Dopass.com

I've had reason to be reminded of this topic several times in the very recent past, and it's something I feel strongly about, so I thought I'd blog about it finally.

I'm talking about the way we, in the industry, regard the people that have left us. The dead. Every project I've ever worked on has had at least one person leave the team for one reason or another. Occasionally, it's even been me.

It's just a fact that people move on, for a million different reasons. Sometimes the project is better off when they leave, sometimes it isn't. However, regardless of whether that person leaving is a good or a bad thing, in my experience it is a universal practice to speak ill of the person that leaves. To curse the dead and make them the cause of all the project's problems.

This industry has a lot of emotion invested in it. We developers are very passionate about what we do, and our teams tends to be tight-knit because of what we go through together to get games done. I think that's why trash-talking the dead is such a common practice in this industry; in many ways someone leaving a project can feel like a betrayal. If that person was made to leave, e.g. was fired or laid off, the survivors might still feel betrayed. After all, if only that person had worked harder, or been more committed, everything would be fine, right?

Wrong - and that's the problem. We have this tendency to blame the dead for every problem a project has, even when the dead had literally no involvement with the problems at hand. We use the dead as a way to avoid admitting we're not perfect; that we're not all the rock stars and superheroes we see ourselves as in our heads.

Case in point: In the past I worked on a project where the team was divided into several smaller sub-teams (let's call them teams X, Y and Z) . Each of these sub-teams had a lead and one of those sub-teams went through 2 leads in quick succession (Team X). At each changing of the guard, the former lead of sub-team X was blamed for the sub-teams problems -- for the same problems. In other words, the problems of sub-team X had never been fixed when the leadership changed, but rather than acknowledge the problem still existed in the sub-team, the people still there pointed their fingers at those that left, each time.

So, a lead finally stuck and this little sub-team chugged along and got it stuff done, but suddenly the leads of sub-teams Y and Z died. It only took a few weeks for the survivors of sub-team X to start blaming their problems on those dead leads from the other sub-teams. (sorry to be convoluted, but I don't want to name names)

Here's the thing: Those leads that left had nothing to do with this sub-team's experience. They literally could not have been responsible for what they were blamed for. But does it matter? Not to the lead of surviving sub-team X, I suppose. The quote from lead of sub-team X was, "Those guys almost ruined my sub-team!" -- Still speaking ill of the dead, you see?

But how? How were they involved? Did they take over this guy's sub-team while he wasn't looking? No. Did they do a bunch of work on his piece of the project while he was on vacation? No. Did they do anything for this guy's sub-team at all while he ran that sub-team? Answer: No. In other words, even if they had worked with sub-team X in the past, it certainly never happened while this guy was the lead that team and was it likely done by the request of and under the direction of the the project's bosses, the people that the leads of each sub-team report to. Why else would someone responsible for Team Y or Z spend time to work on Team X's piece of the project? The blame doesn't belong with the dead; the lead of Team X needs to talk to his or her boss because that's where the problem, if there is one, would be, right?

But it's easier to blame the dead, isn't it? They can't defend themselves. You don't have to admit that you might be the problem when you can point to the corpse and say, "he did it!" -- Even better, you and the survivors can get over your guilt by pointing to the corpse and saying, "It had to be him, look at him! He's dead!" In a way, it's a sick way to bond and get through the grief of losing these people, but it's the opposite of healthy and I can't help but think it dooms projects when it happens.

You know, even if the dead did cause you a million problems, and it's better that they're gone, is that their fault? Did they hire themselves? Couldn't it be said that hiring them at all was the mistake, and wouldn't that be the fault of your team's management? The dead are already dead, haven't they endured enough?

The industry would be a lot better off if we stopped using the dead as scapegoats. If we could ditch our denial and face our problems head on (e.g. "This sub-team has had the same problems no matter who leads it; maybe it's a problem with the sub-team!"). Maybe then the problems we're busy blaming on the dead could be fixed. Remember, knowing there's a problem is only the first step - you have to actually fix it for that matter. Blaming your ills on the dead is just a way to avoid fixing your problems; to avoid doing the hard things.

Consider it the next time you find yourself leaving a team, as the walking dead.

- Snipehunter