4 ms·
Whenever someone suggests introducing process that could lead to just as much harm as good, I remind them that we should prefer to hire smart people, and trust
by kqr 5y ago
Whenever someone suggests introducing process that could lead to just as much harm as good, I remind them that we should prefer to hire smart people, and trust that they are smart enough to recognise when they've made a mistake so they can, if not outright fix it, at least ask for help in fixing it.
Sometimes an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. Often an ounce of prevention turned into process becomes several pounds of prevention and the cure is easier.
- doctor_eval 5y agoCame here to say something similar. Sometimes the best policy is to avoid creating policies.
- cgio 5y agoSmart people also don’t want to be spending their time assessing the risks of unknown situations. E.g. something I came upon recently when someone asked if they could work remotely from abroad for a while. Sure, from a technical contribution perspective it made sense to approve straight away. But if there was no policy and process I would never think to inquire about the tax implications with the relevant team. You don’t only count pounds and ounces but also who has to lift them. I don’t like smart engineers having to learn tax legislation, and at least some processes act more like interfaces between teams rather than stupid controls within a team. When it’s about the latter I am all with you as long as you add responsible team members next to the smart condition.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y agoThat's pretty much what I mean by “an heuristic approach”: "Always consider fiduciary obligations. Here's where to find..." etc. In the WTF, there are likely to be specific directions and policies, but having a "navigator" for these policies ("A) Which nation is the employee in? B) Which office will be directing their work?, etc.) is a good idea.