• Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s not at all my experience of 25 years in Tech both in that industry (Products, Services and even Startups) and others (mainly Finance).

    More people (or more time - i.e. overworking) most definitelly do not mean more results and in some case can even mean less results.

    If seen departments 3x as large producing less than half the results, and way more so when talking about small teams (in my area 4 senior devs familiar with each other can outproduce a whole department of mid/junior-level devs).

    Curiously Tech Startups were especially inneficient, probably because they tended to hire young and enthusiastic people (“With a tendency to run really hard whilst not knowing were they’re trying to get to”) and don’t really have much in the way of software development processes whilst well established (but comparativelly boring) companies hired the kind of people in their 30s or more with families who want a good steady salary, and had well established team structures.

    But don’t take my word for it, just read books like “The Mythical Man Hour”.

    • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you misunderstood me. My point was if your company/project was already running incredibly inefficiently, cutting more people would not make the remaining people more efficient somehow out of fear, because what caused the inefficiency is still there, you just have more things for each of them to do now.

      The way to increase efficiency is to figure out what part of the whole process is causing waste and aim to minimize that, but that is HARD because it requires understanding your process, which is why they just do the lazy thing and fire a bunch of people to appease the almighty shareholders, so that they can say they did something.