You don’t own the house until you’ve paid off your mortgage. If you’re doing that under 50, you’re probably pretty decently well off. And also if it’s actually you who owns the house and not your sibling or parents who you’re living with.
I would expect 70% might have a mortgage but owning - as in not having to pay the mortgage because you own the home entirely - would be well under 70%.
To be fair, we were already micromanaged. Then Agile was posited as a solution, so of course we were enthusiastic. Unfortunately the only thing that appeared to change was the name.
Are you sure you haven’t just always been micromanaged and this is another way for that to happen? All things can be abused for bad purposes.
I haven’t heard too many examples of “oh man we used to be free and ship great features on time but now that we have a backlog and talk to each other every day it’s a hellscape death march”
I've done my stint in "large enterprise". It's a whole new world there where management believe that if projects aren't on track, then the solution is more meetings, more agile training and in-house "coaches", and even more micromanaging. I'm no longer in that world, and I'll never go back.
As someone that has also worked for large enterprises as well as government, I’d say that using agile can be another way to micromanage, but it can also be used in a way that improves product quality and impact while helping developers.
Generally, I’ve found that the level to which agile approaches make life better depends on how much management is actually willing to let the team do its work and stay empowered. This can happen with trust and top cover in large enterprises, but it takes constant work at the PO / product manager level otherwise regression to the mean takes over. Also hard to avoid the inertia of making successful teams bigger rather than letting them continue small.
I wonder how the Amazons / Facebooks of the world avoid the trap, but then their enabling teams are likely a big percentage of their workforce because they understand how important software is to their business.
By top cover, do you mean managers shielding lower level employees? That was my experience at a mid-size finance firm,
it was only possible for my team do to decent work because my team lead was fairly competent at keeping the
higher-ups up at bay.
I stopped going to my team's standups because of this. For a few weeks I was occasionally asked about what I was doing, I just always said I was busy on whatever I was working on. Now I'm the only member of my team who never joins the standups. I wonder if they resent me for that, but it's not worth going back.
Probably they resent you. What feels like a good solution is discussing this in the retrospective or have an informal discussion about this. Then again, team members need to be open to discussing this and viewing it from another angle.
Also, by discussing the issue you might discover others feel the same way and are open to changing the process.
