"However, [big company bureaucracy is] usually a reason that masks the real reason. No one likes rules that make no sense. But, when top talent is complaining a

"However, [big company bureaucracy is] usually a reason that masks the real reason. No one likes rules that make no sense. But, when top talent is complaining along these lines, it’s usually a sign that they didn’t feel as if they had a say in these rules." Well, no, not really. This strikes me as patronizing, as if they're saying, "those silly employees say they mean X, but they really mean Y." Well, no, I mean X. When I say I don't like bureaucracy, it's not because I can't get along with rules I didn't have a hand in. I can deal with other people's rules. Big companies have certain disadvantages in communication and coordination, and things like rules and processes and standards can help. I totally get that. But what I keep seeing is that nobody's looking at what the rules are trying to accomplish and trying to make it easier to follow them. You want every change to be accompanied by a requirement or bug reference? Great--not a bad idea; make it dead simple to do. I remember filling out paper forms for code review documentation as recently as a few years ago. That's just silly. Code reviews aren't bad, but paper forms? There's hundreds of little friction points that add up, though. The ubiquitous second/large monitor. Stock machines with slow, small drives and RAM. More and more network resources moved offsite, accessed via a slowish WAN. Limits on email storage, and auto-deletion. Limitations on what software you can install. It goes on and on, down to the breakroom amenities, office supplies, and so on. Every little (needless) obstacle between me and the work getting done just pushes me closer to the door. Any difficult work is going to have obstacles, sure. But why make more?