Pawel Brodzinski on Leadership in Technology

Whatever it takes to lead a team, build a product, and run a business

Tag: software business

  • Money and Motivation

    A few people have left. Or I should say a few good people have left. Yes, the company has tried to stop them but well, when people decide to go it’s usually way too late.

    The next station is realizing that people are gone. Well, they will still come to the office for a couple of weeks but they are gone. Gone. If you wanted to change their minds you should have worked with them a few months earlier.

    And then there comes the idea that you should at least take care about those who are still here. When people leave, their colleagues start thinking about leaving too. That’s how it works.

    So we come to the point where most of managers use tools they have to keep retention on reasonable level. Quite often they use the only tool they think they have, which is money. “That should keep them motivated for some time. And they won’t leave either.”

    Yes, except it isn’t true.

    As I think more about money and motivation I’m closer and closer to Dan Pink’s approach: pay enough to get the money off the table and then focus on things which really motivate people. By the way if you haven’t seen Dan Pink’s TED talk about the subject you really should do it now.

    OK, so what kind of effects you should see when you throw more money at people? For some of them it would take the money problem off the table. Will it keep them in the company in the long run? I don’t know. You are either able to build creative, motivating work environment or you aren’t and raise won’t change anything in the long run.

    For others money wasn’t the issue in the first place. They will happily accept raise, that’s for sure, but is it going to change their approach? Not so much.

    Now you can point a number of examples when someone you know has changed jobs purely for money. I think they fall into the first group. The only difference is in their cases money was a major problem and not a minor one. Bigger salary doesn’t make them motivated – it just gets the problem off the table. It isn’t guarantee that they won’t eventually leave. If your organization suck they will. You can buy a few months but the outcome is going to be the same – they will be gone soon.

    In short: if you have a big bag of money you can make people stop complaining about their salaries, but you won’t make highly motivated top performers out of them.

    I know people who are leaving with no change in remuneration whatsoever. Heck, if you look for people who changed job and got lower salary in the new place I’m one of examples. And yes, I’d do it again. I’ve never left any organization (or project) for money, even though sometimes it was an issue.

    If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. If the only tool you have is money, every problem seems to be solvable with cash.

    But then you see teams which don’t get any bonus money whatsoever and they’re motivated and those which spend days complaining about lack of bonus money. All in the same organization. They are even paid basically the same. I see two possible explanations: one supports argument above and the other includes words “black magic.”

    If people go, you won’t change that if the only thing you can think of is throwing more money at them. Unless you’re paying peanuts, that is.

  • We Are Unique Syndrome

    That Scrum thing sound fine but, you know, the way we work here is quite specific so it won’t really fit our organization. And yes, unit testing is such a great idea but we have pretty unique work environment and I see no way to implement this practice. Oh, I’ve heard about this new web framework, which we might use, but I believe it would be better just to build the stuff in-house. And by the way, that issue we were discussing yesterday – just apply some hacks, I don’t think anyone could have had this problem before.

    You’ve definitely seen that. The canonical example is NIH syndrome often seen in programming. We hate tools built by others because, well, they aren’t built by us. We are so damn unique that there’s virtually no other organization similar to ours in the whole damn universe.

    The same principle applies to other areas as well. Cross-functional teams work in other organizations but here, in this unique, extraordinary and special company they would not, no way. Empowering (damn, I used the word) people results in better motivation and higher retention but it won’t be like that in our organization because we are different.

    Well, yes you are. Everyone’s special. But somehow huge numbers of companies face the same problems. And the funny thing is it seems that usually common solutions help majority of those organizations. Strange, isn’t it?

    While you can pretty easily convince me that your company is special in this or that area (I don’t know your company as well as you, so it’s not that hard) I just don’t believe you’re so freaking different that none of recipes known to the world works in your case.

    If you come to me with unsolvable issue with integrating web services written in Java and .NET I call bullshit. I don’t know the solution but I find it hard to believe that hundreds thousands of web services written in one technology can’t talk with hundreds thousands of web services written in another. Either I miss something here or this was kind of principle for guys who were standardizing this web service gizmo.

    Someone had that problem before (like hundreds or thousands people). You ain’t that special.

    Now go look for solution using this hi-tech tool called Google search. Or you’re so unique that you won’t use such a plebeian tool, eh?

    The same applies to project management issues. Ditto organizational and people problems. Pretty few people in the world can say they worked in truly unique environments on ground-breaking ideas and they had to solve issues no one had had ever before. Yet we all tend to play like we were working on Apollo program and it was sixties.

    Now, I’m not trying to tell you that silver bullet exists. I’d be a hypocrite, wouldn’t I? What I’m trying to say is that your issues have (likely) been solved by others and they (likely) described solutions in details.

    If you deliberately want to keep the way you work unchanged I’m fine with that. Just don’t tell me it’s either the best or the only way unless you have checked. And if you’d checked you (likely) wouldn’t have been selling me that bullshit about your uniqueness.

  • Why I Prefer to Hire Women

    I have a news for you: IT industry is dominated by men.

    – Pawel, why don’t you tell us something we don’t know?

    There should be more women in the industry.

    Which part of “something we don’t know” you haven’t understood?

    Fine, you get the message. I just wonder why you don’t hire more women.

    I confess in my current team there is round number of women. Zero. I worked with a few teams like this. And every time one of my goals was to bring a few women to the team. Why? There are a few reasons. I will generalize here and I’m going to do it on purpose. After an hour or so of interview you can’t really say what kind of personality you deal with, so you have to go with your biases and prejudices anyway.

    • Women bring different soft skills to team talent pool. They’re usually more open and emotional than men. Do a simple test and recall your last retrospective or check the record from it. Can you see how different arguments were pointed by women than by men?
    • Women bring more culture. Pure-men groups tend to change into something like herd of hogs. Bringing a woman on board magically improves everyone’s manners and language. I mean hogs are nice but I wouldn’t like to work with them.
    • Women are more responsible. This may be one of my prejudices but I find women more responsible than men. I can hardly recall any woman who came to work having heavy hangover while I have no problems to name a long list on men who did.
    • Women are more accountable. It is connected with the previous point. Women tend to treat their duties very seriously. Even when it is something they didn’t personally commit to but rather something their boss expects from them their commitment is usually stronger. And I think here about these unrealistic expectations many poor managers set against their teams too.
    • After all, there aren’t many women in the industry so don’t make it even worse.

    Having said that, I’m not going to hire woman over man just because of sex. If there’s a significant difference between two candidates I will always choose a better one, however I understand “better” at the time. But at the same time every woman entering an interview with me has a small plus for free at the beginning. I guess I could put it as one of recruitment tips but changing your sex isn’t a great tip, is it?

    On the other hand I’ve seen enough prejudices working against women to throw my two cents. And I have a question for you: having two similar candidates which one would you choose?

  • Fighting with Status Quo

    Last time I wrote about status quo and how it becomes protected value within companies. I could tell you countless stories of people being (mentally) hurt by status quo. I could tell barely a few of these when status quo was defeated.

    How to fight with status quo then?

    A short answer is: change rules of the game. Until new status quo emerges everything will be different.

    To elaborate a bit more, status quo is painful in terms of lost opportunities. Every time some talented and eager engineer hits the glass ceiling or a poor candidate is promoted over a good one or suboptimal organization is sustained the company loses. It loses in terms of productivity, performance and employee satisfaction. At the end it loses money since at the same cost there could be done more or there could be done equally much but at lower cost.

    A good supporting question is: who sees all these problems?

    Everyone who tried to improve something but failed because reluctance of people happy with whatever it is today. That would be one group. Another one will be made of few people who are high enough in organizational structure to see how things work, but at the same time have no real power, or interest, to change it.

    Another supporting question: can these people introduce change?

    No, they don’t. They don’t have enough power. They are either too junior or too new or work too far from the core of the organization. Sometimes they would even try to fight the reality just to learn they have virtually no chance to win. Status quo defenders are numerous and powerful and they prevailed many try-outs like this.

    If you came to this point you can basically do two things:

    • Change behavior of people who defend status quo. To succeed with this you need to open their eyes first. It may be possible but it doesn’t have to. How to do this? Well, bottom-up approach doesn’t work. If it did their attitude would already be different. What you need is someone with respect. Someone who would coach status quo keepers showing them ways of improvement. Make them aware there are different styles of management. Make them aware how they can improve their leadership. Make them aware how much they can personally gain if they enable changes in their teams. If this approach succeeds game rules will start changing slowly but constantly. Unfortunately this would work only when you have managers who were unaware of the problems. If they were consciously maintaining status quo chances are good your efforts would be ignored.
    • Get someone experienced and give her power to change things. It could be one of these peripheral managers but as an insider she would be naturally perceived as an enemy by her colleagues. It’s better to get an outsider, someone who successfully cleaned up a company or two. Hire her and give her enough power to allow her to enforce changes over the current organization. Let the outsider change the rules. If you choose your candidate wisely, you’ll go through a number of clashes, some people will leave, other will be fired but in the end organization will work better. Why? Because every significant change in the company, every leaving, creates opportunities for those who want to improve organization and destroys at least a few glass ceilings. Of course you can rebuild every flawed element you’ve just destroyed but after all one of reasons you have your superhero outsider is to prevent that happening.

    As I write this I’m perfectly aware how rare are cases when companies decide to undertake such actions. But every time I hear about another management failure which is triggered by defending status quo (and believe me I hear that a lot) I have the same thought: “Why won’t you, my dear execs, do anything to heal your organization?”

    I surely am biased but it happens now and then that I believe I have a few recipes which would instantly improve overall performance, let alone some consistent work on fundamentals. After all management isn’t that hard if you have someone to learn from.

  • Big Companies Are The Best… In Maintaining Status Quo

    What happens when company grows from 10 to 100 people?

    Initially there’s a group of highly motivated and hard working people led by one or a couple of visionaries. Everyone knows each other well. Everyone knows what anyone else is doing at the moment. Then some success happens and organization grows. At the beginning it scales up trouble-free. Somewhere along the way teams emerge. Suddenly company needs a few managers. Who is promoted? What a question. Of course those who were in the pack when employee counter was one-digit.

    First hierarchy self-emerges. No one really thinks about this much. After all it’s all about a couple of teams, not full-blown organization. Then the company grows further and by the time it reaches 100 people there are probably at least two levels of management. First managers add new folks to their teams to the point they need middle management to deal with their 30-something people.

    Note: at that point there still isn’t much planning when it comes to organizing company structure. It is created in the meantime while people aren’t focusing on their work.

    What happens when company grows from 100 to 1000 people?

    By the time organization has 100 employees self-emergent structure becomes suboptimal. It is no longer a bunch of people working toward common success. If you don’t hire great candidates only, and let’s face it: you don’t, there are some people on board who just work there and don’t really care for anything beyond their paycheck. There are also few managers who shouldn’t become managers at all but should stick to engineering. To add some spice the company still grows at constant rate.

    The bigger it grows the more power management gets. Execs no longer work with line employees most of the time. They work with excel sheets and if they meet someone they are other execs or senior managers at best. Real power is moved one level down – to managers who make hiring decisions, promote employees and deal with all people-related issues. Who are they? Remember this few veterans who were around from the very beginning and become very first managers in the company? Well, now each of them leads one of multi-team departments with close to 100 pairs of hands each.

    Sure, there are reorganizations but most likely they happen out of the center of the company. Core remains unchanged. Why? Well, that is damn good question.

    A short answer is: because big organizations are great in maintaining status quo. I don’t want to argue whether a few hundred people make a company big (it does not) but somewhere between 100 and 1000 people this attitude appears and it is there for good.

    And here’s a long answer.

    • Think about management skills of early-managers. Most likely it is their first management job. Most likely they were engineers initially. I’ll be brutally honest: chances are good they doesn’t really suit management job. The problem is they don’t even know that. They can’t. They may even do their best and still suck as managers. If they have grown with the company they may lack just good role-models in management. I could bet my money against their management skills in this situation and, on average, I would win.
    • Now, put yourself in shoes of these veterans. They are with the company from the beginning. They career seems to be well-earned. They aren’t aware they may suck at what they do. When they were engineers they had simple verification of their work: test passed, client didn’t complain thus everything was good. With management it isn’t so easy. Their team won’t come to them to say they suck. Hey, you just don’t go to tell such things to your boss. We can even consider managers are aware they suck a bit. And what would they do? Resign to leave a position for someone better? You must be kidding me.
    • So what do execs do with this? Pretty much nothing. They’re chewing through their Excel sheets and as far as numbers are fine everything else is too. And if numbers start to stink who would they talk to anyway? Well, managers I guess. They’re disconnected with most of the rest of people for a long time already.

    Maintaining status quo is a safe choice for everyone who has enough power to make any important decision in the company. Those who see problems and would like to change something are either somewhere on periphery of organization or very low in hierarchy structure. The former aren’t taken seriously the latter hit the glass ceiling.

    What more, existing status quo propels the same behavior all over again. If the company promoted three out of four engineers from early setup to senior management the fourth one pretty much expects the same. And most likely he will get the promotion, no matter whether he was the best candidate or not.

    Of course you can find counterexamples. I don’t say every company works that way. I guess when Google hit 500th employee mark they were still nothing like that. I know startup where all 3 co-founders had experience in management so they aren’t likely to hit this reef either. I know companies which will never make it past 50 people so they definitely shouldn’t care about these issues.

    Anyway more often than not defending status quo is a problem. I’ve seen it at all stages from few dozens to few thousands of people. And it always looks like decision-makers weren’t aware of the fact or, if they were, like they didn’t care. When company grows to specific size it is just easier that way.

    In the next posting I’ll give an idea what can be done to change the situation. Stay tuned.

  • A Company Which Didn’t Know How to Fire People

    There was a company, which was doing reasonably well. When times were good they were growing stronger. Some people were leaving, as it always happen, but more were coming on board. Since things were rolling fast no one really had time to stop and verify whether all new faces are doing fine.

    Some time passed. Newbies were no longer newbies – they were semi-experienced people or at least their seniority would indicate that. Reality was a bit different. Some new people appeared to be great hires but other were, well, pretty mediocre.

    Then stagnation period came. There were reasonable amount of work but not as much as it used to be yet somehow everyone looked still pretty busy. Incoming stream of new people were limited and the company mostly stuck with these who already were on board. World crisis increased employee retention.

    Then people started telling stories. A story about the guy who was sleeping at his desk during one third of his office hours. A story about lad who was in the office barely 6 hours a day even though he was paid for 8-hour workday. A story about lass who was spending all days long browsing the web. A story about colleague from another office who claims she’s completely overworked yet she was doing about one tenth of what other people did on similar positions. Morale nose-dived. Productivity started dropping. On a side note – no, these examples weren’t made up.

    Where’s the problem?

    The first symptom was not doing much with poor-performers. OK, they were trying to fix their approach but when coaching and setting rules didn’t work there was no another steps. Underperformers soon learned they didn’t have to change.

    A real problem was: the company wasn’t able to fire people.

    They stuck with every single employee no matter how they sucked. And yes, I know they should try coaching, training, finding new role first. To some point they did. But face it: it isn’t possible to have only perfect teams and only perfect employees. It just doesn’t work that way. Even companies which have very strict recruitment process find black sheep in their teams from time to time. And vast majority of companies aren’t very demanding when it comes to recruitment. Especially when time is good and they need all hands on deck and would take almost anyone who can help at least a bit.

    I understand lack of will to fire people. Firing people sucks. But it’s a part of manager’s job and from time to time it just has to be done. Cost of rejecting to do this is way higher than just poor performance of a couple of people. It spreads like a sickness. Yet somehow I still hear about companies accepting underperformers for some reason.

    Update: Since the post received pretty much buzz in my company a small disclaimer: this is true story but not about my current company, not even about any IT company. Yet still it’s about a firm I know pretty well. Anyway I used the example since the case is pretty general.

  • Lessons Learned: Startup Failure Part 2

    Last time I shared mistakes we made while working on Overto – startup which was closed down some time ago. Today another part – things we did right and are worth replaying next time I’ll be engaged in a startup.

    Setting up a company behind

    Setting a company, which is quite an effort in Poland, from the very beginning was really a good idea. All founders knew each other well so lack of trust wasn’t the main reason standing behind the decision. We just wanted to give ourselves a bit of motivation making it a real business. However thing we didn’t really plan was that we gained much credibility showing company’s details instead of letting people think the whole thing was created by some student during holidays and won’t be supported in any way in future. Seeing a company behind a service doesn’t guarantee you it won’t die but at least you can be sure someone cares.

    Long discussions before start

    Before launching the project we had very long discussions about what we plan to do and how we want to do it. Of course not every detail was checked but when I compare Overto to other startupish projects I was working on it was really well-thought at the beginning.

    Wide range of roles covered with our experience

    We had really good pack to run an internet service. Development, administration, user support – in all those areas we had experience from the past. There weren’t many things which could have surprise us. We weren’t forced to look for a specialist in any technical aspect of building our application.

    Working in the same place

    For some time we worked in the same building which helped much in decision-making process. We could all meet ad-hoc whenever something important had to be decided. After some time we spread among different places and suddenly we saw how much value was in working in the same office.

    Despite we invested some money to fund the project I don’t treat it as a loss. For experience I gained it was a low price. Another time when I’ll decide to jump to that kind of project chances of success will be bigger.

    First part of lessons learned from startup failure

    Whole Entrepreneurs Time series.

  • Lessons Learned: Startup Failure Part 1

    Some time ago we closed down Overto – startup I was involved in. It was a failure – pretty obvious thing since we’ve closed the service. Since we learn much on our mistakes I think a reliable analysis why the business have failed should be valuable for you. For the beginning things we screwed.

    No one working full time

    From the very beginning we knew none of people engaged is willing to leave their daily jobs to commit fully to the startup. We thought we’d able to run internet service after hours. To some point that was true. As far as nothing bad was happening with the servers and the application it was all fine. We were working on new features when we had enough free time. Problems started when we faced some issues with our infrastructure. We weren’t able to resolve issues on the fly and had several downtimes. You can guess how it influenced user experience. That also backfired on service development since we had to focus on current problems instead of adding new functionalities. Lack of person working full-time and being able to deal with maintenance and bug fixing was the most important reason of failure.

    Catching the market

    That’s partially a consequence of the previous point. Since we spent majority of our limited time on trying to keep the service running we weren’t able to catch the changing market. We needed to cover new areas to move the application to another level but we couldn’t complete ongoing development. The whole project stopped in beta version and for users it didn’t look like anything was about to change.

    Lack of marketing skills

    Thin line between life and death of internet service is a number of users. For the initial period of time the numbers were growing systematically. Then we hit the ceiling of what we could achieve effortlessly. It was a time to do some marketing. Unfortunately no one of us was skilled in that area. Even worse, no one had enough time to fill the gap. That would be another stopper if we dealt with the problems mentioned above.

    Business model

    We hadn’t checked very well a business model we set up on the beginning. We were surprised a couple of our features weren’t as unique as we’d initially thought. Ironically that wasn’t a big problem since we had a bunch of ideas how to adjust the strategy in a new situation. Anyway, you should plan to change your initial business model.

    Screwed chance of selling the business

    After we’d decided we won’t be able to maintain the service in the long run we had a chance to sell it. To make a long story short we screwed negotiations starting with way too high price. We thought more about how much work we put into the project than how much it can be worth for potential buyers. Things are worth as much as one’s willing to pay for them, no matter how long it took you to produce them.

    Waiting too long with final decisions

    I think that one is a bit sentimental. Since the service was our child we were reluctant to make a decision about closing it faster and limit losses. We’ve been tricking ourselves thinking that everything would be fine while we couldn’t get the application back to work properly.

    Second part of lessons learned from startup failure

    Whole Entrepreneurs Time series.

  • Good Enough

    My friend asked me to give an opinion about design of application his company had developed. I took a glimpse on their technical presentation with a lot of screenshots. I must admit my attitude was very positive, whole thing looked professionally. That’s what I told my friend. His answer was a bit surprising as he said he would have worked more on UI design. On the beta stage? It was really good enough. Or even better enough.

    The discussion brought me to think about good enough paradigm in software business. One side believes that if software is good enough the job is done. Another wants to polish all the details until they bring their software into perfection. Although I haven’t seen any statistics about that I believe the former group is more numerous one.

    Software constantly conquers new areas of our life including those where there’s hardly place for good enough believers. Hospitals, planes, cars or military areas. I guess you wouldn’t be happy if your good enough software managing your car brakes crashed. Yet still most software which is developed is not mission-critical products. It just sends e-mails, creates documents, pass information, manage some content, store some data etc. There’s a choice between good enough and close to perfection.

    Personally, I’m a good enough guy. I have just one point here. Costs. Imagine a theoretical scale of perfection of software ranging from 0% to 100%. When you start your development you’re in 0% when you finish you’re somewhere in upper half of the scale. On the beginning improvements are easy. You invite first test UI which looks like it was designed by blind monkey. Then you have first iteration of target UI. It’s a huge improvement, probably a couple of dozens percents on the scale. However, when you’ve already made several iterations with UI and it looks decent the next would be probably making extensive usability testing. It’ll take much more effort than the first steps. Results will be probably much less significant. Few percent if you’re lucky. Next step? Maybe user feedback? You employ a number of people, who deal with all e-mails and phones from users, than trying to find a schema in all that mess, then verifying if accidentally some requests are not exactly opposite to others etc. More effort. More money. Results limited. Maybe another percent earned on the scale.

    The example says about UI, but the rule is general. First performance optimizations will be fast and effective, unless you do them randomly. After some successes they’ll become harder and more costly. On the beginning of stabilization you’ll deal with big numbers of issues vastly improving stability of software. On the end the whole deployment will wait for a single bug fix. Of course that’s not a paradigm – there’re exceptions. Sometimes you can find some easy improvements even when you’re high on the scale, but it shouldn’t happen very often.

    That’s why I’m a “good enough” believer. I don’t refuse to make small improvements, even when users can live without them. They’re welcome as far as they’re cheap. Great example was described by Basecamp team. Those changes are close to border separating good enough from better (hard to say on which side they are), but they were quick and cheap. And I guess the more important improvements were done earlier. If the changes were significantly more expensive I think 37signals would leave it as it was.

    I believe that unless you have much time and money to spend you shouldn’t chase the ideal. There’re more important things to do.

  • My Biggest Mistakes

    Have you ever wondered what were your biggest mistakes in your professional career? Which things you should do another way or at least try to change? It’s usually easy to judge others, especially looking from a perspective of time. Hey, he shouldn’t have left the company then, because now he’d have been promoted at least twice. Easy to say, because it’s about him and you know exactly what happened during those two years after he left. Back then the decision probably didn’t look like a mistake.

    With the same schema we can judge our own decisions, however it’s much harder. First, for most of us it’s difficult to accept that we actually made a mistake. Second, it’s even more difficult to be unbiased when you consider yourself and your own actions. Nevertheless it’s worth a try.

    There’s one thing more – people usually tend to share with others their successes, not failures, so your own experience is even more precious – you have unlimited access to it. You won’t find a lot of “failure stories,” so I thought I’d share some of mine.

    Personal interactions

    When I was leading a support team I had a couple of conflicts with developers partially based on personal background. I thought that if I’m so dedicated and if I struggle to do my best everyone should too. It’s not so hard to imagine that it was rather naive point of view (we worked in a corporation then). Instead of letting other managers to resolve the problem with their people I was making my private tiny war. E.g. we did some performance tests to prove that one of developers didn’t make optimizations, just to show he’d ignored the task. Why didn’t I ask him if he had done that and spent much time for useless tests? Bah, don’t ask me now. You should have asked me then. I can recall several similar situations, all of them having source in my personal likes/dislikes and resulting in, let’s say, not optimal business decisions.

    Building a team

    I was once a department director, building a team and a product from a scratch. By the way it was a great job. I think my biggest mistake then was too slow promotions within the team. For me it’s very hard to promote someone unless I’m completely sure she’s the right person. However I should overcome my resistance instead of waiting too long before official promotion for a couple of the leaders. Not mentioning that I didn’t even thought about potential successors of any of the leaders. Subconsciously I tried to direct my people through the way I passed once: first informal role of leader with real manager controlling whole team and then eventually getting own team and formal managerial role. Unfortunately, I and one of my colleagues changed the job leaving over a dozen of people with no junior and middle management. The promotions were soon carried out, but with people rather unprepared to managerial role and little supervising it wasn’t a vast success. Some time was wasted too.

    Communication with sales

    As a manager of operations team (development, implementations, quality assurance and project management team) my biggest mistake was poor contact with several sales people. I know there’s always a conflict between sales and development, but I’m far from thinking that the technical side is the one which is infallible. Quite the contrary, I even wrote that in general it’s better to have a business person as a CEO and sometimes having a geek as a leader of a company isn’t a great idea. I know all of that, but still I haven’t managed to be on good terms with few sales. And by now I still don’t see how I could get it done right with those people. I’m not even sure if it was possible. Maybe more time has to pass and I’ll find out the answer then. Maybe our characters are too different and we hadn’t even a chance. Nevertheless, the fact remains, it’s my failure too.

    Choosing an idea

    I was working with my friend on a piece of software. Whole thing was intended as a micro-ISV idea, but none of us decided to leave everyday job. In this case our biggest mistake was choosing an application we worked on. It’s not about a market for the application – I still believe we had a chance. It’s about our attitude – we had little fun while working on the software we’d chosen and we reached the point where none of us was still motivating himself, not mentioning about motivating a partner. The software died unfinished. We’d chosen the application only because some of work (part of the code) was already done, so we thought it’ll take much less work to finish. Now I think we had about 5% of work completed, so the choice wasn’t a well-thought one.

    Depending on situation my mistakes were followed by different consequences – in the first situation results were negligible, in the last example whole initiative ended up as a failure. It’s just a bunch of examples, but I can think about a list of others based on both my experience and my observations. Generally, it’s not shame to err – making a mistake once is an occasion to learn, but making the same mistake twice becomes a stupidity.