3 ms·

Mixed feelings; maybe just feeling a bit defensive as I fear I’ve been playing the role of revolutionary in my current work and don’t care for some of the negat

Mixed feelings; maybe just feeling a bit defensive as I fear I’ve been playing the role of revolutionary in my current work and don’t care for some of the negative descriptions which unnervingly ring pretty true. Mid article though, it says > That’s because organizations tend to become more bureaucratic, political and consensus-driven as they grow. Is this somehow ever a good thing? Largely, all of those things just seem bad. Luxuries of inefficiency a product can enjoy only once it works itself into dominant/monopoly position where it’s bankrolling becomes secure. The groups I’ve moved away from over the years (often with other revolutionaries moving on as well), became more evolutionary. And all of them have basically devolved into product lines on life support, the “evolutionary” employees left behind don’t understand why management won’t invest in them and would rather buy up competitive offerings to remain relevant.

notpachet 5y ago
> organizations tend to become more bureaucratic, political and consensus-driven as they grow Hot take: a big part of the utility of these "mature" companies in society is to serve as a kind of glorified daycare for adults. The people they employ can feel like they're contributing something to society, and legitimately earning the money they're bringing home, even if a bird's eye view would reveal that they're just treading water and not really producing any net benefit. This allows the employees to feel better about themselves than they would if the government just handed them a UBI paycheck and sent them back to playing videogames all day. I've seen a lot of turmoil between people who are legitimately trying to make the world a better place through their work (spoiler: it wasn't always me), and coworkers that prefer to just operate in daycare mode.
LaffertyDev 5y ago
If you're interested in more discussions along this road, then Bahcall's `Loonshots` is a good read. Lots of anecdotes, little science, great stories. Overall I found it fascinating. I found myself nodding along to most of the goodread's reviews, if you find yourself on the fence. On-topic, I think its a natural evolution for organizations to stagnate and calcify unless there is a fundamental recreation. Lots of things could be cherry-picked here for anecdata (Roman Republic, Roman Empire, General Electric, <insert fortune 100 company here>) I don't think that's bad. You wouldn't want an innovative person being your line cook at a restaurant -- you want the innovative person to be the chef. We also don't want the laws governing the countries we live in to violently change. Systemic, evolutionary, progress is good. The challenge is figuring out a balance and what to do to prevent the organization from calcifying (becoming product lines on life support), prevent it from throwing away what makes the organization good (chasing the next big thing), and continue to let the organization innovate and thrive (stay relevant) without being eaten.

notpachet 5y ago

> organizations tend to become more bureaucratic, political and consensus-driven as they grow Hot take: a big part of the utility of these "mature" companies in society is to serve as a kind of glorified daycare for adults. The people they employ can feel like they're contributing something to society, and legitimately earning the money they're bringing home, even if a bird's eye view would reveal that they're just treading water and not really producing any net benefit. This allows the employees to feel better about themselves than they would if the government just handed them a UBI paycheck and sent them back to playing videogames all day. I've seen a lot of turmoil between people who are legitimately trying to make the world a better place through their work (spoiler: it wasn't always me), and coworkers that prefer to just operate in daycare mode.

LaffertyDev 5y ago

If you're interested in more discussions along this road, then Bahcall's `Loonshots` is a good read. Lots of anecdotes, little science, great stories. Overall I found it fascinating. I found myself nodding along to most of the goodread's reviews, if you find yourself on the fence. On-topic, I think its a natural evolution for organizations to stagnate and calcify unless there is a fundamental recreation. Lots of things could be cherry-picked here for anecdata (Roman Republic, Roman Empire, General Electric, <insert fortune 100 company here>) I don't think that's bad. You wouldn't want an innovative person being your line cook at a restaurant -- you want the innovative person to be the chef. We also don't want the laws governing the countries we live in to violently change. Systemic, evolutionary, progress is good. The challenge is figuring out a balance and what to do to prevent the organization from calcifying (becoming product lines on life support), prevent it from throwing away what makes the organization good (chasing the next big thing), and continue to let the organization innovate and thrive (stay relevant) without being eaten.