So I got the final, for now, third part of my post-mortem up on the blog. It covers my big learnings from building a microservice architecture and how to really screw yourself over.

I usually don't talk specific around mentorship or technical consulting engagements because that's clearly not appropriate. But Marcel Fahle happily shared some love on Twitter so I feel comfortable sharing that. It was a fun wild ride through a really neat project he is building where we mostly sanity-checked some assumptions, talked through technical choices and generally spent some brain cycles on the future of the project. And Marcel himself is a thrill to talk to. Most of my mentorship is personal and career-focused but getting into the technical weeds can be so much fun.

I have the makings of a few technical tutorials coming up for the blog but they require significant time investment to completely package for consumption. But I wanna! Keep an eye out.

Are you slow for the right reasons?

Most organisations I work with are slower than I'd like. I have the patience of a small rodent. So generally I just practice my breathing while the wheels grind.

But I have also worked with organisations that move genuinely quickly. That don't really require any ceremony to get things done and are willing to pull the trigger on something, anything, if the money and the value proposition lines up. You end up with a handshake or a signature and suddenly should just start running. There's nothing stopping you.

The positive impact a single person can make is incredibly strongly tied to how much they are allowed to do in my experience. And to which extent they feel trusted and empowered to do it. In the book Accelerate (something, something, DevOps, Forsgren et.al.) they touch on the Westrum typology of organisational cultures. It breaks down into:

Pathological, power-oriented where every decision point is a space for political manoeuvring. The org is driven by fear, coercion and other fun pressures. Information flows only with the blessing of those who have power over it.

Bureaucratic, rule-oriented where every decision is to be done by the book. Ritual and process, procedure and correctness rule the day. To me this also signals an element of fear. It is worse to do something incorrectly than to do nothing. And there are certainly businesses and public sector contexts where that holds true.

Generative, performance-oriented where the focus is a mission or an outcome. The focus is not on how we get to a certain goal, it is about getting there.

Let us be very clear that these are simplifications. I've seen them all in action and I've seen plenty of pain, stupidity and pathology in what I consider generative organisations. There are also bureaucratic orgs that have no choice because of regulation or the realities of working in their industry, they might be great places to work at, good people proceeding as quickly as absolutely possible but the fact is that some heavy process is required or mandated and there's not much to be done about it.

But, nuances aside. You will learn a lot about an org in your first interactions with them as a consultant or employee. What do their contracts look like? How heavy-handed is their process? How well do they prepare you for any arduous compliance things that you need to deal with on their behalf. If a company wants to be a lean, mean progress machine it matters significantly if they fight tooth and nail to keep process smooth and minimal. If they want to be nice and welcoming it matters what their contracts impose. 

The things you do and what they signal is your value system. Where do you put your effort? What frictions do you keep down? What responsibility and liability do you take on versus distribute to your people or partners?

I want to note that there are also orgs that have bureaucracy and process in the name of fairness. For example public sector and government should not move too fast. I think we could err on the side of compassion and assuming people are generally good and true more often to cut down on some of the red tape there but generally, there are definitely cases where process can be used to remove certain systemic factors. Process should be a tool. Ideally there should be a process for keeping process in check.

What I try to do with my business is to be consistent in my values. I want to work sustainably. I want to build sustainable software. I want to help teams do the same. As such, even though I get very excited about things I don't work more than a full time. Usually I try to keep it to less than that. I want software and the web to be better. So I've aligned my website practices with my values. Not the best growth hack exactly but I can maintain a strong stance on privacy, simplicity and a personal touch because that's who I am and what I believe in. That's what I want my org to be. If I add 10 people in short order. What impact would my values have on my organisation? Considerably less over time and finding consensus on culture and values would be increasingly hard. But also critically important.

Maintaining culture and values isn't easy. But I think the way an org makes their decisions, they way they protect themselves or embrace others are strong signifiers for the actual culture. It takes attention to detail and vigilance to achieve something consistent. You can choose to have a shorter and more readable contract. You can invest in actually useful compliance training. You can ensure that the recipient of whatever unfortunate parts there are in your domain know that you give a crap about them. Much like you might do with customers, much like you should do with people all around.

I primarily want my business to work on a strong agreement, a handshake, and then we get to work. I've worked with orgs like that and it can be amazing. If neither party is busy covering their behinds we can get so much done.

Please reply or email lars@underjord.io with your thoughts if you have something to share. I'm also on Twitter as @lawik.

Thank you for your attention, I appreciate it.

- Lars Wikman