It's a strange paradox. It took the manufacturing industry 50 years to move past the ideas of Frederick Winslow Taylor, known as Taylorism or Scientific Management. Yet in software development, a creative, knowledge-based discipline where these ideas are least effective, we continue to apply them universally.
Taylorism in a software context is the practice of maximizing the local utilization of each individual. We treat people like resources in a factory, keeping them 100% busy with their specialized tasks. This creates a cascade of perverse incentives that actively undermine collaboration, destroy flow, and cripple the efficiency of the entire system.
This article explores the three most common traps this thinking creates and offers a practical, systemic path toward improvement.
1. The Trap of Resource Efficiency
The Core Fallacy
Most organizations are obsessed with individual performance and 100% resource utilization. The goal is to keep every person busy all the time, believing this equates to maximum productivity. However, basic queueing theory teaches us that running any system at full capacity only generates blockages, chronic bottlenecks, and massive wait times. As a wise colleague once said, "If we optimize locally, in most cases we make everything worse."
The Connection to Taylorism
This is a direct application of Taylorism: maximizing the utilization of each "human resource" locally. We decompose work, assign it to specialists, and measure them on their individual output, ignoring the devastating impact on the system as a whole.
The Consequences
When you incentivize local optimization, the negative results are entirely predictable.
- Perverse local incentives: We reward metrics that are easy to measure but destructive to the whole. This includes rewarding a high number of commits, celebrating people for "being 100% busy," or lionizing "heroes" who constantly put out fires.
- Predictable negative results: These incentives inevitably lead to chronic bottlenecks, constant rework (also known as "failure demand" because you're fixing things that failed the first time), and a toxic hero culture where knowledge is hoarded and collaboration is discouraged.
The Alternative: Flow Efficiency
The antidote to this trap is shifting our focus from resource efficiency to flow efficiency. The book This is Lean explains the difference well.
- Resource Efficiency: This is a process where work is handed off between specialists in silos. To keep each specialist busy, a queue of work forms before each handoff. From the customer's perspective, this is incredibly inefficient, as their request spends most of its time waiting in a queue.
- Flow Efficiency: This is a team-based approach where everyone collaborates to finish a single piece of work. There are no "my parts." The team owns the work from start to finish. This delivers value to the customer much faster and eliminates the immense waste and rework inherent in siloed handoffs.
2. The Trap of Disconnecting from "Why"
The "Feature Factory" Anti-Pattern
A common anti-pattern is the "feature factory," where teams operate like an assembly line. Someone defines requirements, others implement them, and no one on the team connects with the customer or the actual impact of the work. Success is measured by output, not outcome.
The Connection to Taylorism
This is another core tenet of Taylorism: the rigid separation of "thinkers" from "doers." It promotes the unquestioning execution of specifications, regardless of whether those specifications actually solve a real customer problem.
The Predictable Results
Building without a clear purpose has disastrous and wasteful consequences.
- Irrelevant products: Features are built that nobody uses.
- Wasted talent: People work hard on things that simply don't matter.
- Unnecessary complexity: Technology is over-engineered without a connection to a real-world need, creating a massive maintenance burden.
Advocate for Empowered Teams
The alternative is an empowered product team that deeply understands the purpose of its work: what problem they are solving, for whom, and why. These teams don't just blindly follow specs; they adapt solutions to meet real user needs, achieving far greater impact and velocity with less effort.
The Evolution to a Product Team
The journey from a siloed, handoff-driven process to a true product team is an evolution. An effective model shows the team's boundary of collaboration expanding across the entire value stream. In a traditional Waterfall model, each step (Opportunity Selection, Design, Build, Test, Release, Run) is a separate silo. In an ideal Product Team, the entire team collaborates across the whole process, from identifying the opportunity to operating the solution and learning from its impact.
3. The Trap of Deferred Quality
The Core Myth
There's a false dilemma that pits quality against velocity. We're taught to believe there's a tradeoff: you can be "fast without quality" or "slow with quality." This is a foundational myth in our industry.
The Truth
The data is clear. As shown in years of research from the Accelerate/DORA reports, the highest-performing teams have both high quality and high speed. The truth is: Quality does not compete with velocity; it enables it. Of course, context matters. A one-shot script, an MVP, or a proof of concept have different quality constraints than a core product. But for any sustainable product development, building quality in from the start through practices like testing and fast feedback is the only path to sustainable speed. A low-quality approach leads to a progressive slowdown as technical debt and failures accumulate.
The Connection to Taylorism
This myth is a direct descendant of a Taylorist mindset. It treats productivity as a measure of immediate outputs, ignoring sustainability. Quality is seen as a separate, final inspection phase, rather than something built into the process from the beginning.
The Negative Cycle
This mindset creates a system that actively discourages quality.
- Perverse Incentives: The system rewards behaviors that produce low quality. We celebrate heroes who fix crises (often of their own making), equate long hours on weekends with commitment, and reward improvised hacks that create future problems.
- Predictable Results: The consequences are severe and unavoidable. Teams are trapped in a cycle of chronic firefighting. Technical debt grows relentlessly, and the organization suffers from a high rate of talent drain as good people flee the constant chaos.
4. The Path Forward: Systemic Improvement
As W. Edwards Deming taught, over 90% of an organization's performance is a result of the system, not the individuals within it. The responsibility of management is not to blame people but to change the system so that work can flow and people can grow.
Here are actionable strategies to start changing your system.
Lead by Example
As a manager, you must model the behaviors you want to see. If you want teams to write tests, you should write tests. If you want them to refactor, you refactor. Make the desired behaviors visible and celebrate them publicly. Your job is to improve the system, not to find culprits.
Embrace Blameless Postmortems
Analyze incidents and errors transparently with the sole purpose of finding and fixing systemic weaknesses. The goal is to learn and improve, not to assign blame. When the system allows a mistake to happen, the focus must be on strengthening the system.
Show Vulnerability to Build Safety
To create an environment of psychological safety where people feel comfortable highlighting problems, leaders must be the first to show vulnerability. I often share my own past mistakes like the time I took down the phone system for an entire town or made a critical DNS error. Sharing these stories openly shows that errors are a part of work and that the important thing is what we learn from them.
Hack Your Performance Reviews
Traditional performance reviews are often toxic, reinforcing the individualistic, Taylorist mindset. If you are required to use them, hack them. Sometimes you must reinterpret corporate-level mandates to create the right local incentives. Subordinate individual accomplishments to the person's contribution to the team's overall impact. Focus on how they helped the team succeed, not just what they did on their own.
Build End-to-End Ownership
Create cross-functional teams that own a problem from end to end. This often means fighting against the silo mentality. A strategy I've used is to have my team actively take on more work (like operations or QA tasks) to eliminate external dependencies. This gives the team full control, deepens their knowledge, and allows them to optimize for the entire value stream.
Redefine 'Done'
A task is not "done" when the code is committed. It's not "done" when it's deployed. Work is only truly "done" when its impact on the customer has been validated with real feedback. This reinforces a product mindset and focuses the team on outcomes, not just output.
Hire for Mindset
Prioritize mindset and attitude over a checklist of specific technical skills. You can teach someone a new programming language; it's much harder to teach them that quality is their responsibility.
- Product Thinking: Ask product management questions in interviews, like "What products do you admire and why?" or "How would you measure the impact of this feature?" Invite product managers into engineering interviews to help assess this.
- Collaboration: Assess real collaboration, not just talk. When possible, have candidates work with the team for a day (in a paid, respectful way) on a real problem.
- Flexibility: Your career path must reward generalists who provide flexibility, not just specialists.
Master Your Workflow with Kanban
Many teams use Kanban boards, but few use them correctly as a pull system. The three most important rules are:
- Use WIP (Work In Progress) limits. This is the simplest and most powerful way to optimize flow.
- Read the board from right to left. During stand-ups, review the work, not the people. Start with what's closest to being "done" (validated impact) and work backward. The focus must always be on finishing work, not starting new work.
- Use slack to unblock. When WIP limits leave someone without an immediate task, they should not pull new work. Their job is to help colleagues with open tasks, unblocking work further down the chain.
Reducing Resistance by Turning Change Into Experiments
The status quo naturally resists change. To move forward, we need to build the capability to generate change continuously, not just through occasional big initiatives. Approaches inspired by Lean Change Management can help: make small, frequent adjustments, learn quickly, and evolve based on evidence rather than assumptions.
One powerful tactic is to present changes as experiments. Framing them this way reduces resistance, creates psychological safety, and encourages people to engage with curiosity rather than fear. Even when the goal is meaningful transformation, breaking it into small, testable steps makes progress far more sustainable.
Define clear success criteria and a limited timeframe. This lowers resistance and allows you to validate ideas with data. As Grace Hopper famously said, “It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission.”
Conclusion: A Better Way to Work
A bad system will always defeat a good person. The Taylorist principles so common in our industry create systems that are destined to fail, leading to wasted effort, frustrated teams, and mediocre results.
We are discovering better ways to work. Through this experience, we have learned to value:
- Collaboration and shared responsibility over heroes and a culture of blame.
- Global optimization over local efficiency and specialized silos.
- Significant impact and results over occupation and "being busy."
- Autonomy with purpose over rigid control and supervision.
- Continuous learning and adaptation over predefined and static processes.
By focusing on changing the system instead of blaming the people, we can create environments where teams can truly thrive and deliver exceptional value.
 |
| Management frameworks and their impact on software development. |
Further Reading and Resources
- The Efficiency Paradox by Niklas Modig: A key resource for understanding the difference between Resource Efficiency and Flow Efficiency.
- The resource utilization trap by Henrik Kniberg: A short video that clearly explains why aiming for 100% utilization is a trap.
- The Red Bead Experiment by W. Edwards Deming: A powerful demonstration that performance and quality depend on the system, not on individual effort. It's a vital reminder that systemic issues require systemic fixes.
- For more on these topics:
No comments:
Post a Comment