5 ms·

I find these types of articles to be truisms. We have some imperfect system. Everybody knows about the problems it has. Somebody writes an article about how st

I find these types of articles to be truisms. We have some imperfect system. Everybody knows about the problems it has. Somebody writes an article about how stupid and wrong those problems are. How does that help anybody? The real question is how you fix those problems without introducing others. Passed a certain age and work experience you start to notice that the bureaucracy that stops you from doing quick smart fixes also stops a lot of people from doing serious damage to the company. And yes, in some cases external factors will force a quick reevaluation of that bureaucracy. And you can say "I told you so all along!". But again, that's zero value to the business. The real value is in the work done to plan and execute a change is a way that assures no collateral damage and also to satisfy humanly needs/desires in the hierarchy. People want to cover their asses, but guess what, when you put the responsibility of a change on the smart ass that always annoys coworkers with his brilliant ideas they tend to back away from it cause his ass is precious to him too. TLDR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence

Aeolun 6y ago
If only people were willing to place all responsibility with me. I’d happily take it if we don’t have to deal with all the senseless policies/teams any more. The bureaucracy stops idiots from being idiots. The logical solution is to not hire (or retain) idiots, not to add more bureaucracy.
- trabant00 6y ago
  From your post I think you are quite young and inexperienced. There's not enough non-idiots to run companies. Having to deal with them is a fact of business, you can't simply isolate from the world. The fact that nobody is willing to place responsibility with you should tell the same thing. To sum it up: try to talk about what you already did. So from experience, not what you would do in your ideal world.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    Considering I have worked with extremely talented and extremely stupid people I believe I know what I’m talking about (within the limits of my experience). There seems to be absolutely zero correlation between organisational role/level and ability, instead using years of service as a proxy. I don’t really know how to fix this.
    - trabant00 6y ago
      Have you managed those people you are talking about?
      - Aeolun 6y ago
        To some extend. Since I hired most (all?) of the people I manage I tend to believe they are less idiotic. Or at least I’m generally in a position to do something about it.
raxxorrax 6y ago
> How does that help anybody? Maybe it could stimulate reflection? Granted, my hopes are dampened too. > Passed a certain age and work experience you start to notice that the bureaucracy that stops you from [...] doing serious damage to the company. If you get even older, people might even stop you from running around without supervision to stop you from doing damage to yourself. Doesn't mean it should always be the case. There will hopefully always be forces the evaluate practices. Bureaucracy can be good and it can be bad. It behaves just like french fries. But I think the general trend that large corps seem to get a bit slow on innovation holds true. Doesn't mean it is not working well with lots of accomplishments.
- trabant00 6y ago
  > There will hopefully always be forces the evaluate practices. And there are. The article itself contains such an example. On the other hand they ask why was it necessary for coronavirus to do so. The answer is in the question: there was no need to evaluate the practice until it was.
thecupisblue 6y ago
> you start to notice that the bureaucracy that stops you from doing quick smart fixes also stops a lot of people from doing serious damage to the company. That is the problem - we treat everyone as equals, trying to put rules that work for everyone, so the lowest common denominator is who the rules are made for. So someone who can leverage their knowledge for the good of the company gets ducktaped with red tape because someone else is prone to fucking up.
- trabant00 6y ago
  Who gets to decide who is worthy of bypassing the bureaucracy and on what basis? Answer: the higher on the hierarchy you are the less the rules apply to you. I suspect this answer is not satisfactory to you, in which case offer an alternative.
  - thecupisblue 6y ago
    >Answer: the higher on the hierarchy you are the less the rules apply to you. Yes and + the more you break/ignore the rules successfully, the less they apply to you. But who gets to decide and on what basis is an organisation-specific question. Trying to answer it for "everyone" also gets you into lowest common denominator bucket where you can only give an answer that covers all cases. That is why a huge chunk of organisational/managerial advice is just a "how not to shoot yourself with that gun in your hand for idiots" guide.

Aeolun 6y ago

If only people were willing to place all responsibility with me. I’d happily take it if we don’t have to deal with all the senseless policies/teams any more. The bureaucracy stops idiots from being idiots. The logical solution is to not hire (or retain) idiots, not to add more bureaucracy.

trabant00 6y ago
From your post I think you are quite young and inexperienced. There's not enough non-idiots to run companies. Having to deal with them is a fact of business, you can't simply isolate from the world. The fact that nobody is willing to place responsibility with you should tell the same thing. To sum it up: try to talk about what you already did. So from experience, not what you would do in your ideal world.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Considering I have worked with extremely talented and extremely stupid people I believe I know what I’m talking about (within the limits of my experience). There seems to be absolutely zero correlation between organisational role/level and ability, instead using years of service as a proxy. I don’t really know how to fix this.
  - trabant00 6y ago
    Have you managed those people you are talking about?
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      To some extend. Since I hired most (all?) of the people I manage I tend to believe they are less idiotic. Or at least I’m generally in a position to do something about it.

raxxorrax 6y ago

> How does that help anybody? Maybe it could stimulate reflection? Granted, my hopes are dampened too. > Passed a certain age and work experience you start to notice that the bureaucracy that stops you from [...] doing serious damage to the company. If you get even older, people might even stop you from running around without supervision to stop you from doing damage to yourself. Doesn't mean it should always be the case. There will hopefully always be forces the evaluate practices. Bureaucracy can be good and it can be bad. It behaves just like french fries. But I think the general trend that large corps seem to get a bit slow on innovation holds true. Doesn't mean it is not working well with lots of accomplishments.

trabant00 6y ago
> There will hopefully always be forces the evaluate practices. And there are. The article itself contains such an example. On the other hand they ask why was it necessary for coronavirus to do so. The answer is in the question: there was no need to evaluate the practice until it was.

thecupisblue 6y ago

> you start to notice that the bureaucracy that stops you from doing quick smart fixes also stops a lot of people from doing serious damage to the company. That is the problem - we treat everyone as equals, trying to put rules that work for everyone, so the lowest common denominator is who the rules are made for. So someone who can leverage their knowledge for the good of the company gets ducktaped with red tape because someone else is prone to fucking up.

trabant00 6y ago
Who gets to decide who is worthy of bypassing the bureaucracy and on what basis? Answer: the higher on the hierarchy you are the less the rules apply to you. I suspect this answer is not satisfactory to you, in which case offer an alternative.
- thecupisblue 6y ago
  >Answer: the higher on the hierarchy you are the less the rules apply to you. Yes and + the more you break/ignore the rules successfully, the less they apply to you. But who gets to decide and on what basis is an organisation-specific question. Trying to answer it for "everyone" also gets you into lowest common denominator bucket where you can only give an answer that covers all cases. That is why a huge chunk of organisational/managerial advice is just a "how not to shoot yourself with that gun in your hand for idiots" guide.