4 ms·

What stands out to me the impact of loyalty on corruption. Despite doing obviously the right thing: Boisjoly later revealed this memo to the presidential commis

What stands out to me the impact of loyalty on corruption. Despite doing obviously the right thing: Boisjoly later revealed this memo to the presidential commission investigating the disaster and was then forced to leave Morton Thioklol after been shunned by disgruntled colleagues. Elsewhere in the discussion[1], we learn that key information about the O-rings had to be carefully, anonymously disclosed to protect the jobs of several people, including a prominent astronaut. How do we avoid corruption when loyalty uber alles is the rule of almost all organizations? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10992224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10992224

vlehto 11y ago
For small enough organization that "loyalty uber alles" prevents corruption. What is small enough? For a military company it's around Dunbar number. Squad that actually works together on single issue is often optimal around 8 individuals. Company, squad and brigade are most important formations, as they have dis-proportionally high number of things expected to handle independently. For this NASA o-ring bullshit, simplest solution seems to be having the technical managers and the astronauts in the same in-group. Now your loyalty is about not getting your mates killed. If you need a big organization, the trick is to have that internal network of squads and companies to work somehow non-corrupt and nice manner. This is where it gets hairy. Basically you can go with assumption of corruption and apply "transparency" or monetary incentives (sub contractors). Or you can assume that corruption does not happen. Sometimes the mere assumption that corruption does not happen stifles it. Practically for big companies failing less than your competitors is adequate for success.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Some interesting ideas; thanks. I don't quite grasp a couple of them: > For small enough organization that "loyalty uber alles" prevents corruption. How? There are many, many cases of people covering up for their fellow squad members. > Or you can assume that corruption does not happen. Sometimes the mere assumption that corruption does not happen stifles it. Hmmm ... that seems like a well-known recipe for encouraging corruption. How would that approach stifle it?
  - vlehto 11y ago
    >How? It's unlikely that one would be corrupt against ones squad members. So as squad member, you only have to worry about corruption of outside shit. People who affect you and are not member of same in-group are the problem from any individuals point of view. >How would that approach stifle it? Most people are good by nature. The only instance I've stolen from work was a situation where it was expected that I might steal from work. So I kind of showed to them that I'm more cunning than they are careful. A challenge. Another point comes from self image, if everybody sees you as corrupt asshole, you see yourself as corrupt asshole. So you might as well act on it. In general people have strong tendency to act as is expected of them. Stronger than the tendency to act as they are told.

vlehto 11y ago

For small enough organization that "loyalty uber alles" prevents corruption. What is small enough? For a military company it's around Dunbar number. Squad that actually works together on single issue is often optimal around 8 individuals. Company, squad and brigade are most important formations, as they have dis-proportionally high number of things expected to handle independently. For this NASA o-ring bullshit, simplest solution seems to be having the technical managers and the astronauts in the same in-group. Now your loyalty is about not getting your mates killed. If you need a big organization, the trick is to have that internal network of squads and companies to work somehow non-corrupt and nice manner. This is where it gets hairy. Basically you can go with assumption of corruption and apply "transparency" or monetary incentives (sub contractors). Or you can assume that corruption does not happen. Sometimes the mere assumption that corruption does not happen stifles it. Practically for big companies failing less than your competitors is adequate for success.

hackuser 11y ago
Some interesting ideas; thanks. I don't quite grasp a couple of them: > For small enough organization that "loyalty uber alles" prevents corruption. How? There are many, many cases of people covering up for their fellow squad members. > Or you can assume that corruption does not happen. Sometimes the mere assumption that corruption does not happen stifles it. Hmmm ... that seems like a well-known recipe for encouraging corruption. How would that approach stifle it?
- vlehto 11y ago
  >How? It's unlikely that one would be corrupt against ones squad members. So as squad member, you only have to worry about corruption of outside shit. People who affect you and are not member of same in-group are the problem from any individuals point of view. >How would that approach stifle it? Most people are good by nature. The only instance I've stolen from work was a situation where it was expected that I might steal from work. So I kind of showed to them that I'm more cunning than they are careful. A challenge. Another point comes from self image, if everybody sees you as corrupt asshole, you see yourself as corrupt asshole. So you might as well act on it. In general people have strong tendency to act as is expected of them. Stronger than the tendency to act as they are told.