4 ms·

I've worked in a lot of different organizations and have seen this happen over and over again. One point the author misses is that it becomes received knowledg

I've worked in a lot of different organizations and have seen this happen over and over again. One point the author misses is that it becomes received knowledge that certain parts of the problem are insolvable. After a dozen or two meetings trying to solve something, the participants believe (and tell one another) that this part of the problem can't be solved. There's a certain pivot point that happens when you join an organization. At first, you're asking "Why can't we do X?" and "If we do Y, won't that fix this part of the problem?" Each time, you are told that yes, we tried that. Several times. Really smart people tried. It didn't work. Now the trick here is that you don't know if that's true or not. You don't know how many times it was tried, who tried it, what strategy they used, or exactly how things played out. It's all just secondhand information. Do that enough? Pretty soon you're the person telling the new guy that we've already been down this road. It just can't be done. You stop being part of the solution and start being part of the problem. (And then some new organization comes along and solves the problem quite nicely. Cue up a lot of "Well, we could do it to if we only had Z like they did!" sour grapes talk.) For an outsider trying to help people, when you hear yourself doing this, it's time to go. You are no longer a positive agent of change.

jnellis 9y ago
Isn't there a famous monkey experiment that describes this situation. Long after the original monkey that exhibits some (natural monkey) action and gets reprimanded for it, other monkeys try to stop new monkeys coming into the group from doing the same action generations later, even after the original monkey is no longer in the group and the action is no longer reprimanded against.
- fernandopj 9y ago
  Yes: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-experiment-with-five-monkeys-a-ladder-a-banana-and-a-water-spray-condu https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-ex...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - laretluval 9y ago
    Your link indicates that there is no evidence that this experiment ever took place.
- sparkzilla 9y ago
  Similar to this experiment, where people continue to follow an order even after the original group members have left: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keBh_LK5Ha4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keBh_LK5Ha4
temp-dude-87844 9y ago
This phenomenon shows how culture and norms perpetuate in societies and companies. And it's notable that it does not originate with senseless malice in the the actors' behavior, but with rational self-preservation. In company culture, this phenomenon plays out because new entrants would likely hit the same institutional walls, encounter the same defeat, then get disenchanted and leave. The preemptive conditioning is a tool others use in good faith to help a new entrant set realistic expectations, and focus their energy somewhere where it has a higher likelihood of success. The parallels to the Peters Principle are interesting. It can be controversial to flag phenomenon certain phenomena as self-fulfilling, but there's tautological comfort in declaring everyone's at their current job because they haven't left yet. The Peters Principle explains that by supposing that promotions to management roles tend to be based on performance in non-management roles from which skills don't necessarily transfer, and middling managers no longer get promoted further; this one is about group behavior tends towards further conformity, as disruptors are pacified by others or get frustrated and depart. Over time, the survivors of the group will tend to be more similar than different.
- DanielBMarkham 9y ago
  Because I've seen a lot of orgs of all sizes, people sometimes ask what happens to stress levels as the org grows? In fiction, big companies are high-risk, high-drama affairs. Not so much. In reality, very quickly the stress almost completely disappears. Instead of there being a bunch of things to stress over, there become a very few -- they're mostly hidden. As soon as you grow to even 20 or 30 people, members of the group start actively doing all they can to reduce stress. As you already know, the people who tell you that it's never going to work aren't your enemy, and they really want it fixed. They're doing their best to make your job productive and happy. I worked in a very well-known financial firm once that had just gone through several rounds of lay-offs. It was one of the most encouraging places I've seen. Whatever was suggested, people loved it. They didn't change what they were doing, but they weren't about to try things they "knew" weren't going to work, so they offered effusive praise and found good places to hide. Big companies may do cruel and inhumane things to their employees, but it's most always out of kindness, not malice. The operative rule is "no drama" -- which can many times mean "don't rock the boat". The two get conflated quite a bit.
js8 9y ago
I have been on both sides of this. And both sides are often right. In defense of defenders of status quo, after some time, it becomes tedious to explain the reasons why it didn't work, to people who didn't do basic homework. Sometimes the turnaround of people is just too high. And the defenders of status quo often have their own ideas of what are important problems to solve, and they are often right. On the other hand, the innovator shouldn't just quit. If you think your idea has merit, build a prototype! Prototype of almost anything can be built by a single person. Maybe it can be done after all. I think the solution to this problem is 20% time to work on whatever (improvement) you want. The youngsters can then work on new innovative things, which the older guys considered impossible. And the older guys can work on what they really think matters.
jameshart 9y ago
This is all true, I’ve seen it many times as well. But a note of caution I would sound for software developers who find themselves going through this cycle in a business, because we technologists are often guilty of not matching our priorities to the business need. You join a company, and you explore their codebase, and of course you see dozens of obvious opportunities to improve. Abstractions that could unlock new capabilities, systems that don’t communicate that could be integrated, code that could be optimized, obvious user scenarios that were ignored or left unfinished. Yet the business keeps asking for other things to be done, ignoring these obvious low-hanging opportunities! What fools! Stop. Take a step back. Look at the numbers. It is often the case that the improvements you can see are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, but the business is pursuing hundreds of millions. There can be orders of magnitude of difference that, if you’re honest, mean that working on those obvious opportunities is a waste of time compared to the big picture. It can even be the case that a competitor shows up and seemingly validates one of those opportunities you’re foregoing - you, a frustrated developer, point to this upstart business building something and you say ‘look! We could have built that!’ Then you look closely and realize they’re making pennies in a tiny market and meanwhile your business grew by more than ten times their total revenue in the last year. Of course, I’m not saying it’s always right to ignore these opportunities; just that when you first join a company, you need to understand not just the technical space but also the business before you start proposing how to divert resources.
- jadedhacker 9y ago
  Programmers interests aren't aligned with the business because they don't directly share in the profits in a significant way. Managers do and so their interests are somewhat aligned with the stockholders. Instead, the programmers do what is in their self-interest, make their own lives better since they see little direct benefit from doing otherwise. The stronger the incentives to be helpful, the more helpfulness you'll get.
nyc111 9y ago
I think the saying “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution” is for institutions not for individuals. The idea is that for instance The Society to End Hunger will never end hunger because if it does it will have to end its existence. I think what you are saying is looking for another good aphorism. I'm sure there must be one.

jnellis 9y ago

Isn't there a famous monkey experiment that describes this situation. Long after the original monkey that exhibits some (natural monkey) action and gets reprimanded for it, other monkeys try to stop new monkeys coming into the group from doing the same action generations later, even after the original monkey is no longer in the group and the action is no longer reprimanded against.

fernandopj 9y ago
Yes: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-experiment-with-five-monkeys-a-ladder-a-banana-and-a-water-spray-condu https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-ex...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- laretluval 9y ago
  Your link indicates that there is no evidence that this experiment ever took place.
sparkzilla 9y ago
Similar to this experiment, where people continue to follow an order even after the original group members have left: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keBh_LK5Ha4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keBh_LK5Ha4

temp-dude-87844 9y ago

This phenomenon shows how culture and norms perpetuate in societies and companies. And it's notable that it does not originate with senseless malice in the the actors' behavior, but with rational self-preservation. In company culture, this phenomenon plays out because new entrants would likely hit the same institutional walls, encounter the same defeat, then get disenchanted and leave. The preemptive conditioning is a tool others use in good faith to help a new entrant set realistic expectations, and focus their energy somewhere where it has a higher likelihood of success. The parallels to the Peters Principle are interesting. It can be controversial to flag phenomenon certain phenomena as self-fulfilling, but there's tautological comfort in declaring everyone's at their current job because they haven't left yet. The Peters Principle explains that by supposing that promotions to management roles tend to be based on performance in non-management roles from which skills don't necessarily transfer, and middling managers no longer get promoted further; this one is about group behavior tends towards further conformity, as disruptors are pacified by others or get frustrated and depart. Over time, the survivors of the group will tend to be more similar than different.

DanielBMarkham 9y ago
Because I've seen a lot of orgs of all sizes, people sometimes ask what happens to stress levels as the org grows? In fiction, big companies are high-risk, high-drama affairs. Not so much. In reality, very quickly the stress almost completely disappears. Instead of there being a bunch of things to stress over, there become a very few -- they're mostly hidden. As soon as you grow to even 20 or 30 people, members of the group start actively doing all they can to reduce stress. As you already know, the people who tell you that it's never going to work aren't your enemy, and they really want it fixed. They're doing their best to make your job productive and happy. I worked in a very well-known financial firm once that had just gone through several rounds of lay-offs. It was one of the most encouraging places I've seen. Whatever was suggested, people loved it. They didn't change what they were doing, but they weren't about to try things they "knew" weren't going to work, so they offered effusive praise and found good places to hide. Big companies may do cruel and inhumane things to their employees, but it's most always out of kindness, not malice. The operative rule is "no drama" -- which can many times mean "don't rock the boat". The two get conflated quite a bit.

js8 9y ago

I have been on both sides of this. And both sides are often right. In defense of defenders of status quo, after some time, it becomes tedious to explain the reasons why it didn't work, to people who didn't do basic homework. Sometimes the turnaround of people is just too high. And the defenders of status quo often have their own ideas of what are important problems to solve, and they are often right. On the other hand, the innovator shouldn't just quit. If you think your idea has merit, build a prototype! Prototype of almost anything can be built by a single person. Maybe it can be done after all. I think the solution to this problem is 20% time to work on whatever (improvement) you want. The youngsters can then work on new innovative things, which the older guys considered impossible. And the older guys can work on what they really think matters.

jameshart 9y ago

This is all true, I’ve seen it many times as well. But a note of caution I would sound for software developers who find themselves going through this cycle in a business, because we technologists are often guilty of not matching our priorities to the business need. You join a company, and you explore their codebase, and of course you see dozens of obvious opportunities to improve. Abstractions that could unlock new capabilities, systems that don’t communicate that could be integrated, code that could be optimized, obvious user scenarios that were ignored or left unfinished. Yet the business keeps asking for other things to be done, ignoring these obvious low-hanging opportunities! What fools! Stop. Take a step back. Look at the numbers. It is often the case that the improvements you can see are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, but the business is pursuing hundreds of millions. There can be orders of magnitude of difference that, if you’re honest, mean that working on those obvious opportunities is a waste of time compared to the big picture. It can even be the case that a competitor shows up and seemingly validates one of those opportunities you’re foregoing - you, a frustrated developer, point to this upstart business building something and you say ‘look! We could have built that!’ Then you look closely and realize they’re making pennies in a tiny market and meanwhile your business grew by more than ten times their total revenue in the last year. Of course, I’m not saying it’s always right to ignore these opportunities; just that when you first join a company, you need to understand not just the technical space but also the business before you start proposing how to divert resources.

jadedhacker 9y ago
Programmers interests aren't aligned with the business because they don't directly share in the profits in a significant way. Managers do and so their interests are somewhat aligned with the stockholders. Instead, the programmers do what is in their self-interest, make their own lives better since they see little direct benefit from doing otherwise. The stronger the incentives to be helpful, the more helpfulness you'll get.

nyc111 9y ago

I think the saying “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution” is for institutions not for individuals. The idea is that for instance The Society to End Hunger will never end hunger because if it does it will have to end its existence. I think what you are saying is looking for another good aphorism. I'm sure there must be one.