4 ms·

"She was a military officer in a large organization. If you’ve ever worked at a company or an organization that operates at that kind of global scale… it’s very

"She was a military officer in a large organization. If you’ve ever worked at a company or an organization that operates at that kind of global scale… it’s very hard to get permission to do anything, because you need to go up three or four levels in the hierarchy above your boss to get permission" Can confirm. I have worked in the military and large corporations with draconian policies. Any organization of that size tends to be bereaucratic in order to handle people at scale and therefore is resistant to change and out-of-the-box thinking even when it would greatly benefit the organization. Individuals and first-line managers are rarely empowered to make changes without several levels of approval. Only after a new idea or process has been proven to be more effective will it be acknowledged as an option that the organization should consider for wider use throughout the organization. This is essentially part of the reason why larger organizations have more difficulty being innovative compared to smaller, more nimble organizations.

punnerud 7y ago
This is why I love to be a consultant in a large corporation, because I can talk with a lot of people without the feeling that I have to obey the hierarchy. When I figure out the best common goal I can follow the hierarchy to get approval. Maybe this only works in Norway..?
- sdegutis 7y ago
  I think the difference is that you’d then be an outside consultant, meaning they are consulting you to get your professional recommendations on what they should do to serve their interests best. So inherently they already want your advice and are willing to put it in action. Whereas an employee of any kind is not usually hired for their outside the box recommendations, but only to put into action decisions already made for them. Thus when one has an innovative idea, the company feels it is in their best interest to doubt your idea and conservatively err on the side of caution, since it’s not what they hired you for and they can’t trust your competence in innovating like that. In other words, employees are hired to keep the status quo and consultants are hired to decide what the status quo should be for the company’s best interests. At least, this is the best explanation I can come up with based on what people have said and mingling philosophy. I’ve never worked at a huge corporation so I could be all wrong.
  - samus 7y ago
    Consultants are often also just hired to work on projects. Big organisations often have issues finding competent people to work on projects, and those they have are often overworked already. In such cases consultants are very useful. At the end of the projects, they are often let off. Of course, this presents other issues, and capable consultants are often kept around for far longer than the project they initially got onboard for.
- cotillion 7y ago
  As a consultant I found that you don't even have to follow the hierarchy. You know you won't be at a company forever so just ignore those who are likely to obstruct and skip the hierarchy. And once you have backing from higher up there is little lower levels can do to obstruct your invoices. But my experience is from Sweden so maybe it only works in Scandinavia.
  - eecc 7y ago
    Oh, I got kicked out big time a couple times for that... I guess I was hired to sweat at the keyboard, not to think.
- jandrese 7y ago
  The risk is being just one more step removed from the solution. It's hard for a consultant to punch though political problems because they are outsiders. So you can suggest a solution but the guy who needs to implement it still has to get permission from his boss's boss.
  - punnerud 7y ago
    I am often the one implementing as well. The guys I find I “fight” the most is often from OPS and in-house SW developers. A lot of fancy terminology, web frameworks and looks beautiful but don’t get the real sh*t done that make the organization more effective or give them more money (compared to all the time used).
- philwelch 7y ago
  I’ve gathered that this is basically the primary value of consulting.
dictum 7y ago
To put it shorter, with permission, liability stands with the organization; with forgiveness, liability stands with the individual. At worst, one or two levels up the hierarchy too.
cannaceo 7y ago
It is this way for good reason. When you let middle management change standard operating procedures you often find that they break systems that exist for audit purposes.
- abraae 7y ago
  It is sometimes for good reason. More often though, it's just the apocryphal story of the monkeys and the ladder that informs the organisation's behavior: > This human behavior of not challenging assumptions reminds me of an experiment psychologists performed years ago. They started with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, they hung a banana on a string with a set of stairs placed under it. Before long, a monkey went to the stairs and started to climb towards the banana. As soon as he started up the stairs, the psychologists sprayed all of the other monkeys with ice cold water. After a while, another monkey made an attempt to obtain the banana. As soon as his foot touched the stairs, all of the other monkeys were sprayed with ice cold water. It's wasn't long before all of the other monkeys would physically prevent any monkey from climbing the stairs. Now, the psychologists shut off the cold water, removed one monkey from the cage and replaced it with a new one. The new monkey saw the banana and started to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attacked him. After another attempt and attack, he discovered that if he tried to climb the stairs, he would be assaulted. Next they removed another of the original five monkeys and replaced it with a new one. The newcomer went to the stairs and was attacked. The previous newcomer took part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, they replaced a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey tried to climb the stairs, he was attacked. The monkeys had no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they were beating any monkey that tried. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys had ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approached the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been around here
  - philwelch 7y ago
    I think the monkeys are being perfectly reasonable here. If it wasn’t for the experiment being deviously constructed in such a way as to mess with the monkeys for our own human amusement, it would be basically a fact of the environment that climbing that ladder is inherently dangerous. This is approximately the same way that indigenous cultures manage to “remember” which of the plants in their native environment are toxic and which are nutritious, and in which way to prepare them, even if none of them know all of this information cognitively. It might have been centuries since someone died from eating a particular poisonous mushroom, but if not eating that mushroom is how “it’s always been around here”, you can go centuries without anyone dying from eating that mushroom. In other words, we simians can be stupid, but we aren’t that stupid.

punnerud 7y ago

This is why I love to be a consultant in a large corporation, because I can talk with a lot of people without the feeling that I have to obey the hierarchy. When I figure out the best common goal I can follow the hierarchy to get approval. Maybe this only works in Norway..?

sdegutis 7y ago
I think the difference is that you’d then be an outside consultant, meaning they are consulting you to get your professional recommendations on what they should do to serve their interests best. So inherently they already want your advice and are willing to put it in action. Whereas an employee of any kind is not usually hired for their outside the box recommendations, but only to put into action decisions already made for them. Thus when one has an innovative idea, the company feels it is in their best interest to doubt your idea and conservatively err on the side of caution, since it’s not what they hired you for and they can’t trust your competence in innovating like that. In other words, employees are hired to keep the status quo and consultants are hired to decide what the status quo should be for the company’s best interests. At least, this is the best explanation I can come up with based on what people have said and mingling philosophy. I’ve never worked at a huge corporation so I could be all wrong.
- samus 7y ago
  Consultants are often also just hired to work on projects. Big organisations often have issues finding competent people to work on projects, and those they have are often overworked already. In such cases consultants are very useful. At the end of the projects, they are often let off. Of course, this presents other issues, and capable consultants are often kept around for far longer than the project they initially got onboard for.
cotillion 7y ago
As a consultant I found that you don't even have to follow the hierarchy. You know you won't be at a company forever so just ignore those who are likely to obstruct and skip the hierarchy. And once you have backing from higher up there is little lower levels can do to obstruct your invoices. But my experience is from Sweden so maybe it only works in Scandinavia.
- eecc 7y ago
  Oh, I got kicked out big time a couple times for that... I guess I was hired to sweat at the keyboard, not to think.
jandrese 7y ago
The risk is being just one more step removed from the solution. It's hard for a consultant to punch though political problems because they are outsiders. So you can suggest a solution but the guy who needs to implement it still has to get permission from his boss's boss.
- punnerud 7y ago
  I am often the one implementing as well. The guys I find I “fight” the most is often from OPS and in-house SW developers. A lot of fancy terminology, web frameworks and looks beautiful but don’t get the real sh*t done that make the organization more effective or give them more money (compared to all the time used).
philwelch 7y ago
I’ve gathered that this is basically the primary value of consulting.

dictum 7y ago

To put it shorter, with permission, liability stands with the organization; with forgiveness, liability stands with the individual. At worst, one or two levels up the hierarchy too.

cannaceo 7y ago

It is this way for good reason. When you let middle management change standard operating procedures you often find that they break systems that exist for audit purposes.

abraae 7y ago
It is sometimes for good reason. More often though, it's just the apocryphal story of the monkeys and the ladder that informs the organisation's behavior: > This human behavior of not challenging assumptions reminds me of an experiment psychologists performed years ago. They started with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, they hung a banana on a string with a set of stairs placed under it. Before long, a monkey went to the stairs and started to climb towards the banana. As soon as he started up the stairs, the psychologists sprayed all of the other monkeys with ice cold water. After a while, another monkey made an attempt to obtain the banana. As soon as his foot touched the stairs, all of the other monkeys were sprayed with ice cold water. It's wasn't long before all of the other monkeys would physically prevent any monkey from climbing the stairs. Now, the psychologists shut off the cold water, removed one monkey from the cage and replaced it with a new one. The new monkey saw the banana and started to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attacked him. After another attempt and attack, he discovered that if he tried to climb the stairs, he would be assaulted. Next they removed another of the original five monkeys and replaced it with a new one. The newcomer went to the stairs and was attacked. The previous newcomer took part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, they replaced a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey tried to climb the stairs, he was attacked. The monkeys had no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they were beating any monkey that tried. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys had ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approached the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been around here
- philwelch 7y ago
  I think the monkeys are being perfectly reasonable here. If it wasn’t for the experiment being deviously constructed in such a way as to mess with the monkeys for our own human amusement, it would be basically a fact of the environment that climbing that ladder is inherently dangerous. This is approximately the same way that indigenous cultures manage to “remember” which of the plants in their native environment are toxic and which are nutritious, and in which way to prepare them, even if none of them know all of this information cognitively. It might have been centuries since someone died from eating a particular poisonous mushroom, but if not eating that mushroom is how “it’s always been around here”, you can go centuries without anyone dying from eating that mushroom. In other words, we simians can be stupid, but we aren’t that stupid.