5 ms·

> who would likely wonder why I'm was wasting her time At which point you show how much money is being thrown away here.

reaperducer 8y ago
At which point you show how much money is being thrown away here. You assume that wasting a few days of my time will cost the company more than me wasting her time. Remember, this person is probably seven or eight steps higher than me in the org chart. This is a large organization, not some startup.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  If you are spending days, and the person is spending 10 minutes, that might actually work out in your favor. Also, 7 or 8 steps in any org chart is insane. It’s more likely to cost a ton of money if someone hacks her browser/OS though.
twblalock 8y ago
This is somebody who successfully refuses to let IT upgrade her computer. That means she has a huge level of power in the organization and feels entitled to disregard policy. Do you honestly believe she cares about the IT department wasting a little bit of money (and it really is just a little bit relative to what she probably deals with), or would respond well to an IT guy pointing out his salary in an attempt to convince her to upgrade her computer? The advice you gave is more likely to get someone fired than it is to help.
- vlovich123 8y ago
  She seems like she's an easy attack vector into the company network. Is her computer also completely firewalled off from anything important or does the company not care about breaches?
- deytempo 8y ago
  Either that or “IT” is someone who doesn’t feel qualified enough to be assertive in their position. If I was this “IT” person, I would explain to the individual that there was a critical vulnerability found which will not be patched and then print up a liability waver form for them to sign and date, stating that they are doing this on their own terms and I cannot be held responsible should anything go wrong.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    > If I was this “IT” person, I would explain to the individual that there was a critical vulnerability found which will not be patched and then print up a liability waver form for them to sign and date, stating that they are doing this on their own terms and I cannot be held responsible should anything go wrong. That's even worse advice than what I was responding to. Great way to anger a high-ranking executive and probably get fired. Frankly a lot of the advice in this thread seems to be coming from people who are very junior or otherwise don't have experience dealing with high-ranking executives. Heck, even mid-ranking executives would respond very poorly to the kinds of actions advised in this thread. Here's the situation: a high-ranking person in the company is so powerful that she can disobey IT policy by refusing to update her computer. This person is also powerful enough to demand that changes be made to a corporate website to make it compatible with her older computer. This is a problem for the head of IT, and the head of IT either lost that battle or decided it was not worth fighting. This is not the right place for a more junior IT person or developer to stick their nose in by going directly to that executive with some bogus "liability waiver" or appeals to wasted money or whatever else. It won't go well, and it's wrong to do it in the first place because it bypasses layers of management and the historical and political context that led to this outcome. If the head of IT couldn't solve this problem, a stunt like what you are suggesting won't solve it either.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      Your advice is worse. Situations like this are entirely a game of dick swinging. If the IT department wants to become a room of ineffectual little shrinking-violet yes-men, then why would you want to work there in the first place? I get what you're saying, and I think that most corporate IT departments run themselves as little fiefdoms with false pretensions of importance and power. But if someone is insisting upon running systems that don't conform to reasonable standards of the company, then something needs to be done. I would consider requiring that device to be isolated from the network with a small firewall. But the waiver is a good idea—though unlike your assumption that it would be handled by an junior, such matters ought to be sent up the chain to the CIO or equivalent, and it should be the responsibility of the CIO to get the signature or take personal responsibility themselves.

reaperducer 8y ago

At which point you show how much money is being thrown away here. You assume that wasting a few days of my time will cost the company more than me wasting her time. Remember, this person is probably seven or eight steps higher than me in the org chart. This is a large organization, not some startup.

Aeolun 8y ago
If you are spending days, and the person is spending 10 minutes, that might actually work out in your favor. Also, 7 or 8 steps in any org chart is insane. It’s more likely to cost a ton of money if someone hacks her browser/OS though.

twblalock 8y ago

This is somebody who successfully refuses to let IT upgrade her computer. That means she has a huge level of power in the organization and feels entitled to disregard policy. Do you honestly believe she cares about the IT department wasting a little bit of money (and it really is just a little bit relative to what she probably deals with), or would respond well to an IT guy pointing out his salary in an attempt to convince her to upgrade her computer? The advice you gave is more likely to get someone fired than it is to help.

vlovich123 8y ago
She seems like she's an easy attack vector into the company network. Is her computer also completely firewalled off from anything important or does the company not care about breaches?
deytempo 8y ago
Either that or “IT” is someone who doesn’t feel qualified enough to be assertive in their position. If I was this “IT” person, I would explain to the individual that there was a critical vulnerability found which will not be patched and then print up a liability waver form for them to sign and date, stating that they are doing this on their own terms and I cannot be held responsible should anything go wrong.
- twblalock 8y ago
  > If I was this “IT” person, I would explain to the individual that there was a critical vulnerability found which will not be patched and then print up a liability waver form for them to sign and date, stating that they are doing this on their own terms and I cannot be held responsible should anything go wrong. That's even worse advice than what I was responding to. Great way to anger a high-ranking executive and probably get fired. Frankly a lot of the advice in this thread seems to be coming from people who are very junior or otherwise don't have experience dealing with high-ranking executives. Heck, even mid-ranking executives would respond very poorly to the kinds of actions advised in this thread. Here's the situation: a high-ranking person in the company is so powerful that she can disobey IT policy by refusing to update her computer. This person is also powerful enough to demand that changes be made to a corporate website to make it compatible with her older computer. This is a problem for the head of IT, and the head of IT either lost that battle or decided it was not worth fighting. This is not the right place for a more junior IT person or developer to stick their nose in by going directly to that executive with some bogus "liability waiver" or appeals to wasted money or whatever else. It won't go well, and it's wrong to do it in the first place because it bypasses layers of management and the historical and political context that led to this outcome. If the head of IT couldn't solve this problem, a stunt like what you are suggesting won't solve it either.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    Your advice is worse. Situations like this are entirely a game of dick swinging. If the IT department wants to become a room of ineffectual little shrinking-violet yes-men, then why would you want to work there in the first place? I get what you're saying, and I think that most corporate IT departments run themselves as little fiefdoms with false pretensions of importance and power. But if someone is insisting upon running systems that don't conform to reasonable standards of the company, then something needs to be done. I would consider requiring that device to be isolated from the network with a small firewall. But the waiver is a good idea—though unlike your assumption that it would be handled by an junior, such matters ought to be sent up the chain to the CIO or equivalent, and it should be the responsibility of the CIO to get the signature or take personal responsibility themselves.