5 ms·

That seems to assume organizations are 'rational actors'... Which sadly is the minority of organizations I've worked for. The premise ignores the layers of peo

That seems to assume organizations are 'rational actors'... Which sadly is the minority of organizations I've worked for. The premise ignores the layers of people in-between the 'C' levels trying to get that return, and the engineers trying to build stuff. It seems lots of these people are mostly interested in politicking and justifying their position. (which I think accounts for some of the WFH resistance. If people can get stuff done with less supervision, it might lead to less managers :-P )

quacked 4y ago
I've never met an organization staffed with rational actors that had more than like 8 people in it, so you're not wrong. I think what I'm getting is that ultimately every edict that flows downward into the layers of management and engineers is centered around increasing perceived profit for shareholders. Any department, project, etc. at large enough organizations was ultimately greenlit for the sake of possibly making more money (not for improving the product at a cost to the company or improving society, etc.)
- mech422 4y ago
  >> I've never met an organization staffed with rational actors that had more than like 8 people in it, so you're not wrong. LOL - I like that, I'm stealing that line :-) I disagree with 'was ultimately greenlit...'. Seems like quite a lot of them are greenlit to improve someone's political position within the organization. (often, despite being told it will be a net negative for the organization as a whole) Things like 'use it or lose it' budgeting, compensation tied to headcount (and not value generated), etc. cause real conflicts of interest at many organizations. Anyway - thanks for the chuckle - I really love the 'rational actors' line :-) (hopefully, I'm one of the 8 ? :-D )
  - quacked 4y ago
    Oh--I see what you're getting at. Yeah, I understand and agree. I'll have to say my point with that caveat in the future. I'm glad you liked my joke!

quacked 4y ago

I've never met an organization staffed with rational actors that had more than like 8 people in it, so you're not wrong. I think what I'm getting is that ultimately every edict that flows downward into the layers of management and engineers is centered around increasing perceived profit for shareholders. Any department, project, etc. at large enough organizations was ultimately greenlit for the sake of possibly making more money (not for improving the product at a cost to the company or improving society, etc.)

mech422 4y ago
>> I've never met an organization staffed with rational actors that had more than like 8 people in it, so you're not wrong. LOL - I like that, I'm stealing that line :-) I disagree with 'was ultimately greenlit...'. Seems like quite a lot of them are greenlit to improve someone's political position within the organization. (often, despite being told it will be a net negative for the organization as a whole) Things like 'use it or lose it' budgeting, compensation tied to headcount (and not value generated), etc. cause real conflicts of interest at many organizations. Anyway - thanks for the chuckle - I really love the 'rational actors' line :-) (hopefully, I'm one of the 8 ? :-D )
- quacked 4y ago
  Oh--I see what you're getting at. Yeah, I understand and agree. I'll have to say my point with that caveat in the future. I'm glad you liked my joke!