Example 2: Shape Up by .
Book 1: Methods for making software, that sit somewhere between agile sprints and the hardcore waterfall approach.
Book 2: A set of principles they've discovered by accident, that when applied to Basecamp look like the techniques in Book 1.
Conversation
Some authors write about pure principles first, but those are harder to apply. Hence my qualifier 'useful books'.
Perhaps I should have used 'actionable books' instead.
1
Anyway, you'll often find people reading actionable/useful books and then applying the techniques from the book wholesale, without critical thinking about why they work.
In some cases, this is ok. Voss's techniques, for instance, generally work even if you just skim and apply.
1
1
But in other cases this is a recipe for disaster. Applying Shape Up to your org without critical analysis for why the techniques work would likely backfire. (Basecamp is B2B SaaS, hugely profitable, has a brand and a large audience + stable recurring revenue).
1
1
Another example: let's say you want to adopt agile. You pick up a book on agile, and one of the practices that the book prescribes is conducting morning scrum meetings.
"WE HAVE TO HAVE SCRUM MEETINGS" you say.
Problem: you are a fully distributed team across many timezones.
1
Really stupid reaction: "Well, I guess agile can't work for remote."
Slightly stupid reaction: "We MUST have morning scrum meetings, so Joe has to wake up at 6am."
Better reaction: "What purpose do morning scrum meetings serve and can we evolve something equivalent?
1
1
This is a really stupid example, but I've *actually* seen it.
Also for marketing practices (let's apply funnel analysis TO EVERYTHING). And software dev practices. And writing techniques.
I really don't know why it happens.
1
Replying to
Cycle I've seen: Manager who can move an org reads a 'calling card' book on a topic -> treats it as magic bullet -> implements uncritically -> looks for the next magic bullet after failure -> repeat
1
1
I realise my question sounds mean. I should have phrased it better: "why do they act that way" instead of "why do they exist."
I do mean it genuinely, though: if we can understand why they act that way, we may possibly prevent it from happening to ourselves.