4 ms·

Seems to me you two are arguing (as so many seem to on HN) at cross purposes. One is saying "this is the way the world works", the other is saying "this is the

by cam_l 10y ago

Seems to me you two are arguing (as so many seem to on HN) at cross purposes. One is saying "this is the way the world works", the other is saying "this is the way the world should work". You can acknowledge one, and strive for the other, at the same time. But then amusingly, your plaintive comment on "how things are" quickly turns into an impassioned rant about "how things should be" - which funnily enough is just how things used to be. Maybe you learnt the rules, you did the hard yards, you are just starting to get ahead, and now these upstarts are trying to change the rules. Your whole argument turns on respecting the power structures of the status quo. It seems so horribly entitled to suggest that because the current power structure of organisations support dictator style management, that one cannot try to find ways to undermine that power structure. Organising, complaining, publicly naming and shaming, are just some of the levers to pull to try to readjust the current power structures in your favour.. and why wouldn't you? What manager respects and rewards quiet acquiescence?

dogma1138 10y ago
Nothing is wrong with the current management structure we have, direct democracy doesn't work in every case if you want to be your own boss there are ways to achieve that. Even in government there is a good reason why we choose representatives we elect the people we think would make the best decisions, hopefully even those which aren't popular what we keep is the right to kick them out without assembling a militia and starting a coup. But companies are not governments, the voice you have in what's going on in the company is tied directly to your value to said company, or if you are an investor then to just how much of the company you actually own but as most employees are not investors and even those who get stock usually get non-voting stock it doesn't matter. Employees have voices but they do not make the decisions unless they've been granted the permission to do so. Companies with flat structures and lack of hierarchies don't tend to work out, it's very nice when everyone is equal and everyone is their own boss but it also boils to a mess where no one is responsible for anything and people end up doing what they want instead of what the company needs them to do. If you actually have concerns about the company and you are debating something that would have an actual impact on the companies outlook every good manager would hear you out and take your opinion under advisement. Discussing company policy which has nothing to do with how would the company perform is a silly battle. Going against the backs of your managers and stirring up trouble is a stupid thing to do and if you are not in a good position to begin with mostly because you do not represent any substantial value to the company you should not be expected to keep your job. Over 10 years I've oddly enough worked only for 2 employers, the first one I left mostly because the work I did didn't interest me and when they tried to make me offers to stay including starting a new team/department I told them I appreciate it but i don't think that the company should focus on that field (they did it anyway about 3 months after I left and closed up that department after less than 1.5 years), I've been with my current employer for over 6 years. And I never had problems telling any of my managers (including the CEO) that they are wrong or that something is incorrect but I do form pretty good arguments and I pick my battles if I need to spend 2000$ more on IT gear for everyone of my teammates I rather build a business case around that than pick a fight about the quality of the beans in the coffee machine. (Also quite important is not to only make a good solid argument, is to do so respectfully and not waste their time over nonsense or things that are out of their control in the first place.) What the woman in the article did was equal to fighting over italian roast, she didn't even made a business case for why the policy should be changed, no she fought a policy by making a list of people that do not want to wear dress shoes. If anything has failed her here it's her education system that up till now didn't tought her that a petition is worthless, that if you want to something to change you build a position of substance and argue that one. Instead she probably got through high school where you can make a petition to bully a teacher that dares to teach you matters that make you uncomfortable and then went to college in which the teachers were so afraid of their students that they probably deserve combat pay. P.S. I don't think that it's fair to equate the current management style of most companies to dictatorships, if you manage to create a better structure that can be applied to any company larger than 2 people which is substantially different well then you going to make quite a bit of money both because you have created a successful company and that every management school out there would probably love to pay you to lecture there. I'm sure that the likes of the London Business School are already holding their breath.
- cam_l 10y ago
  I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with most of your previous points, just prompting you to step back and see the bare logic of your argument. Your thoughts (and to a certain extent mine) about what is acceptable and what is not is informed by our previous experiences. Things change, and this shouldn't invalidate other peoples experiences or stop them from trying something different. "Nothing is wrong with the current management structure we have" Completely indefensible. There is plenty wrong. No small part of what is wrong is to do with the way people's egos and prejudices get turned into policy and power. And there are a whole world of options between dictatorship and direct democracy. Everything else you describe past this point is, once again, a description of how things are, not how they should be. Your experiences are a description of how to function under an inopportune power structure. Just as it is fair to say that the manager decided that this act was insubordination and needed to be punished by a firing, it is also fair to say that if there is a company policy which does not effect revenue but does effect quality of life, then it is perfectly reasonable to organise with your fellow workers to change it. The only error from the interns here was about not gathering enough power to actually see through the change. "If anything has failed her here it's her education system that up till now didn't taught her that a petition is worthless, that if you want to something to change you build a position of substance and argue that one." Fully agree with this, but as a starting point of not understanding the way something works, testing it, finding the edge cases and breaking it down is a good start. Do you not do this with every new tool you use? Besides, the real issue you alluded to before is that they basically didn't get that by signing a petition they were organising. The boss understood this and his over the top response is indicative of why organising needs to be protected in law (in a fair and balanced way). PS. "I don't think that it's fair to equate the current management style of most companies to dictatorships". Fair enough, oligarchy then.. When the choice is 'my way or the highway', and when they are telling you how to act and how to dress, how else would you describe it?

by cam_l 10y ago

dogma1138 10y ago

Nothing is wrong with the current management structure we have, direct democracy doesn't work in every case if you want to be your own boss there are ways to achieve that. Even in government there is a good reason why we choose representatives we elect the people we think would make the best decisions, hopefully even those which aren't popular what we keep is the right to kick them out without assembling a militia and starting a coup. But companies are not governments, the voice you have in what's going on in the company is tied directly to your value to said company, or if you are an investor then to just how much of the company you actually own but as most employees are not investors and even those who get stock usually get non-voting stock it doesn't matter. Employees have voices but they do not make the decisions unless they've been granted the permission to do so. Companies with flat structures and lack of hierarchies don't tend to work out, it's very nice when everyone is equal and everyone is their own boss but it also boils to a mess where no one is responsible for anything and people end up doing what they want instead of what the company needs them to do. If you actually have concerns about the company and you are debating something that would have an actual impact on the companies outlook every good manager would hear you out and take your opinion under advisement. Discussing company policy which has nothing to do with how would the company perform is a silly battle. Going against the backs of your managers and stirring up trouble is a stupid thing to do and if you are not in a good position to begin with mostly because you do not represent any substantial value to the company you should not be expected to keep your job. Over 10 years I've oddly enough worked only for 2 employers, the first one I left mostly because the work I did didn't interest me and when they tried to make me offers to stay including starting a new team/department I told them I appreciate it but i don't think that the company should focus on that field (they did it anyway about 3 months after I left and closed up that department after less than 1.5 years), I've been with my current employer for over 6 years. And I never had problems telling any of my managers (including the CEO) that they are wrong or that something is incorrect but I do form pretty good arguments and I pick my battles if I need to spend 2000$ more on IT gear for everyone of my teammates I rather build a business case around that than pick a fight about the quality of the beans in the coffee machine. (Also quite important is not to only make a good solid argument, is to do so respectfully and not waste their time over nonsense or things that are out of their control in the first place.) What the woman in the article did was equal to fighting over italian roast, she didn't even made a business case for why the policy should be changed, no she fought a policy by making a list of people that do not want to wear dress shoes. If anything has failed her here it's her education system that up till now didn't tought her that a petition is worthless, that if you want to something to change you build a position of substance and argue that one. Instead she probably got through high school where you can make a petition to bully a teacher that dares to teach you matters that make you uncomfortable and then went to college in which the teachers were so afraid of their students that they probably deserve combat pay. P.S. I don't think that it's fair to equate the current management style of most companies to dictatorships, if you manage to create a better structure that can be applied to any company larger than 2 people which is substantially different well then you going to make quite a bit of money both because you have created a successful company and that every management school out there would probably love to pay you to lecture there. I'm sure that the likes of the London Business School are already holding their breath.

cam_l 10y ago
I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with most of your previous points, just prompting you to step back and see the bare logic of your argument. Your thoughts (and to a certain extent mine) about what is acceptable and what is not is informed by our previous experiences. Things change, and this shouldn't invalidate other peoples experiences or stop them from trying something different. "Nothing is wrong with the current management structure we have" Completely indefensible. There is plenty wrong. No small part of what is wrong is to do with the way people's egos and prejudices get turned into policy and power. And there are a whole world of options between dictatorship and direct democracy. Everything else you describe past this point is, once again, a description of how things are, not how they should be. Your experiences are a description of how to function under an inopportune power structure. Just as it is fair to say that the manager decided that this act was insubordination and needed to be punished by a firing, it is also fair to say that if there is a company policy which does not effect revenue but does effect quality of life, then it is perfectly reasonable to organise with your fellow workers to change it. The only error from the interns here was about not gathering enough power to actually see through the change. "If anything has failed her here it's her education system that up till now didn't taught her that a petition is worthless, that if you want to something to change you build a position of substance and argue that one." Fully agree with this, but as a starting point of not understanding the way something works, testing it, finding the edge cases and breaking it down is a good start. Do you not do this with every new tool you use? Besides, the real issue you alluded to before is that they basically didn't get that by signing a petition they were organising. The boss understood this and his over the top response is indicative of why organising needs to be protected in law (in a fair and balanced way). PS. "I don't think that it's fair to equate the current management style of most companies to dictatorships". Fair enough, oligarchy then.. When the choice is 'my way or the highway', and when they are telling you how to act and how to dress, how else would you describe it?