The blogpost starts explaining that they don't do daily standup because they are using a distributed team all over the world which makes it hard to gather the team for a daily standup. To me this makes perfect sense. There are many good ways for a team to be communicating and working. Everything doesn't need to be lean.
but then author carries on and the article becomes very weird:
"If daily stand-ups really are so awful, why do some managers insist on them? Hard truth: it’s because they’re lazy, incompetent managers"
My jaw dropped! That is a very bold statement overly generalizing and not conforming to the fact that there are many competent managers that are not lazy. The author of the article just lost a lot of credibility. If this is how you talk about your colleagues I don't want to work for you nor buy your products.
"Daily stand-ups are not only a waste of time and make software development more expensive, but they demoralise developers and make them want to change jobs."
How can the author generalize like that when you decided against it?
What works for me might not necessarily work for you, and vice versa - to indicate otherwise strikes me as unprofessional, unsympathetic and demotivational.
There are also a lot of competent managers that are lazy (laziness can be good!)
And, worse perhaps, there are a lot of incompetent managers that are NOT lazy.
Now, the OP is a specific point of view. It's not unprofessional to have a clear cut point of view on some arbitrary practice.
It's no unsympathetic neither demotivational: from my pov, it's rather a sign that everything may not be lost in IT if there are still people thinking differently.
> they demoralise developers and make them want to change jobs
I kind of get what you mean but not because you made a good point.
People are demoralised because they are lazy/unmotivated and cannot perform, once they slack off, they cannot communicate out of shame. So even though it seems that they fear the status update, the culprit is the fact that they are not motivated at work or have poor work ethic.
In oder to fix this, sometimes getting a new job where you do what they like works.
Another comment mentioned things like geekbot which is text-based async stand up, you might want to try that. The key thing here is recording progress so that people can coordinate, it has nothing to do with you reporting to the manager.
The blogpost starts explaining that they don't do daily standup because they are using a distributed team all over the world which makes it hard to gather the team for a daily standup. To me this makes perfect sense. There are many good ways for a team to be communicating and working. Everything doesn't need to be lean.
but then author carries on and the article becomes very weird:
My jaw dropped! That is a very bold statement overly generalizing and not conforming to the fact that there are many competent managers that are not lazy. The author of the article just lost a lot of credibility. If this is how you talk about your colleagues I don't want to work for you nor buy your products. How can the author generalize like that when you decided against it?What works for me might not necessarily work for you, and vice versa - to indicate otherwise strikes me as unprofessional, unsympathetic and demotivational.