Getting things done in large tech companies requires understanding their unique dynamics. These organizations prioritize alignment and buy-in, necessitating clear communication and stakeholder management. Instead of focusing solely on individual task completion, success lies in building consensus and navigating complex approval processes. This often involves influencing without authority, making the case for your ideas through data and compelling narratives, and patiently shepherding initiatives through multiple layers of review. While seemingly bureaucratic, these processes aim to minimize risk and ensure company-wide coherence. Therefore, effectively "getting things done" means prioritizing influence, collaboration, and navigating organizational complexities over simply checking off individual to-dos.
Sean Goedecke's blog post, "Getting things 'done' in large tech companies," delves into the intricate and often frustrating reality of executing projects within the complex ecosystem of a large technological organization. He argues that the traditional understanding of "getting things done," often characterized by a linear progression from initiation to completion, rarely holds true in these environments. Instead, success is frequently defined not by fully realizing a project in its initial conception, but rather by navigating the intricate web of organizational structures, competing priorities, and individual incentives to achieve a tangible, albeit potentially modified, outcome.
Goedecke meticulously dissects the layered complexities that contribute to this phenomenon. He emphasizes the significant influence of organizational structure, noting that large companies are often comprised of numerous interconnected teams, each with their own objectives, roadmaps, and performance metrics. This fragmented landscape creates a challenging environment for cross-functional collaboration, requiring individuals to expend considerable effort in aligning stakeholders, negotiating resources, and managing expectations. He elucidates how the pursuit of individual career advancement within these organizations can sometimes supersede the collective goal of project completion. Employees, motivated by performance reviews and promotion opportunities, might prioritize tasks that directly contribute to their individual success, even if these actions deviate from the optimal path for the overall project.
The author further explores the concept of "momentum," highlighting its crucial role in navigating the bureaucratic inertia prevalent in large organizations. Maintaining momentum, he argues, involves strategically leveraging small wins and demonstrable progress to garner continued support and resources. This incremental approach, while perhaps less glamorous than achieving grand, sweeping changes, is often the most effective way to overcome resistance and maintain forward progress within a complex system. He underscores the importance of adaptability and a willingness to compromise. Given the dynamic nature of large organizations, initial project goals may become infeasible due to shifting priorities, resource constraints, or evolving market conditions. Success, therefore, often hinges on the ability to adapt to these changes, modify objectives as needed, and embrace a solution that, while perhaps not perfectly aligned with the original vision, still delivers tangible value.
Finally, Goedecke stresses the importance of recognizing and accepting that "done" rarely means perfectly or completely finished. In the context of a large tech company, "done" often signifies reaching a point where the project has delivered sufficient value to justify the resources invested, even if certain aspects remain unresolved or future iterations are anticipated. This pragmatic approach acknowledges the inherent limitations of working within a complex organization and emphasizes the importance of delivering incremental value over striving for an often unattainable ideal of complete and perfect execution. He concludes by suggesting that understanding and accepting these realities can lead to a more fulfilling and less frustrating experience for individuals working within large tech companies.
Summary of Comments ( 130 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43903741
Hacker News users discussed the challenges of applying Getting Things Done (GTD) in large organizations. Several commenters pointed out that GTD assumes individual agency, which is often limited in corporate settings where dependencies, meetings, and shifting priorities controlled by others make personal productivity systems less effective. Some suggested adapting GTD principles to focus on managing energy and attention rather than tasks, and emphasizing communication and negotiation with stakeholders. Others highlighted the importance of aligning personal goals with company objectives and focusing on high-impact tasks. A few commenters felt GTD was simply not applicable in large corporate environments, advocating for alternative strategies focused on influence and navigating organizational complexity. There was also discussion about the role of management in creating an environment conducive to productivity, with some suggesting that GTD could be beneficial if leadership adopted and supported its principles.
The Hacker News post titled "Getting things 'done' in large tech companies," linking to Sean Goedecke's blog post about productivity, sparked a lively discussion with several compelling comments.
Many commenters focused on the challenges of navigating bureaucratic processes and organizational inertia within large tech companies. One commenter highlighted the difficulty of getting buy-in from multiple stakeholders, describing it as a "death by a thousand meetings" scenario. Another user echoed this sentiment, pointing out that even with a clear vision and plan, execution can be hampered by slow decision-making processes and risk aversion. They emphasized the importance of building consensus and navigating internal politics to effectively get things done.
Several commenters discussed the prevalence of "fake work," activities that appear productive but don't contribute to meaningful outcomes. This includes excessive meetings, elaborate documentation, and unnecessary reporting, all of which consume time and resources without driving real progress. One user sarcastically suggested that the most effective way to get things done in a large company is to "make it look like you're busy, even if you're not." Another highlighted the issue of "resume-driven development," where engineers prioritize projects that enhance their resumes rather than focusing on company goals.
Some commenters offered practical advice for overcoming these challenges. One suggested focusing on small, incremental improvements rather than attempting large-scale changes. Another recommended building strong relationships with key stakeholders to facilitate collaboration and buy-in. The importance of clear communication and documentation was also emphasized as a way to avoid misunderstandings and ensure alignment.
A few commenters challenged the premise of the original blog post, arguing that its focus on individual productivity overlooks the systemic issues that hinder progress in large organizations. They suggested that true change requires addressing the underlying organizational structures and processes that create barriers to efficiency and innovation. One user even argued that "getting things done" is often less important than "getting the right things done," suggesting that a focus on strategic prioritization is crucial.
Finally, some commenters shared their personal experiences, offering anecdotes and examples that illustrated the points made in the discussion. These stories provided real-world context and added a personal touch to the overall conversation.