I don't see how taking 2 days and leadership time demonstrates concern for employees. Getting someone in who can take care of the problem quickly and efficiently* seems like it's better 'staying out of the programmer's way' than taking two days.
I think the lesson from the toilet cleaning was, "Look, if I'm going to require perfect inspections, I'm sure as hell going to have an immaculate bathroom. I also recognize that I need to show you how to perform to the level I expect. So here's how it's done."
That hands-on, know-what-you're-doing leadership is what's respectable. Making an object lesson, on the other hand, is hardly laudable.
*This falls into the "why I hesitate": if Joel could do it faster and more cheaply than having someone else come in that knows what they're doing, my criticism is less harsh, though I still think he's taking the 'wrong' lesson from his military experience.
Personally, I think Joel has shared some good lessons and insights. However I also think he ran out of really good material about 2 years ago, yet various outlets "demand" more from him.
This tends to happen a lot with almost any person who tries to blog/write too much on any sub-topic. At some point you've exhausted all of your unique datapoints and end up resorting to trying to spin the obvious into new and interesting stories. This is why, among other reasons, I like PG's almost-monthly essay installment schedule. I never feel like he is straining to product content.
I think you're missing the real point of these exercises. A good hacker, and anybody else for that matter, performs best when he is secure in the knowledge that he is being trusted and supported by peers and management. putting up drapes is a subtle way of showing thet the CEO will do anything to make you comfortable and make sure you can get work done.
It's not about the most efficient way of cleaning toilets or putting up drapes, it's about psychology.
My point is that most good hackers I know see through things fairly easily, and it undermines the message of "you're supported" when that support is not functioning in the best way possible. For instance, why does it take "days" to realize the sun is shining through the window and then two more to have someone who's not that great at putting up blinds put them up? Get someone in, fix the problem, get them out, bing-bang-boom, and you have a happy hacker, given most hackers I know. Take 5 days for something that should take 2 at the most (1 day to see the sun issue, 1 more to put up blinds) doesn't make people "secure in the knowledge that he is being...supported."
Hackers laugh, cry, have girlfriends (or boyfriends) just like everyone else. And they are suspectible to the same psychology as everyone else. They just often don't realise it because they think the world revolves around logic.
I've managed hackers in different startups, and my experience is that they aren't that different from anyone else in this respect. The primary difference is that they think these rules don't apply to them, which of course makes it much easier to apply them.
I'm not saying they don't have emotions, but nice try. Nor am I saying there's no such thing as hacker psychology. I have no idea what you mean when you say something like "same psychology as everyone else", My point is that the psychological boost support provides still needs to be actual support.
Yes I think the real lesson is "servant leadership" - what Joel (and Michael) did wasn't just a hollow corporate gesture (as it would appear if this was done in faceless BigCo as a matter of policy). But Joel is often like that, taking on the dirty tasks, building a installer for an app (cause it was grubby work that no one else could do, and he had some time) - I think its this consistent "servant leadership" that adds weight to it. And I massively respect that.
I don't see how taking 2 days and leadership time demonstrates concern for employees. Getting someone in who can take care of the problem quickly and efficiently* seems like it's better 'staying out of the programmer's way' than taking two days.
I think the lesson from the toilet cleaning was, "Look, if I'm going to require perfect inspections, I'm sure as hell going to have an immaculate bathroom. I also recognize that I need to show you how to perform to the level I expect. So here's how it's done."
That hands-on, know-what-you're-doing leadership is what's respectable. Making an object lesson, on the other hand, is hardly laudable.
*This falls into the "why I hesitate": if Joel could do it faster and more cheaply than having someone else come in that knows what they're doing, my criticism is less harsh, though I still think he's taking the 'wrong' lesson from his military experience.