3 ms·

Did you just admit that you fight legal and IT on purpose, just to have a fight?

by NullPrefix 5y ago

ativzzz 5y ago
He chooses to not help people who make his job harder, sounds like a normal human being to me.
- 542458 5y ago
  Lots of people make other people’s jobs “harder” with good reason. Things like code review, legal compliance, IT policy, etc are just “overhead” if you assume that your knowledge is infallible - but people are fallible and we need systems like this that, yes, slow us down in order to keep from getting burned.
  - Vaslo 5y ago
    The overhead needs support. If you put up additional security where only IT staff can do x, then you need to ask for or transfer headcount to ensure it’s just as nimble as before. If you demonstrate that ability to manage change, then you also demonstrate that the limited funds are best in your hands.
conductr 5y ago
I work in finance and think I understand gp’s meaning. Although the end part sounds like They’re playing favorites with budget dollars which is essentially where office politics comes into play and not exactly in a way that’s in the best interest of the company. However, the problem I see is that teams (hr, legal, etc) generally can’t be trusted to make decent technology decisions. They could blow $10M on something that sits on the shelf because they were “sold” or worse it disrupts the entire organization in the process of a failed implementation. Both we see happen regularly throughout the organization. Finance is responsible for vetting every possible point of failure which is why we are risk adverse, or appear so.
- Vaslo 5y ago
  I think you captured it more elegantly than I did. I know it sounds like playing favorites but consider it’s not just me I look at out for. If our IT Business Analyst Jill helps all the people in our business and everyone raves about how helpful she is, I have a lot more trust than the guy who scolds his employee for taking calls at 4 that my be issues because it’s the end of the day and he didn’t want to stay late fixing issues (I swear on my life another manager and I overheard this badgering occur). If it’s Jill vs him asking for a headcount, Jill is getting it all day long.
  - conductr 5y ago
    That’s exactly what playing favorites is. If his headcount is more impactful to achieve company goals, he gets it. You need to learn to compartmentalize If you feel someone is deserving of punishment, they should know why and it shouldn’t be through your budgetary control. It’s a misuse of power.
Vaslo 5y ago
Nope, I am saying that there are many individuals in those functions that a solution creates more work for them, so they default to “no”. Hard no’s are understood in some cases - i.e. installing random nonsense from the internet. However, A “No, here’s why. But...” is way more helpful and generates a lot of respect from business partners.

Did you just admit that you fight legal and IT on purpose, just to have a fight?

ativzzz 5y ago

He chooses to not help people who make his job harder, sounds like a normal human being to me.

542458 5y ago
Lots of people make other people’s jobs “harder” with good reason. Things like code review, legal compliance, IT policy, etc are just “overhead” if you assume that your knowledge is infallible - but people are fallible and we need systems like this that, yes, slow us down in order to keep from getting burned.
- Vaslo 5y ago
  The overhead needs support. If you put up additional security where only IT staff can do x, then you need to ask for or transfer headcount to ensure it’s just as nimble as before. If you demonstrate that ability to manage change, then you also demonstrate that the limited funds are best in your hands.

conductr 5y ago

I work in finance and think I understand gp’s meaning. Although the end part sounds like They’re playing favorites with budget dollars which is essentially where office politics comes into play and not exactly in a way that’s in the best interest of the company. However, the problem I see is that teams (hr, legal, etc) generally can’t be trusted to make decent technology decisions. They could blow $10M on something that sits on the shelf because they were “sold” or worse it disrupts the entire organization in the process of a failed implementation. Both we see happen regularly throughout the organization. Finance is responsible for vetting every possible point of failure which is why we are risk adverse, or appear so.

Vaslo 5y ago
I think you captured it more elegantly than I did. I know it sounds like playing favorites but consider it’s not just me I look at out for. If our IT Business Analyst Jill helps all the people in our business and everyone raves about how helpful she is, I have a lot more trust than the guy who scolds his employee for taking calls at 4 that my be issues because it’s the end of the day and he didn’t want to stay late fixing issues (I swear on my life another manager and I overheard this badgering occur). If it’s Jill vs him asking for a headcount, Jill is getting it all day long.
- conductr 5y ago
  That’s exactly what playing favorites is. If his headcount is more impactful to achieve company goals, he gets it. You need to learn to compartmentalize If you feel someone is deserving of punishment, they should know why and it shouldn’t be through your budgetary control. It’s a misuse of power.

Vaslo 5y ago

Nope, I am saying that there are many individuals in those functions that a solution creates more work for them, so they default to “no”. Hard no’s are understood in some cases - i.e. installing random nonsense from the internet. However, A “No, here’s why. But...” is way more helpful and generates a lot of respect from business partners.