43 ms·

"the boundaries you are being given (explicitly - or implicitly as in "why hasn't this been done before? this seems so easy") are there for a reason and are the

"the boundaries you are being given (explicitly - or implicitly as in "why hasn't this been done before? this seems so easy") are there for a reason and are there to protect some position(s)" Do you mean "positions" as in roles or jobs? If so, why would it be a goal for the company to keep people around that can be automated away? That seems opposite to their duty to their shareholders. Am I misunderstanding or missing something?

dcre 4y ago
You are missing that shareholder value drives very little corporate decision-making below the C-suite. A director benefits the more people report to them. They don’t necessarily care whether any of them are doing anything as long as they can slingshot to their next job before it all implodes. But nothing ever implodes, it just reorgs.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  Having been in a director position myself, financials always mattered. Sure having more folks to execute on plans is great, but ultimately there'd be pressure to grow revenue and revenue/employee.
Nextgrid 4y ago
> why would it be a goal for the company to keep people around that can be automated away The explanation that I always use is that in a small company, the feedback loop all the way up to the CEO and/or investors is short enough that any misbehaviour from employees for their own interests will be easily detected, so it doesn't happen. In a big enough hierarchy however, the feedback loop can span decades of real-world results, so middle-managers can make decisions that are detrimental to the long-term performance of the firm but gain them short-term results (from which bonuses and promotions are derived), not to mention plausible-deniable "money under the table" that is still technically a "bonus" though off-the-company-books. By the time the long-term impact of the decision comes to light (if it ever does), they would've long since moved on or even retired. Therefore, in a big company, you need to keep in mind that people may not act within the firm's best interests if they know they can get away with it, and you may merely be a pawn within their chessboard - in which case they're happy to pay you to keep you around but you need to move exactly as they say and not rock the boat too much. And I'm not even talking of outright blackmail where multiple high-standing people within the company could have dirt on each other (or at least pretend to?) and thus cooperate with each other because any defection means mutually-assured destruction.
coderenegade 4y ago
Aside from the existing system having inertia, there may be regulatory or legal requirements protecting certain teams and processes that make automation trickier. Even if this isn't the case, the current system works, and so improvements need to be weighed against that; most likely, it's a long-term, strategic shift to a new process, because large organizations rely on processes to shield themselves from the legal system. Finally, any individual coming in and waging civil war on other departments within the organization is always bad, even if they're right in the long run.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Out of curiosity, given that you appear to have more experience in this domain: 1) if there is a regulatory reason behind "protectionism" of some employees/departments, why not outright announce it to the rest of the company? 2) if you're saying that someone that wages "civil war" against other employees is bad regardless of their motivations, what would be your alternative for someone genuinely knowing the best long-term outcome for the company but otherwise lacking the necessary connections to play "puppet master" behind the scenes or pass money under the table to influence the right people?
- xpe 4y ago
  > Finally, any individual coming in and waging civil war on other departments within the organization is always bad, even if they're right in the long run. Yes, an individual going alone against entrenched powers will feel an unpleasant burning sensation. Still, at times an entire department is already looked at as a black sheep. A key hire can just provide “cover” for what most people in the organization already know. The new blood might not tread lightly. It can work, if the attack dog has cover and support. This has the added benefit of providing a ready to burn scapegoat if the “excision” / reorg doesn’t go well. P.S. Need more mixed metaphors?

dcre 4y ago

You are missing that shareholder value drives very little corporate decision-making below the C-suite. A director benefits the more people report to them. They don’t necessarily care whether any of them are doing anything as long as they can slingshot to their next job before it all implodes. But nothing ever implodes, it just reorgs.

ajmurmann 4y ago
Having been in a director position myself, financials always mattered. Sure having more folks to execute on plans is great, but ultimately there'd be pressure to grow revenue and revenue/employee.

Nextgrid 4y ago

> why would it be a goal for the company to keep people around that can be automated away The explanation that I always use is that in a small company, the feedback loop all the way up to the CEO and/or investors is short enough that any misbehaviour from employees for their own interests will be easily detected, so it doesn't happen. In a big enough hierarchy however, the feedback loop can span decades of real-world results, so middle-managers can make decisions that are detrimental to the long-term performance of the firm but gain them short-term results (from which bonuses and promotions are derived), not to mention plausible-deniable "money under the table" that is still technically a "bonus" though off-the-company-books. By the time the long-term impact of the decision comes to light (if it ever does), they would've long since moved on or even retired. Therefore, in a big company, you need to keep in mind that people may not act within the firm's best interests if they know they can get away with it, and you may merely be a pawn within their chessboard - in which case they're happy to pay you to keep you around but you need to move exactly as they say and not rock the boat too much. And I'm not even talking of outright blackmail where multiple high-standing people within the company could have dirt on each other (or at least pretend to?) and thus cooperate with each other because any defection means mutually-assured destruction.

coderenegade 4y ago

Aside from the existing system having inertia, there may be regulatory or legal requirements protecting certain teams and processes that make automation trickier. Even if this isn't the case, the current system works, and so improvements need to be weighed against that; most likely, it's a long-term, strategic shift to a new process, because large organizations rely on processes to shield themselves from the legal system. Finally, any individual coming in and waging civil war on other departments within the organization is always bad, even if they're right in the long run.

Nextgrid 4y ago
Out of curiosity, given that you appear to have more experience in this domain: 1) if there is a regulatory reason behind "protectionism" of some employees/departments, why not outright announce it to the rest of the company? 2) if you're saying that someone that wages "civil war" against other employees is bad regardless of their motivations, what would be your alternative for someone genuinely knowing the best long-term outcome for the company but otherwise lacking the necessary connections to play "puppet master" behind the scenes or pass money under the table to influence the right people?
xpe 4y ago
> Finally, any individual coming in and waging civil war on other departments within the organization is always bad, even if they're right in the long run. Yes, an individual going alone against entrenched powers will feel an unpleasant burning sensation. Still, at times an entire department is already looked at as a black sheep. A key hire can just provide “cover” for what most people in the organization already know. The new blood might not tread lightly. It can work, if the attack dog has cover and support. This has the added benefit of providing a ready to burn scapegoat if the “excision” / reorg doesn’t go well. P.S. Need more mixed metaphors?