4 ms·

I think you're right that this is often the case, and my heartfelt sympathies go to any engineer who struggles to do the right thing in that situation. But in

I think you're right that this is often the case, and my heartfelt sympathies go to any engineer who struggles to do the right thing in that situation. But in what sense are these kinds of internal politics NOT "unwillingness or inability", at least at the organizational level? Organizations where managers are allowed to play political games at the expense of users' security are not to be trusted with any sensitive data, and need to be publicly called out and shamed if there's any hope to effect change.

naikrovek 6y ago
> But in what sense are these kinds of internal politics NOT "unwillingness or inability", at least at the organizational level? An example from my past should demonstrate... A single manager in my past simultaneously: A) told higher management that something was not possible, and B) told the org under him that management didn't want that same thing done, and C) convinced his peers to let him manage this personal pet project alone. The only person that knew the truth at the time was the lone person who didn't want it done. Result: it didn't happen. This is extraordinarily common, in my experience, though only this particular person could do it this well. The entire organization wanted something done except one guy who convinced everyone to let him have the power to stop it without anyone understanding what they were letting him do. You may argue that this is an organization being unwilling to act via its own structure, and I would counter that this person was very skilled at this type of deception, and succeeded at this type of thing despite the organization above, below, and around him all being pretty much standard.
- bbarnett 6y ago
  Upper management's job is to manage. Being "convinced" of something, means they did their job, made a judgement and management call, but got it wrong. That's their fault too. It's also the fault of other employees, who did not speak up. You're painting a picture of everyone being incapable of judging things on their own, because someone talked them out of what they knew to be correct. Who's fault is that?
- wolco2 6y ago
  The org put this guy in charge. He decided to not fix something. He represents the org on this issue. Therefore the org doesn't want it.
  - naikrovek 6y ago
    Ok so the guy deserves zero blame? Really? 100% org responsibility, got it.

naikrovek 6y ago

> But in what sense are these kinds of internal politics NOT "unwillingness or inability", at least at the organizational level? An example from my past should demonstrate... A single manager in my past simultaneously: A) told higher management that something was not possible, and B) told the org under him that management didn't want that same thing done, and C) convinced his peers to let him manage this personal pet project alone. The only person that knew the truth at the time was the lone person who didn't want it done. Result: it didn't happen. This is extraordinarily common, in my experience, though only this particular person could do it this well. The entire organization wanted something done except one guy who convinced everyone to let him have the power to stop it without anyone understanding what they were letting him do. You may argue that this is an organization being unwilling to act via its own structure, and I would counter that this person was very skilled at this type of deception, and succeeded at this type of thing despite the organization above, below, and around him all being pretty much standard.

bbarnett 6y ago
Upper management's job is to manage. Being "convinced" of something, means they did their job, made a judgement and management call, but got it wrong. That's their fault too. It's also the fault of other employees, who did not speak up. You're painting a picture of everyone being incapable of judging things on their own, because someone talked them out of what they knew to be correct. Who's fault is that?
wolco2 6y ago
The org put this guy in charge. He decided to not fix something. He represents the org on this issue. Therefore the org doesn't want it.
- naikrovek 6y ago
  Ok so the guy deserves zero blame? Really? 100% org responsibility, got it.