The Rise of the Flashocracy

Submitted by MikeC on Wed, 2006-10-18 08:14.

I've noticed a trend in software engineering over the last few decades: the ascendency of a class I call the 'flashocracy' - leadership by quick answers and hyper-confidence, sometimes of style over substance.

Author Robert Persig, in the classic Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values, identified a similar trend in modern urban culture decades ago - he called it the "hyped-up, fuck-you, supermodern, ego style of life".

The title of Malcom Gladwell's more recent book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking says it all. The scary part is that Gladwell appears to think (er... or... not think, as the case may be) this is a good thing.

I'm not sure if it's a result of decades of influence from increasingly rapid-fire, short-attention-span forms of entertainment such as television and pop music, or if it's just a symptom of a general increase in intelligence and knowledge levels over time leading to overconfidence (PDF) and arrogance.

Or, perhaps it's a result of acceleration of the pace of business, of trying to operate in a hyper-competitive business environment. Or maybe it's a combination of factors.

In any case, I think that it's been detrimental to quality of work and life. I've seen many products wither and die from lack of thoughtful, quiet reflection integrated into the design and development process - the result being a collection of features flying in close formation, masquerading as a real product.

I've attended countless meetings where the content and communication levels were nearly nil, but inevitably certain individuals spew forth a barrage of quick and easy answers to every question with complete confidence - even though many times in retrospect, those quick answers turned out to be incorrect (and very much sub-optimal). These mistakes cost dearly in backtracking and lost opportunity. But hey, at least we didn't waste any time considering alternatives!

The extreme programming/agile development movements appear to be tailored to this kind of fast-paced, low-reflection environment, but I wonder if the overall cost is really lower - in the end, did it really cost less to stumble through the darkness, groping our way towards the mostly unknown goal without a map?

A friend and colleague once asked me: "if we don't have time to do it right, when will we have time to do it again?" I suppose the answer depends on your definition of "doing it right".

Examples of well-thought out solutions abound. Google, one of the richest and most successful companies of our time bases its success on the result of deep thought about a large-scale problem - rather than just a hodge-podge of quick solutions to immediate, small-scale, near-focus problems. Of course, time will tell if Google won't succumb (or hasn't already succumbed) to the same pressures that seem to have affected so many other organizations.

It would be wise to consider a return to a quieter time, where people have time to think out and discuss the problems and issues, and, one hopes, deliver higher-quality solutions with overall lower cost.

Edit 10/27/06: Joel Spolsky agrees that the "blink" effect may be a problem, especially during interviews.


Bookmark/Search this post with:
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)
»
MikeC's picture

Twitter and Blink

Submitted by MikeC on Fri, 2007-04-20 11:45.

Here's an interesting set of observations on Kathy Sierra's blog:

Worst of all, this onslaught is keeping us from doing the one thing that makes most of us the happiest... being in flow. Flow requires a depth of thinking and a focus of attention that all that context-switching prevents. Flow requires a challenging use of our knowledge and skills, and that's quite different from mindless tasks we can multitask (eating and watching tv, etc.) Flow means we need a certain amount of time to load our knowledge and skills into our brain RAM. And the more big or small interruptions we have, the less likely we are to ever get there.

And not only are we stopping ourselves from ever getting in flow, we're stopping ourselves from ever getting really good at something. From becoming experts. The brain scientists now tell us that becoming an expert is not a matter of being a prodigy, it's a matter of being able to focus.

Link

-- Mike

Twitter and Blink - Another Viewpoint

Submitted by Guest (not verified) on Sat, 2007-04-28 14:09.

When I read 'Blink', I didn't feel that the author was advocating the phenomenon, just documenting it and observing its advantages and disadvantages.

Myself, I'm really a 'Blink' kind of person. It's not that I never think deeply, or that I never get in the flow when I'm doing things; however, I don't feel that I always need to be doing either of these things. I multi-task in every possible corner of my life, both by necessity and by design. I like being able to switch gears, and looking at multiple things nearly simultaneously allows me to make connections that I might never see were I to try to be always 'in the flow'.

Of course, I recognized my 'blink' tendencies - and their associated downsides - early in my career. I gravitate toward jobs that allow me to take advantage of my preference, and try to control (or at least recognize) consistently that I often operate in this mode. I have had great success with this modified approach, partly because I try to work with people who work and think differently which allows for excellent synergy. I don't think the first 'flash' answer is necessarily the best (although often it turns out to be) and I welcome input and rethinking, but I don't feel the need to think everything into oblivion.

My bottom line is that there is room for both types of behavior (and everything in between), and a blanket statement that one or the other is wrong can make for a narrow vision of decision-making and interaction.