3 ms·

It works if the people responsible/authorized for imposing the annoying process are the ones you can impose the burden of compliance on. In OP's story, OP was

It works if the people responsible/authorized for imposing the annoying process are the ones you can impose the burden of compliance on. In OP's story, OP was the department head, the burden was imposed on faculty (requesting any change) and department head (approving the request), but the department head was not the one who could change the process (other than by the un-specified manner they apparently did, and described as "routing around the damage") I still agree it's better to make noise and make it known you don't like it, but if "following the letter of the law" does not in fact impose any burden on those who could make a change, it alone is unlikely to be effective. Of course... now that I think about it... effective "political" (one definition) organizing/action itself is basically always a means of imposing a burden on those in power that can be lifted if they do what you want. It's just a matter of finding the lever that can be used by the amount of counter-power you have managed to build, to impose a burden on those who can make the change you want.

dangerface 5y ago
I assume the department head had other work to do besides approving requests if the number of requests are significant to the point that the department head can't do any other work then the system still failed to bureaucracy. Either the higher ups are fine with department heads doing nothing but approve requests or they change the system.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  Well, right. > Either the higher ups are fine with department heads doing nothing but approve requests or they change the system. First, you've never worked in academia have you? The "higher ups" (administration) really don't care at all about wasting department head time. Like, literally, zero care. But you've just provided a syllogism. Since they have not changed the system, clearly the relevant decision-makers are okay with it's time wasting, right? Or else, it would already be changed and nobody would have to do anything about it! If all it took was mentioning to somebody with the authority to change the system "Hey, you know this is taking up too much of my time, right?", I am confident the OP would have done that first. If that's all it took at most institutions, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
  - dangerface 5y ago
    > Since they have not changed the system, clearly the relevant decision-makers are okay with it's time wasting, right? That assumes that the relevant decision-makers are aware of the amount of time being wasted. If people are circumventing the bureaucracy to save time it would give them a false image of how much time was being wasted. > If all it took was mentioning to somebody with the authority to change the system "Hey, you know this is taking up too much of my time, right?", I am confident the OP would have done that first. If that's all it took at most institutions, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. When a change is implemented "this takes too much time" is a common complaint from those who don't like change (like me), the new system will always be slower until people get used to it. How much slower is the new system and is this a problem? Decision makers need to quantify this to make informed decisions not allow their decision making process be ruled by their or their employees sentiment.

dangerface 5y ago

I assume the department head had other work to do besides approving requests if the number of requests are significant to the point that the department head can't do any other work then the system still failed to bureaucracy. Either the higher ups are fine with department heads doing nothing but approve requests or they change the system.

jrochkind1 5y ago
Well, right. > Either the higher ups are fine with department heads doing nothing but approve requests or they change the system. First, you've never worked in academia have you? The "higher ups" (administration) really don't care at all about wasting department head time. Like, literally, zero care. But you've just provided a syllogism. Since they have not changed the system, clearly the relevant decision-makers are okay with it's time wasting, right? Or else, it would already be changed and nobody would have to do anything about it! If all it took was mentioning to somebody with the authority to change the system "Hey, you know this is taking up too much of my time, right?", I am confident the OP would have done that first. If that's all it took at most institutions, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
- dangerface 5y ago
  > Since they have not changed the system, clearly the relevant decision-makers are okay with it's time wasting, right? That assumes that the relevant decision-makers are aware of the amount of time being wasted. If people are circumventing the bureaucracy to save time it would give them a false image of how much time was being wasted. > If all it took was mentioning to somebody with the authority to change the system "Hey, you know this is taking up too much of my time, right?", I am confident the OP would have done that first. If that's all it took at most institutions, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. When a change is implemented "this takes too much time" is a common complaint from those who don't like change (like me), the new system will always be slower until people get used to it. How much slower is the new system and is this a problem? Decision makers need to quantify this to make informed decisions not allow their decision making process be ruled by their or their employees sentiment.