3 ms·

Yeah this annoys me to no end how tech people pretend that they have casually invented peace on earth, and act like it's the most obvious thing in the world. "O

by jseban 4y ago

Yeah this annoys me to no end how tech people pretend that they have casually invented peace on earth, and act like it's the most obvious thing in the world. "Of course large groups of people simply just get along perfectly and efficiently without any coordination" Yeah right. It's the people who are dysfunctional who thrive in these environments because they don't have to be accountable, so their issues just disappear, and people who actually function and take their job seriously will burn out and go insane in the chaos.

kqr 4y ago
Large groups of people with a common goal can coordinate within themselves. They don't need to hear "do X, now do Y" from someone else. And if they do, they can appoint that someone else on their own -- it's how the world's free countries operate, after all; and a country is bigger than a company. The only reason people think this doesn't work for companies is that they haven't experienced the "common goal" part -- management bureaucracy discourages caring about the common goal, instead focusing on encouraging obeying direct orders. (And then it goes on to redefine "obeying orders" as "coordination" to prevent anyone from seeing what's going on.)
- jseban 4y ago
  Well you have the burden of proof for these extraordinary claims, in what way is this different from the pitch of a cult?
  - kqr 4y ago
    What would you consider sufficient evidence? Not that I can't come up with a lot, but if it's trivial to prove I have less work to do.
  - sseagull 4y ago
    The book "Turn the Ship Around" by David Marquet is basically along these lines. He worked to turn a poorly-performing submarine in the US Navy to one of the best. The gist is that he enabled autonomy and shared vision to reduce the top-down heavy handedness that they were usually used to, allowing for more efficient decision making. That's a gross generalization, and it is still very hard to conceptualize, but thought provoking.
  - sodapopcan 4y ago
    I've worked under these circumstances before. It's not at all utopian, but I was definitely much happier. And yes, it is a bit cultish, but who cares? I'm an adult and I know it's just a job—If some cultish behaviour helps people who otherwise wouldn't care to know each other work together, then I'm all for it. It just requires transparency. And of course, that isn't for everyone. I know people who hated working like that and left, and that's totally fine. Just don't be dismissive that there are other ways.
- rocqua 4y ago
  And if they do, they can appoint that someone else on their own -- it's how the world's free countries operate, after all; and a country is bigger than a company. That's still a "manager" someone to manager better coordination. The point here is that such a role is required to get work done. Sure, there are weird things that happen when the manager stops being a bottom-up appointee and starts being a top-down ruler. Heck that is incredibly common. But that does not mean we should do away with central figures that handle coordination. You still need those central figures.

by jseban 4y ago

kqr 4y ago

Large groups of people with a common goal can coordinate within themselves. They don't need to hear "do X, now do Y" from someone else. And if they do, they can appoint that someone else on their own -- it's how the world's free countries operate, after all; and a country is bigger than a company. The only reason people think this doesn't work for companies is that they haven't experienced the "common goal" part -- management bureaucracy discourages caring about the common goal, instead focusing on encouraging obeying direct orders. (And then it goes on to redefine "obeying orders" as "coordination" to prevent anyone from seeing what's going on.)

jseban 4y ago
Well you have the burden of proof for these extraordinary claims, in what way is this different from the pitch of a cult?
- kqr 4y ago
  What would you consider sufficient evidence? Not that I can't come up with a lot, but if it's trivial to prove I have less work to do.
- sseagull 4y ago
  The book "Turn the Ship Around" by David Marquet is basically along these lines. He worked to turn a poorly-performing submarine in the US Navy to one of the best. The gist is that he enabled autonomy and shared vision to reduce the top-down heavy handedness that they were usually used to, allowing for more efficient decision making. That's a gross generalization, and it is still very hard to conceptualize, but thought provoking.
- sodapopcan 4y ago
  I've worked under these circumstances before. It's not at all utopian, but I was definitely much happier. And yes, it is a bit cultish, but who cares? I'm an adult and I know it's just a job—If some cultish behaviour helps people who otherwise wouldn't care to know each other work together, then I'm all for it. It just requires transparency. And of course, that isn't for everyone. I know people who hated working like that and left, and that's totally fine. Just don't be dismissive that there are other ways.
rocqua 4y ago
And if they do, they can appoint that someone else on their own -- it's how the world's free countries operate, after all; and a country is bigger than a company. That's still a "manager" someone to manager better coordination. The point here is that such a role is required to get work done. Sure, there are weird things that happen when the manager stops being a bottom-up appointee and starts being a top-down ruler. Heck that is incredibly common. But that does not mean we should do away with central figures that handle coordination. You still need those central figures.