4 ms·

There is some insight in this, but it's also deeply cynical to the point of being very misleading and maybe a bit wrong. Teachers and Administrators are equall

There is some insight in this, but it's also deeply cynical to the point of being very misleading and maybe a bit wrong. Teachers and Administrators are equally as committed to 'keeping their jobs'. It just so happens that 'teaching' is mostly 'teaching' and all you can do is 'teach' and so long as you have kids in front of you 'it's working'. The scope of their roles doesn't allow for them to go too far away from 'the mission'. Administrators are not default committed to the 'org' they're just in a position where their decisions and actions may or may not further the mission. 'Very Bad Teaching' is rare and usually self evident. With administration, it's not so clear. NASA Engineers are not like teachers, in that, the could be wasting a lot of time and energy. Maybe the risk is worth it in some cases (?) in others, maybe not so much. FYI - in teaching, the biggest costs are generally the 'teachers'. etc.. Regular Public Schools aren't a good opportunity so much to demonstrate this 'Law'. A not-quite-independent entity like a Post Office might be. They often fight directly against innovation due to the risk it may create to jobs for rank and file, and don't quite have the same competitive basis as others.

jaybrendansmith 4y ago
Pournelle was not cynical enough. You only need to spend time in corporate America to watch the bureaucrats, administrators, and bean counters take over. It always starts small, but every day, while you are focused on making a better product, or a better process, or service to the customer, they are focused on control of the finances and core decisions, because it is in their nature to do so. And one day you look up from your work, and find that you are no longer permitted to make the decisions that are best for the company's goals. It is inevitable, because these people are like barnacles on a boat, or scum on a pond, or tarnish on silver. They dull and destroy every good thing they touch.
- jollybean 4y ago
  I've worked in Corporate America, consulted for government and at startups. I know it's difficult to understand, but organizing people around large and complex goals is hard, and I wouldn't say that it requires a 'submission of autonomy' ... but it does mean that people's roles become much more narrow and that it's really hard to see every move in the big picture. The best place to see it is in the military, where people are often thrown in situations with much higher risk etc. where the payoff might not be as much as we'd like ... but if we want to defeat Hitler, that's pretty much the way it's going to be. Soldiers in 'good armies' get to make decisions about the tactical bound in front of them and not much beyond that. No 'big picture' stuff. Most of corporate America is highly inefficient but it's also not that bad. Another way to understand it is that inefficiency means underutilization ... but we still show up and have meetings to fill time anyhow. Like some managers could work 25% of the time and do just as well, but their jobs are mostly still important. It's hard to see that often from a 'single position' - how doing XYZ might seem perfectly obviously in the companies best interest but it may not be able to work that way. Though of course often it is.

jaybrendansmith 4y ago

Pournelle was not cynical enough. You only need to spend time in corporate America to watch the bureaucrats, administrators, and bean counters take over. It always starts small, but every day, while you are focused on making a better product, or a better process, or service to the customer, they are focused on control of the finances and core decisions, because it is in their nature to do so. And one day you look up from your work, and find that you are no longer permitted to make the decisions that are best for the company's goals. It is inevitable, because these people are like barnacles on a boat, or scum on a pond, or tarnish on silver. They dull and destroy every good thing they touch.

jollybean 4y ago
I've worked in Corporate America, consulted for government and at startups. I know it's difficult to understand, but organizing people around large and complex goals is hard, and I wouldn't say that it requires a 'submission of autonomy' ... but it does mean that people's roles become much more narrow and that it's really hard to see every move in the big picture. The best place to see it is in the military, where people are often thrown in situations with much higher risk etc. where the payoff might not be as much as we'd like ... but if we want to defeat Hitler, that's pretty much the way it's going to be. Soldiers in 'good armies' get to make decisions about the tactical bound in front of them and not much beyond that. No 'big picture' stuff. Most of corporate America is highly inefficient but it's also not that bad. Another way to understand it is that inefficiency means underutilization ... but we still show up and have meetings to fill time anyhow. Like some managers could work 25% of the time and do just as well, but their jobs are mostly still important. It's hard to see that often from a 'single position' - how doing XYZ might seem perfectly obviously in the companies best interest but it may not be able to work that way. Though of course often it is.