How can something bringing value (read: money) to a lot of companies all around the world be considered "cargo cult"? As developers we are lucky enough that the market is so so wide, that if you don't like a company (heck, even just a person in a company) you can just change. So, nah, I don't buy it. Management is the real cargo cult, if we have to find one. People so aroused by the idea of mentoring (lol) other people (even more mature than them, quite often)... Look up "developer anarchy" on YouTube.
If you don't really like your job as an engineer, it makes total sense. Management means, well, management: check on people, approve time off, help people with some wise-sounding standard advice and fake coaching. I've thought about that as well. Oh, don't tell me it depends on the company, I have a fair experience in very big corps and small startups. Variations on the same theme.
In the end, my advice to other people would be: try to find a job you really like, something you're passionate about if you can, and avoid politics and drama (well, unless that's your passion of course).
On such a long term horizon, you should consider staff turnover, which is never zero. So, no, what you're inferring from those "postulates" is incorrect.
I worked for a big dotcom company in the past and
1) there was a cap on headcount (as it's usually the case), so a lot gets outsourced
2) they don't care about internal domain knowledge: everybody should be replaceable at any time, ramp up costs are not even taken into account. Companies that wants employees to set goals usually are big and usually can afford to lose people with "internal domain knowledge". Even if, of course, they'll try not to do that, but it's still not that big of a deal.
While I really like philosophy (really, I do!), I'm a very practical guy and I'm still missing the evidence that I'm looking for. And I'm pretty sure it won't come in the form of a syllogism :)
I'm not talking about company's goals, but those that some companies want ICs to set for themselves. Obviously companies must have some key objectives to present to the public.
And that's a great explanation of the theory behind that :) and it delights me, every time. But the question, alas, remains unanswered: "would everything work well anyway without such a framework?"
Basically I'm curious about this: we're all applying this framework, taking it for granted. It was there, we accepted it. But I wonder: what if it wasn't there?
I'm building a machine, I know the minimum requirements to make it work. I build it like that and then I think: should I also add to it this other cog as well? Would it improve _somehow_ the machine? Well, the other folks are doing it, heck, I'll do it as well!
Now you have a heavier, more complex, machine, with one more cog, and you don't even know if you really need it.
Sorry for the brutally simple example, but I'm still missing an evidence we really need these frameworks.
How would that help precisely? You should put more effort in hiring, if you're worried about developers not understanding how to help a company grow. In the past I worked for startups and very small startups. The wannabe-corp ones have goals, the real ones don't. They want to stay afloat and grow as well, but transparency is enough motivation for devs to do their job: we need the MVP or we sink, all of us.
Genuine question: do you have experience in management with OKRs? Do you have some examples proving they helped in your career? Even made-up examples, just to understand what people expect from OKRs.
I might argue then that your company does a bad job at hiring :) Also, do you also ask yourself: what is my manager doing? I do and in good, healthy companies I can see that.
Should my boss answer like that, I would be very offended, since I'm a fairly senior developer who doesn't want to manage people and thinks he knows where he's going. If he said that referred to the HR intern, well, he could be right (still offensive, but sometimes right) :)
In my company we have a different "trial period" for promotions and "role-shifting", outside the goals' framework. In my case that doesn't apply then, but I understand your point. You can as well put in place goals for the report in a private way (e.g.: discussions in 121s).
Why do you have to micromanage? Why do you have to measure productivity (especially if the team if productive as a whole - and that's always visible)? Genuinely asking
I get your point. So the premise is that employee's personal desires and company's objectives don't usually tend to align themselves naturally, right? If there were no goals in place, would that be bad? How bad?
I'm familiar with it. Question remains: what's the strongest argument (with supporting data) that it improves something in the company? Anything, even the employee's mood, productivity, etc.
My point is: do you need goals for that? People that want to grow into more senior roles just naturally do more.
It happened to me to have goals that were mere exercises: write a blog post, read that book, follow that course. I'd do those things anyway I really wanted. It doesn't make sense to push people to do that, IMO.
So you value them, right? You must have evidence that they work obviously, would you mind sharing some examples of that? If your company didn't have this policy on goals, would you introduce one?