4 ms·

Another thing I've noticed is that no matter how compelling the argument it's also near impossible to get people to take action to change things that are deeply

Another thing I've noticed is that no matter how compelling the argument it's also near impossible to get people to take action to change things that are deeply entrenched even if they agree with you.

KirinDave 10y ago
I have seen this too. I have a theory about it. Most organizations only recognize negative intercessions as praiseworthy, and categorize positive intercession as "business as usual" to be expected, even if sometimes the positive intercession is much harder. "No!" moments are much valued in corporate culture these days. People think this promotes the propagation of critical thinking across an organization. Perhaps ironically, the opposite is true. By tuning everyone to say, "No!" and rewarding them as such, it actually limits the impact of the actual important "No!" moments because everyone is competing for these accolades. Most corporate culture does not reward people for following orders or improving upon someone else's idea. It's a legacy of the strict hierarchy all our organizations descend from (or a consequence of the apathy that more modern "matrixed" organizations breeds in its mid-grade baseline employees, who are taught not to overly invest in a given project).
- angry_octet 10y ago
  My experience is mostly in the other direction. While C-level executives out of their depth (which seems to be most of the time when it comes to technology) tend to have quite a few 'No!' moments, maybe because it gives them a sense of control, they don't like hearing No from anyone else. In fact, expressing doubts about the wisdom of pushing ahead with a project, even one already failing, is seen as very poor behaviour, like you have just farted in front of everyone. Likewise, identifying risks is often seen as negativity, rather than a foundation principle of review. People who subsequently roll out one of these failed ideas are often publicly rewarded. In contrast, the people who develop the alternate system that is actually used tend to be ignored.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    My observation is not applicable to C-levels and other people in positions of extreme power. It really only occurs when an org develops a middle-strata of management and executors with finely-cut responsibilities. Truly big companies.

KirinDave 10y ago

I have seen this too. I have a theory about it. Most organizations only recognize negative intercessions as praiseworthy, and categorize positive intercession as "business as usual" to be expected, even if sometimes the positive intercession is much harder. "No!" moments are much valued in corporate culture these days. People think this promotes the propagation of critical thinking across an organization. Perhaps ironically, the opposite is true. By tuning everyone to say, "No!" and rewarding them as such, it actually limits the impact of the actual important "No!" moments because everyone is competing for these accolades. Most corporate culture does not reward people for following orders or improving upon someone else's idea. It's a legacy of the strict hierarchy all our organizations descend from (or a consequence of the apathy that more modern "matrixed" organizations breeds in its mid-grade baseline employees, who are taught not to overly invest in a given project).

angry_octet 10y ago
My experience is mostly in the other direction. While C-level executives out of their depth (which seems to be most of the time when it comes to technology) tend to have quite a few 'No!' moments, maybe because it gives them a sense of control, they don't like hearing No from anyone else. In fact, expressing doubts about the wisdom of pushing ahead with a project, even one already failing, is seen as very poor behaviour, like you have just farted in front of everyone. Likewise, identifying risks is often seen as negativity, rather than a foundation principle of review. People who subsequently roll out one of these failed ideas are often publicly rewarded. In contrast, the people who develop the alternate system that is actually used tend to be ignored.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  My observation is not applicable to C-levels and other people in positions of extreme power. It really only occurs when an org develops a middle-strata of management and executors with finely-cut responsibilities. Truly big companies.