4 ms·
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 ultim
by 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 agoOh--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!