What is wrong with the work on the result

Increasingly, we hear: " Work for the result! "

“ Work for the result! ” The chief shouts to the subordinate, in order to make this stupid slow-moving nerd who was accepted into the protection team, bring at least some benefit to the common cause.

“ We are working on the result! ” - the brigade of hungry migrant workers praises, hoping that if they shout exactly that, their proposal will stand out at least a little among the hum of the voices of thousands of hungry and unemployed people.
')
“ A focus on results is obligatory! ” - the elderly personnel officer “GorAviaVagonMorStroy” will write to the requirements for a candidate for the position of assistant accountant, being sure that if everyone writes like that, then she needs to.

“ Our motto is“ Work for the Result! ”- just so, with two Big Letters for greater pathos, a young girl-all-in-one writes proudly an assistant to the head of public relations on the corporate website of a regular one-day girl. And this very leader, who does not even know that this secret, it turns out, no less, his assistant, will also use this phrase on a buffet in the city administration in order to create advertising among local bureaucrats.

Cult cargo Few of those who utter this phrase can clearly explain what meaning is put into it. People believe in it, as in a magic formula, a spell, they shove it wherever they go, hoping that it will give them uniqueness, distinguish them from the crowd of the same losers. Organizations, companies, offices and frank "sharagi" do not think of themselves without this slogan. How is it, “Horns and hoofs” work for the result, and we, which is worse?



Is it worse?

What are they all about

In fact, what are all these people about? What do they mean by saying that, unlike others (I wonder who they oppose themselves to ), they work for the result. From whom are they trying to separate, shouting this incompetent slogan?

The last question is the most interesting. How do these same "others" work? Obviously, not “to the result”, otherwise there would be no sense to separate from them. To say that they do not work at all is also impossible, because then the result wouldn’t be worth paying attention to, everything would be much simpler: “ We work [and they don’t]!”

Using the well-known saying, let us accept that the opposite thesis will be “Process Orientation”. Let us memorize it as an antithesis; we will need it later.

So, dividing, as is customary in various pseudo-intellectual articles, the entire set of people into two categories, let's see how they differ. For simplicity, we will consider an example. And since Habr is a resource about okaytishny, then take examples from IT, more precisely, from enikeystva, as a field of knowledge ( ha ha, knowledge in enikiey, pun ), the closest to the author.

An example from the life of enikeyschikov

Andrei and Pavel were assigned the same task: to deploy the installation of a new KIS client in their networks. Andrey coped and reported on the success within the established period, and Pavel reported about the occurrence of certain problems (for simplicity, let's assume that the networks and users of our heroes are the same, the only difference is in themselves). Andrei said it was difficult, but he did. Paul claims that he, too, was difficult and silent, his eyes downcast when asked about the outcome of his efforts.

Which of them is result oriented? Obviously, Andrei. Let's see how he did it.

Unlike Paul, who first asked the sysadmin about what the corporate software deployment strategy says about installing the client to the end points (first, naturally, making sure that she doesn’t say anything about it), Andrei immediately rushed to perform.

Overwhelmed with the awareness of his own need and importance, he ran from one computer to another, driving employees away from workplaces (" Scampling! I have an Order! "), Running Setup.exe, selecting a dozen components, ticking checkboxes, checking all the time with voluminous instructions from a sysadmin, and waited twenty minutes, chatting with pretty female employees and destroying the stocks of cookies accumulated in the "female" departments. Realizing that the pace to meet the deadline will not work, Andrew several times stayed at work. This allowed him to complete the task.

Now let's see what our outsider, Pavel, was doing at that time. After receiving a response from the sysadmin, which, if you completely remove the unprintable vocabulary, sounded like: “ There is nothing to be clever, you will install with pens! ”, Pavel began to read the documentation on the manufacturer’s website. After making sure that the deployment module still exists in nature, but requires a separate license, Pavel began to pick the distribution kit. Spending some effort and some testing time, Pavel received a script that forms an MSI wrapper for installation in AD from the original distribution.



It happened exactly one day after the end of the term. Pavel immediately assigned to deploying a freshly tested package to the network and went "on the carpet" to receive the deserved punishment.

An example from the life of beginners "programmers"

At about the same time, Eugene and Anton, who started enikei-bydlokodery, were given the task to write small modules that ensure the import of data into the organization’s accounting system. Eugene immediately rushed to perform and wrote a thousand lines of selected "noodles". "Noodles" worked and even imported data from test files into the necessary database tables. Directly insolently, bypassing the API, directly into the table. “ No, well , what about ?! ”, said Eugene. His creation worked quickly: he did not use postincrements, built temporary indexes and generally did everything cool. He got the result .

Anton did not write the code, but instead it was useful to understand the import-export interfaces. Having mastered the documentation, he realized that the import had to be done using the “Import” method of the “SuperPuperClass” class, which he had no authority to create instances of. Anton sent an application for obtaining the necessary rights in the system, went through the approval procedure, received the same rights and wrote his importer. But it was too late. Feil

What is common in these examples? While the “loser” ponders the decision and “clever”, the right kid does. He shows "creativity" in the intricacies of govnokod, perseverance in disrupting the workflow of employees who are driven off their familiar warm chairs when installing programs, his determination and dedication is so great that he even lingers at work. He is able to achieve results , he is successful . Unlike.

You say that like it's bad

Well yes. This is "something bad." This is, generally speaking, terrible. But before discussing this seriously, let's see what happened to our heroes.

A year after the events described, a new version of the KIS client came out and Andrei and Pavel received a new update task. Andrew, inspired by his previous experience, rushed to run around the office, delete old versions and install new ones.

The office has grown, opened a small unit on the other side of the city, where the cookies were especially tasty, and the employees were compliant. Successful jet Andrew rushed on the floors, arousing unhealthy interest of young accountants and factorists, but by the end of the third day he realized that he did not have time.

He doesn’t have time to do it so seriously, so seriously that staying in the evening after work ( anyway, Marinka finishes late, I’ll wait for her to be a good excuse to drive ) will not help. Not only do you have to delete the old version of the client ( here you are, bastards, the update doesn’t work on top! ), Not only does the new version take twice as long ( and what those Krivorukovs stuffed there! ), There are also more computers. Andrei no longer controlled the situation. He became a victim of his own desire for results .



Failed Paul sadly launched his dull script. No, he was not a perfect code. Probably, a real programmer would have written better, but Pavel had enough of that. The script crashed due to the fact that the name of one of the folders of the new distribution has changed, but it was not a problem for Paul. One small change in the script config, twenty minutes of waiting for repacking, and here it is, a package for deploying a new version via AD. A dozen mouse movements - and the task of removing the old package, followed by the installation of a new one, was distributed to computers. Boring No drive. No need to achieve results. The result is, but “focus on him” is not.

Eugene's importer three months ago ruined the base. “ No, well, what's that ?! ”, out of habit, said Eugene. " And I cho, I am nothing, " said his boss, who authorized the use of noodles in production. I had to hire an external programmer, who, wading through the wilds of cross-calls, tried in vain to figure out how to be a pervert to come up with such an ugly gigantic “GodClass”, crawling with his vile tentacles into the tender bosom of the base.


Anton's slow and inconspicuous tool slowly and gloomily called methods available through the SuperPuperClass API. These methods performed hundreds of checks on the validity of downloaded data, database tables, schemas, and for some reason, versions of MSXML. Users were somewhat annoyed by the slowness of the process. They didn’t know that the accounting system developer released a major update three months ago, which changed the database structure and updated (actually rewritten) the engine, or that the implementation of the tricky method required a strictly defined version of the XML parser, or that generally exists. Anton was not aware of this, thanks to the professionalism of the developer who left the version compatibility at the API level. Sad weekdays flowed sadly.

Result-oriented solutions turned out to be time bombs. They took root in the office processes and waited for the right moment. No, they did not work immediately, when they were still remembered, when their consequences could be easily eliminated. They, as if possessing a mind and an evil will, aimed at destruction, waited in the wings, waited for the office to grow to increase the scale of destruction.

The superstitious wife of the director, Inga Albertovna, explained everything with the tricks of Manka the secretary. This painted witch with a cut-out to the navel, for sure, brought to the office a box of demons, which all broke. It was necessary to dismiss Manka to Inga Albertovna’s great joy.

Who is guilty

This is how our successful managers usually pose the question. The wording “what is the reason” is very difficult for them, they are used to looking for the “guilty” (probably, to blame it on the responsibility that they themselves would otherwise have to bear). We will not be like these lovely people, and we will first understand the reasons.

And the reason is simple - the very "result-oriented". The contractor has a criterion (“client installed on all PCs or not”, “data was imported from a test file or not”) and builds its activities in such a way as to achieve the fulfillment of this criterion. It would seem that bad? Nothing. In the spherical case in a vacuum - nothing.

In real life, there are many reasons why it does not work as we would like. Consider the most obvious of them - the tendency of man to optimize energy costs and the law of leaky abstractions .

The first factor leads to the fact that the performer, seeing a clear and clear goal, optimizes the activity for its achievement. " I was told to paint the fence, I painted it. Nobody said that it was impossible to paint over the dirt! " " The customer requested import from Excel, I did. There was no speech about importing from old versions! "

Whether we like it or not, the performers will always try to achieve the fulfillment of the task with minimal effort. There are, of course, perfectionists, but they are too few to waste time on them. An ordinary employee, knowing that he can quite honestly report on the fulfillment of the task, going the simplest and most obvious way, will not bother to think about the beauty and scalability of the solution.

They said to put the client, he set. Nobody said “make the client be installed now and quickly deployed with new versions in the future.” On the contrary, the solution of this, far-fetched, task would bring the performer into trouble, as happened with Paul.

Andrei and Eugene just turned out to be more efficient optimizers. They perfectly solved the problem exactly in the framework in which it was set. They effectively achieved results . Three words, so beloved by the Russian leadership, perfectly describe the full depth of their file!

But maybe the mistake was in the formulation of the problem? What if managers just needed to change the wording? Tell Andrei that you need to "deploy the deployment system," and force Eugene to use the API?

“ No, brother, it will not work! It will not work! ” - with all the proletarian hatred, we will sarcastically answer the sly manager who decides to get rid of us easily. Get, you bastard, on the head by the law of holey abstractions!

After all, you yourself, a parasite, just tried to fake: solve the problem with the least effort, simply by changing the wording. Do you think performers want to work more than you ?! Well, no, they will also find loopholes in all the clarifying formulations, and you will set them traps, which they will bypass ... A typical arms race. Remind how they end? Resource Exhaustion: You will simply drown in bureaucracy.

It is impossible to come up with such formulations that would exclude incorrect reading and excessive local optimization. Just because abstractions flow. Just because everything goes not exactly as you intended.

I only once, honestly

“ Actually, I agree, but now I’ll do it anyhow. You see, there’s no time, the result is needed yesterday. Once, only one! ” Yeah, I know, I heard. One module will not cover the tests. One server will send to a remote point without checking. I will solve one problem without registering in HelpDesk. I will not describe one method of work in the office wiki. Once I cross the road to a red light. Such as you only think, how to cover up your own laziness and inability to productive work with “disposability”.

As a drug addict, first time with a dose of opiates, you will not understand at first. " I vmazalsya, but nothing but strange tinnitus and slight dizziness do not feel. It is strange, why did everyone scare me so much about it? " “ I committed this function without testing, the next day nothing broke, ” you say.

“ Come on, I have a strong will! And in general, the last time nothing happened! ” The addict will say to himself and repeat the dose in a couple of days. “ Don't worry, we haven’t documented anything on the past project either! ” - you will say a second time.

And both of you will not notice how you sit down. And when you realize what has happened, nothing can be changed. What? You want to tell me about the genius drug addicts of hackers who do everything to bypass the accepted rules and are still cool? Well, that's how you will be a genius - let's talk. In the meantime, the victim of the wrong stereotypes, remember: you have only one chance to avoid falling: always do everything right. Even if the action is once. Even if no one finds out. Even if it seems that there is no difference.

What to do

Do not start. Refuse local optimization in favor of global and multifactor. What? More specifically? Hey, manager, you yourself are fighting for result orientation! The criterion I gave you, achieve and achieve .

I do not like? Well, let's see what you can do. What will happen if we abandon the "focus on results"? Alchemists said that nature does not tolerate emptiness. Borrow from them this statement. Do not worry, Russian corporate governance has not yet grown to real scientific methods, the tools of alchemists are the limits of those heights that you can climb.

So, in order to fill the void, let us take the opposite thesis: we will be guided by the process. Remember, and better write down: with a bad process there can be no good result! (Yes, yes, I understand that in the depths of your soul, you still think about the result, and you can only beat it out by striking bamboo sticks on your heels, but this is not my method).

Watch not only for what your subordinates produce, but also how they do it. If Peter alone pulls the whole department, and the department shows good results, this is the wrong department. The risks of losing Peter are too high ( or is he bulletproof, eh? ).

If a coder encodes a code, the developer “speeds up” the application with a govnod code, replacing a simple and clear class hierarchy with a mega-object with a bunch of inlines, this is wrong. Say, otherwise it is impossible? So, the problem is not in the code, it is in the algorithms, data structures, engine used, or even marketing ( do you really need all these things? ).

If a smart enikeyshchik quickly runs, installing a program on all PCs at a given time, this is wrong. Wake up Hello! Twenty-first century in the yard! What nafig, "run on computers"? And if tomorrow it will be necessary to put three programs? And five? And quickly take down the pirates around the office? Let them master the methods of application deployment in the intranet, thousands of them.

Focus on the process, make everyone do everything right ! Rules too much? Remove the excess, you're a manager! Have to think and work instead of inflating and broadcasting on how important it is for you to focus on the result? Kill yourself!

Eggheads have already come up with six sigma , lean production , ITIL and other continuous improvements . In the end, you have the same MBA, and you must know about all this! Why, even in my Far Eastern Fence Institute, they told me about it, it’s as old as the world.

Complicated? Too many words in an incomprehensible language? I understand, I sympathize. But there are also simplified versions: code-review, best practices, etc. Choose what suits you. You can’t understand all the principles, copy, analyze, copy again. This is a process ; there will be no result. It is iterative and iterative in nature.

Clearly, you want to argue to me about the importance of the result, that the customers pay for the result, the authorities determine who to execute, and who pardon - by the results.

But everything is much simpler: if everything is done correctly, then the result will be correct . If the processes are monitored and adjusted in accordance with the global goals and objectives of the system (and not artificial metrics made up by incompetent “consultants”), then you, as a team, will achieve your real (perhaps even as yet incomprehensible) goals!



Well, it will not have time to put your software enikeyshchik for three days, put in five. For the first time - in five, and then - the speed of deployment will be measured in hours. And it will not depend on the size of the office. Tell me honestly, what do you need: for three days or so that there are no problems with the software? Checkered or go?

Well, that's the same thing. And anyway, the next time you want to demand a result orientation from someone, think about sex. Not impressive? Well, goody, think about life. In the end, she, too, in the first place - the process !

Ps Thank Nitatunarabe for pictures.