2. 4

        It’s strongly normative towards a very particular method of software development. I don’t think that it’s useful to generalize from that, as I’ve worked with very productive people who do not share the “roll up your sleeves and apply your mind-bursting sagacity by working 27 hour days” mentality.

        1. 1

          Isn’t culture by definition singular ? How can a company have more than two cultures for developers ?

          1. 5

            “Monoculture” doesn’t mean “one culture.” It means “a culture composed of only one type of thing.” The term comes from agriculture.

          2. 1

            The authors use of words are unfortunate here, both “meritocracy” and “culture fit” are now bad words in the tech industry (and for good reasons that I’ll save for another comment on another day)

            But reading the article, it’s clear that the author is not advocating these in the way that we read them. In the article:

            • Meritocracy - valuing people over job titles, particularly with removing one of the bigger biases out there
            • Culture fit - rejecting someone that is title obsessed, someone that thinks a bigger title means more power

            Both of these seem reasonable and I don’t see anything else in the article promoting meritocracy or to suggest that he’s building a monoculture.

          3. 2

            (the pathologies are gendered weird? why use neutral pronouns for half and female for one and male for another???)

            1. 8

              My friend, there is no pleasing you :) I personally prefer the neutral pronoun “their” “they” even for singular use.

              1. 2

                Agreed. Very troubling. The one female role hints at something many women have spoken about; that their roles are not taken seriously, even when they have senior titles.

                I sent the author an email, explaining this and encouraging him to keep the whole thing gender-neutral. We’ll see.