4 ms·

At the end of the day is the managerial class. They are the ones making the stuff go down, and then the code monkey gets blamed for their lack of ethics. Really

by devoply 10y ago

At the end of the day is the managerial class. They are the ones making the stuff go down, and then the code monkey gets blamed for their lack of ethics. Really? You tell us to jump, and we ask how high, and that's generally expected. And you expect us to bear the burden of ethics too. I don't think so. You want to hold anyone responsible, hold the people who gave the orders, who signed the contracts. Not the code monkey whose entire life is predicated upon carrying out orders as they are given.

unimpressive 10y ago
Change the incentive structure. Punishment doesn't happen to those who are deserving, it happens to those who can't prevent it.
- devoply 10y ago
  You can not do that. The the end of the day the employee is beholden to money and a job. If they blow the whistle and get big daddy government involved, other companies will not hire that person. As simple as that. You can't make anyone hire anyone. You can't give them a replacement job. All you could do for such a person who has become unemployable is guarantee them an income for essentially the rest of their lives. Are governments willing to do that?
  - unimpressive 10y ago
    You are assuming a fairly specific implementation of a solution I gave essentially no details about. Odd.
hvs 10y ago
Blame needs to be spread around certainly, but "I was just following orders" is hardly an excuse.
- devoply 10y ago
  I was following orders, or I would lose my employment and have to go hungry, not pay my mortgage, not feed my kids. End up in a divorce. Ruin my entire life. You are right, it's hardly an excuse. Managers often get fired for not managing the people under them properly. They are responsible for the underlings, that's why they make more money and are held to a higher standard. I did not know what was going on underneath me in my organization is not an excuse for a manager.
  - madaxe_again 10y ago
    Pardon the thought experiment, but how far does that apply in your opinion? Suppose it's your job to execute the children of political prisoners (I know this is an extreme example) - would you still say that despite it being your hands doing the deed, culpability would lie elsewhere, as the order to do so did not originate with you? Or is there a line? Also... who is a manager, exactly? Is it the guy who does the strangling's boss? His boss? His boss? Where does the buck stop?
    - devoply 10y ago
      Management has the ability in case of war to even diffuse that responsibility. So who fries for the execution is the person who gave the orders. In a hierarchical system, the person who gave the order and all his higher ups are responsible. That's how it works in the military. There is a chain of command, and those who are doing the commanding are the ones responsible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad#Blank_cartridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad#Blan...
      - coldcode 10y ago
        Except what I remember is something about finding a scapegoat at the bottom, and all the higher ups seem to have never been involved, and you blame the goat, and everyone else goes home happy but the goat. The military thrives on goatism.
jeffbush 10y ago
The middle managers are given directions by the CEO. The CEO needs to meet profit targets, or she'll be fired by the board. The board is beholden to the shareholders. There's always someone to pass blame to. When you go to work, you don't give up your moral agency.
- devoply 10y ago
  The consequences for each higher level on that ladder are significantly less. Those with the least to lose, shareholders, have most of the power. Therefore those should be held to the greatest account. Those with the most power. The reason the system is structured this way is exactly that, those with most power make the rules. And pass the responsibility down the chain to the lowest peons. The recent disasters, well 6 years old disaster, like the Deep Horizon Well fire come to mind.
  - aianus 10y ago
    > Those with the least to lose, shareholders, have most of the power. The shareholders have the most to lose, not the least. Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan's $100 million stake in your company (for example) is worth a lot more than all of those jobs put together. That's why they have all the power.
    - devoply 10y ago
      Not sure how I should respond to this. On one hand yes that's true. But on the other hand to what extent do the Board of Directors of any of the companies that it invests in respond to the stock holder? The stock holders in that sense are divorced from the running of the company and can't be held to account, because they can't influence the company at all. Their stock managers might be to some extent be liable. Again it's about the amount of power that you have in what the company does that determines your culpability in my opinion.
broccolisoup 10y ago
> At the end of the day is the managerial class. No Sir, it isn't. I was a manager for years, then a contractor, and nowadays run my own show. Never once did I acquiesce to a request that I had the slightest concern about. Not to falsify data, not to take operational shortcuts, not to infringe the privacy of employees (my own or my client's) or third parties. When such things are brought up, I do three things: 1. Say no. 2. Tell the other party that it is not a good idea: at worst will get them into a lot of trouble, at best they will lose any trust and respect they may have or hope to have one day. 3. Ask them what the real problem is, and try to help them find a real solution. It's surprising how often people go for the worst idea first without even considering other options. In all fairness, I do come from a regulated profession background (two of them, actually), where if I screw up I respond with my licence, but I also learned the ropes at a company that were very strict with this sort of thing.
- devoply 10y ago
  Code monkeys, or programmers, don't have that luxury... The model used by modern management for managing programmers is managing factory workers. They are told what to do, often by people who are completely clueless about what they are actually doing, and they are expected to perform at risk of firing. That's how it is. So I am glad you have had the opportunity to take the high ground. But many code monkeys don't have that privilege.
  - broccolisoup 10y ago
    You are making excuses, Sir.
    - devoply 10y ago
      I don't think so. As I said enjoy your privilege. Many people if not most don't have that.
  - bbcbasic 10y ago
    > But many code monkeys don't have that privilege. Well you can get a code monkey job somewhere else. That is one option.
intended 10y ago
That's precisely the opposite of the point being made. The code monkeys are the ones who actually have the code to blow up the world and are the last line of defense when it comes to this. Ethics precisely means you say no to the managerial class because you are a professional

by devoply 10y ago

unimpressive 10y ago

Change the incentive structure. Punishment doesn't happen to those who are deserving, it happens to those who can't prevent it.

devoply 10y ago
You can not do that. The the end of the day the employee is beholden to money and a job. If they blow the whistle and get big daddy government involved, other companies will not hire that person. As simple as that. You can't make anyone hire anyone. You can't give them a replacement job. All you could do for such a person who has become unemployable is guarantee them an income for essentially the rest of their lives. Are governments willing to do that?
- unimpressive 10y ago
  You are assuming a fairly specific implementation of a solution I gave essentially no details about. Odd.

hvs 10y ago

Blame needs to be spread around certainly, but "I was just following orders" is hardly an excuse.

devoply 10y ago
I was following orders, or I would lose my employment and have to go hungry, not pay my mortgage, not feed my kids. End up in a divorce. Ruin my entire life. You are right, it's hardly an excuse. Managers often get fired for not managing the people under them properly. They are responsible for the underlings, that's why they make more money and are held to a higher standard. I did not know what was going on underneath me in my organization is not an excuse for a manager.
- madaxe_again 10y ago
  Pardon the thought experiment, but how far does that apply in your opinion? Suppose it's your job to execute the children of political prisoners (I know this is an extreme example) - would you still say that despite it being your hands doing the deed, culpability would lie elsewhere, as the order to do so did not originate with you? Or is there a line? Also... who is a manager, exactly? Is it the guy who does the strangling's boss? His boss? His boss? Where does the buck stop?
  - devoply 10y ago
    Management has the ability in case of war to even diffuse that responsibility. So who fries for the execution is the person who gave the orders. In a hierarchical system, the person who gave the order and all his higher ups are responsible. That's how it works in the military. There is a chain of command, and those who are doing the commanding are the ones responsible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad#Blank_cartridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad#Blan...
    - coldcode 10y ago
      Except what I remember is something about finding a scapegoat at the bottom, and all the higher ups seem to have never been involved, and you blame the goat, and everyone else goes home happy but the goat. The military thrives on goatism.

jeffbush 10y ago

The middle managers are given directions by the CEO. The CEO needs to meet profit targets, or she'll be fired by the board. The board is beholden to the shareholders. There's always someone to pass blame to. When you go to work, you don't give up your moral agency.

devoply 10y ago
The consequences for each higher level on that ladder are significantly less. Those with the least to lose, shareholders, have most of the power. Therefore those should be held to the greatest account. Those with the most power. The reason the system is structured this way is exactly that, those with most power make the rules. And pass the responsibility down the chain to the lowest peons. The recent disasters, well 6 years old disaster, like the Deep Horizon Well fire come to mind.
- aianus 10y ago
  > Those with the least to lose, shareholders, have most of the power. The shareholders have the most to lose, not the least. Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan's $100 million stake in your company (for example) is worth a lot more than all of those jobs put together. That's why they have all the power.
  - devoply 10y ago
    Not sure how I should respond to this. On one hand yes that's true. But on the other hand to what extent do the Board of Directors of any of the companies that it invests in respond to the stock holder? The stock holders in that sense are divorced from the running of the company and can't be held to account, because they can't influence the company at all. Their stock managers might be to some extent be liable. Again it's about the amount of power that you have in what the company does that determines your culpability in my opinion.

broccolisoup 10y ago

> At the end of the day is the managerial class. No Sir, it isn't. I was a manager for years, then a contractor, and nowadays run my own show. Never once did I acquiesce to a request that I had the slightest concern about. Not to falsify data, not to take operational shortcuts, not to infringe the privacy of employees (my own or my client's) or third parties. When such things are brought up, I do three things: 1. Say no. 2. Tell the other party that it is not a good idea: at worst will get them into a lot of trouble, at best they will lose any trust and respect they may have or hope to have one day. 3. Ask them what the real problem is, and try to help them find a real solution. It's surprising how often people go for the worst idea first without even considering other options. In all fairness, I do come from a regulated profession background (two of them, actually), where if I screw up I respond with my licence, but I also learned the ropes at a company that were very strict with this sort of thing.

devoply 10y ago
Code monkeys, or programmers, don't have that luxury... The model used by modern management for managing programmers is managing factory workers. They are told what to do, often by people who are completely clueless about what they are actually doing, and they are expected to perform at risk of firing. That's how it is. So I am glad you have had the opportunity to take the high ground. But many code monkeys don't have that privilege.
- broccolisoup 10y ago
  You are making excuses, Sir.
  - devoply 10y ago
    I don't think so. As I said enjoy your privilege. Many people if not most don't have that.
- bbcbasic 10y ago
  > But many code monkeys don't have that privilege. Well you can get a code monkey job somewhere else. That is one option.

intended 10y ago

That's precisely the opposite of the point being made. The code monkeys are the ones who actually have the code to blow up the world and are the last line of defense when it comes to this. Ethics precisely means you say no to the managerial class because you are a professional