This is not universally true in my experience. People who take pride in their work will often go the extra mile, without being asked. I don’t “blame”, I just correlate.
Maybe this is the answer: if someone needs a guarantee then they are probably a bad fit for a highly effective team. Highly effective people look for opportunities instead of guarantees perhaps.
If I knew, I would be writing articles, not asking questions...
In my experience this is not true. I know lots of grunt work that gets done in both paid and open source projects that no one likes, by volunteers with nothing extra to gain. Those mundane tasks are necessary for the larger good, and folks can see past their short term motivations.
Those that respond and raise their hands to do the icky work everyone else tries to avoid seem highly correlated with leadership skills and better communication skills.
I am not confounding good work with good people. I very often see great people deliver poor work. I rarely see bad people. I can be a great person and want to succeed at something I am I’ll equipped to do professionally, or for whatever reason am not fully engaged in.
Personally, yes, I feel working for a paycheck only is a sure sign of a bad fit/attitude. Maybe I have an unrealistic view, but I think people should work for more than that, or else find a more rewarding and engaging profession...life is too short to punch the clock (ymmv).
While very few intentionally make mistakes, I find it takes extraordinary effort to maintain the discipline to intentionally not make mistakes. A mistake is not always an erroneous action, it can be the omission of careful attentive proactive action.
My thesis (and practical experience) is that you can deliver good software with ineffective teams, contrary to the myth of 10x rock star hire-only-the-best mantras. But my question is how others use tools and techniques to reliably do this vs. gut feel and trial and error. I know it can be done, just as I know you can hire 10x coders and still fail a project.
Edit/postscript: you can also have (and often do) great people who as individuals can be highly effective, but fail to communicate or collaborate as a team. This is probably more common in larger orgs or in my specific cases, teams that span multiple orgs. You often have to manage great people who are poor communicators via nudges without direct hiring/firing or performance review leverage...aka “dotted lines”.
Yes very serious question, and very real (multiple orgs). And most times the team manager has zero control over hiring or firing. Nor any access to C level decision makers, who are buffered by layers of HR.
The orgs I have seen this in are 100% safe - highly profitable, and often funded by government or at least heavily subsidized.
So, if I understand your assessment...managers who see this reality should simply leave, instead of using skill and tools to deliver value in a difficult setting? That seems overly pessimistic to me.
Ok but serious question...what do you do with highly ineffective teams that you inherit, and/or are contractors, and/or are the only engineers available, and/or are only motivated by a paycheck, and/or would rather be working on their five side projects, etc..... in many cases who have demonstrated repeatedly that they make lots of mistakes and get sloppy and will fully refuse to cooperate.
Yet your job is to somehow produce high quality software. This is the not uncommon outside elite startups in my experience.
I’m not interested in gigs but I am interested in open process|source security audits. Most recently kubernetes and CNCF security audits, but the frameworks and principles should be the same. Would you be interested in free (as in open) security audits that can benefit a much larger community? For example see:
https://github.com/cncf/sig-security/issues/153
If interested, comment on the GHI or happy to chat offline.
Offer open to any other projects or company interested in real world security audits using open and transparent process.
Looks really interesting but wow do they have every conversion hack enabled which makes it look super spammy IMHO. I’m all for converting, but there is a fine line between pitching your product and “But wait! There’s more!”
Maybe this is the answer: if someone needs a guarantee then they are probably a bad fit for a highly effective team. Highly effective people look for opportunities instead of guarantees perhaps.
If I knew, I would be writing articles, not asking questions...