In what types of programming environments is Reactive Management better than Proactive Management? [closed]

Question

Most everyone seems to agree that Reactive Management is worse than Proactive Management; however, it seems that I am constantly seeing Reactive Management from development managers.

Logic would suggest that there is some benefit to Reactive Management, since it is seen so often. I tend to see nothing but negative issues coming from this type of management, but I may be naive. In what sorts of programming environments/situations would Reactive Management be advantageous?

Answer 1

Logic would suggest that there is some benefit to Reactive Management

There is, It's Cheaper*

Consider the Following: You find corrupted data in the system

How you find the edge case that is causing and error? You need to first think of the edge case and\or go through all the code looking for possible edge cases that you may have missed. Imagine the man hours to do this with a massive Code base. Often that is what takes to be proactive.

What does it take to be reactive? Put in a logging mechanism, and wait for it to happen again.

Many argue that dealing with the bugs proactively is Cheaper in the long run. But in most cases its simply the case. Some bugs are just too difficult and time consuming to peg down and kill if you don't "Catch them in the act". So the decision is made to wait and see....

Answer 2

Never. Now that I have your attention, when it is a deliberate choice. But that makes it "Active management choosing to be Reactive". Why would anyone do that?

For the answer, look into the concept of initiative in combat. Many of the same concepts apply to good, active management. That is, instead of sitting and waiting for something to surprise you, you make a decision to wait and watch something before acting, instead of acting precipitously. This looks like reactive management, the same way a boxer taking blows in the corner looks like he is losing. It comes down to what is going on inside the person's head.

Panic? The boxer is letting things be done to him, and is on the way to a loss. Or a strategy? He's wearing out his opponent, and avoiding taking crippling damage while he waits for an opening.

I highly recommend the art of war for executives, as it is an easier read than the original, and it is applied to business. Sun Tzu has very good points on what is initiative, why it is vital, and many other things.

To quote him through the filter of translation:

Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.

Previously, he states:

What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.