10 ms·
Simple Sabotage Field Manual – How to Destroy Your Organizations
- vlark 3y agoThe entire section "General Interference with Organisations and Production" is a perfect description of how academia works.
- iancmceachern 3y agoI've seen many of these tactics in action. Typically inadvertently applied but that's beside the point. Or is it the point?
- paulmd 3y agoUnironically know someone who deployed these tactics to spin the client in circles and do damage control on a gov project that was extremely doomed to fail. Can’t fail to meet the specified implementation if the client themselves can’t define what the requirements are.
- subjectsigma 3y agoSure it’s a fine list if your job is to churn out knockoff mobile apps or spam ads everywhere. I myself do not write this kind of software but I work regularly with people who write safety-critical components in things like airplanes, industrial manufacturing systems, and so on. If they decided, for example, they were too good to go through official channels, some very bad things could happen.
- chayesfss 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rightbyte 3y agoI always knew agile was a CIA plant gone ammock. (/s?) The article feels like one of these chain mail jokes rather than a serious article, but anyway. "Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions." That bullet point list more or less describes Scrum.
- broast 3y agoThis doesn't add up to me. I thought "People over processes" was a pillar in the agile manifesto.
- psunavy03 3y ago"Individuals and interactions over processes and tools" does not mean no processes and tools. It means the processes and tools used in the organization should facilitate and enhance individual interactions. Everything on the right is still there, it just is used to enhance and promote what's on the left. The best term I've heard used for this is Minimum Viable Bureaucracy. You can't ever get rid of all of it, and you shouldn't.
- XorNot 3y agoAnd yet the only conversation in my daily stand up is a request to make sure the tickets are all in the right column on the board and deep consternation if the ticket has to be changed or gasp dropped in some way.
- ebiester 3y agoI think the two are separate. If I can look at a board such that I don't have to ask in standup what's going on with a ticket (unless it's going much longer than expected), then we can use that for more valuable conversations. The whole point of the standup should be to handle learnings like "we don't need this work" or "we're doing the wrong thing. Let's fix that!"
- psunavy03 3y agoHalf of the problem with implementing Agile is people like this who insist that shittily-implemented Agile is actually Agile implemented accurately, and then railing against the ensuing straw man. I can't think of anything in the Scrum Guide that describes "insisting on doing everything through 'channels'" outside describing the roles and the division of labor between them. I mean, maybe in a really badly-run SAFe shop, this happens.
- deleted 3y ago
- brakmic 3y agoGoes in a similar direction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_Operator_From_Hell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_Operator_From_Hell
- Thoeu388 3y agoIt is more effective to change people, not processes. This way organization stays dysfunctional long after you leave. So spread dissent. Destroy fairness, no paid overtimes, everyone gets the same pay. Promote one group over other without merit. Hire most annoying extremists you find. Give leadership to vapid narcisits. One film company is great recent example of this. This is from KGB and CIA manual. They would sponsor and train extremists. Still works long after soviet union is gone.
- genocidicbunny 3y agoDepends on your goals. If your goal is to effect a long-term attack on an organization, then yes, you want to introduce systemic issues that will fester. But the Simple Sabotage Field Manual was developed in and for wartime. It was meant to provide information to dissenters and occupied peoples on how to surreptitiously affect the war effort. The time scale is far different. You needed the factories and bureaucracies to slow down as soon as possible, not have a slow decline over the years.
- smodo 3y agoI’ve definitely seen most of this going on in management teams. Especially the forming of committees as a way of bike shedding. ‘We are clueless about the problem but we do know how to make a list of other clueless people.’
- praptak 3y agoForming committees is mostly useful for avoiding responsibility. If I make a bad technical decision then I get flak. If I organize a committee to justify that decision then I might even get points for "leadership". Also, if the decision is bad then I'm not personally responsible. To paraphrase: "Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by covering one's ass".
- zelphirkalt 3y agoAlthough there could be legitimate hope, that one of the other people is not clueless and will bring up important points. Not necessarily only "covering ones ass", but probably also a responsible thing to do, when making an important decision. At least, if the list of people actually includes technical people who have experience with the matter.
- inglor_cz 3y agoJust yesterday, someone quoted Paul Hamming on the fact that scientists who have "open doors policy" are more successful long-term. I have never formally formed a committee, but I often organized small one-off or semiregular circles to get differing opinions on some matter and/or to understand how to align interests. And I believe it paid off for me, usually in form of a better design or a useful shortcut around an otherwise long and dark path.
- samus 3y agoCommittees can be a good fit for issues where the exact shape of the solution does not really matter as long as it aligns with constrains set up ahead of time. It frees up leadership from bikeshedding to focus on more critical issues and can smooth over company politics by ensuring that all relevant parties' opinion is taken into account.
- roenxi 3y agoThe lack of sources and case studies leaves an interesting possibility open. This document might actually be fiction the opinions of someone who didn't like meetings as opposed to an effective guide. Given that these are all common behaviours in real organisations they probably don't do that much overall damage. You'd do much worse by being effective, getting promoted and then making some really terrible but plausible decision that does decades of damage (like hiring some great marketers and going all-in on a risky venture that sounds good, but with little prospect of success). It doesn't take much effort, but once people are organised around a stupid goal it can take years to unpick.
- pixelfarmer 3y ago"The Happy Worker" is a documentary that mentions exactly this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzzYGRXfAaI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzzYGRXfAaI (trailer)
- mlrtyc 3y agoWorked for python-dev and many other software projects.
- kramerger 3y agoNow I suspect some managers I know work for CIA. On a more serious note, this is a must read for developers and managers. It clearly identifies the paths that lead to disaster. You can see it as a list of organizational anti-patterns :)
- LightBug1 3y agoWe do.
- beaker52 3y ago> Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions. > Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on. I do both of these things. Do I want to destroy my organisation? No. I want to prevent miscommunication and haste from destroying it. I dislike the popularity of this list for this reason.
- bigbacaloa 3y agoThose who these things are generally well meaning but need to be shut down anyway.
- beaker52 3y agoSo how exactly are we supposed to do things then? Just start putting in effort and communicate vaguely for maximum directionless effort? That sounds like the kind of activity that needs to be shut down to me. So here we are at two schools: Unconsidered busy effort vs Considered intentional effort
- psd1 3y agoI think both of you are holding the idea of ranking organisational strategies on a linear scale. But what works for a tech startup might not be good for operating a chemical plant.
- marcinzm 3y agoThe worst cases of pointless busy work I've seen were when everyone follows an out of date plan that they know is out of date because the effort to change it is too high.
- prox 3y agoEverything exists on a gradient. Your goals are valid and methodology probably as well if you meet them. Do you discuss the minutiae of what you guys can eat for lunch? Probably overdoing it. Do you discuss the minutiae of a technical piece of equipment or software that is mission critical? Probably the right kind of effort to be as precise as possible.
- baz00 3y agoThe most effective methodology is to implement one of the loosely agile based methodologies like SAFe Agile. Then hire consultants, none of whom have ever actually managed a software team, to make sure everyone follows the process down to the last letter. This decreases efficiency to the point that the organisation is no long able to do productive work, there is no ROI and the staff are all burned out from spending 20 hours a week in zoom meetings and filling in JIRA tickets.
- dumpster_fire 3y agoThis just reads like a basic description of every large organization out there with humans in them.
- genocidicbunny 3y agoThat's kind of the point of the SSFM -- to clue people into the simple sabotages they can participate in by more or less just following the rules. It's not terribly dissimilar to work-to-rule protests.
- 0ct4via 3y agoThe original SSFM, from which the title of this post is derived: https://www.hsdl.org/c/abstract/?docid=750070 https://www.hsdl.org/c/abstract/?docid=750070
- smallnix 3y ago> Don’t order new working materials until your current stocks have been virtually exhausted, so that the slightest delay in filling your order will mean a shutdown. Did they also employ these sabotage techniques in Japan?
- disgruntledphd2 3y agoThe Lean/Deming approach is incredibly different, and I strongly suggest if you'd like to know more to read "Out of the Crisis". Hilariously enough, lots of the things he says about production workers in factories is almost identical to stuff I see software people say about their jobs, so it's well worth a read.
- marcinzm 3y agoThey did everywhere which is why the last 3 years have included massive ongoing cascading supply chain shortages across the world. It's very efficient as long as nothing ever changes too much too quickly which tends to be the case in manufacturing outside a pandemic but is much more rare in software.
- loopdoend 3y agoSounds exactly like the Government of Canada to me.
- romusha 3y agoThe guidance is basically the workplace bible in many developing countries. Good job, you sabotage yourself
- thumbuddy 3y agoA lot of the comments here seem to be about discussing legitimate sabotage of a company. Meanwhile the article seems to mostly be about using common sense to be efficient and how a lot of "best practices" are actually horrible for that. So some satire. The real issue here imo is, power structures. That's societal, and cultural. I sincerely doubt people use these to sabotage anything, infact the people who have control over such things are at the tippy top of an organization or place of governance (laws begat norms). So if that were the case um, you were screwed before you even started by who you listened to and who you worked most closely with. Not by some threat actor... IE we're doing it to ourselves by who and what we reward and it's only an evil plot if it really is being done by government agents or something, in which case we'll, see point #1.
- mgenelin 3y agoI did a lightning talk back at devopsdays Minneapolis in 2016 titled "Updating Classic Workplace Sabotage Techniques" based on the book published on the topic. 5 min video goes through all the techniques: https://youtu.be/t8pSMr5WpWE https://youtu.be/t8pSMr5WpWE My presentation of this was mostly cheeky; I am not usually this sarcastic.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoA lot of theses tactics appear to be used here in the UK with regards to installing cycle infrastructure, low emission zones and liveable neighbourhoods. Just dug out a physical copy that I've got of this - a friend bought it for me a while back.
- GuB-42 3y ago> Sabotage varies from highly technical "coup de main" acts that require detailed planning and the use of specially trained operative... Interesting that the meaning of "coup de main" here is the complete opposite of how it is actually used in French, where it means "helping hand". Used for informal and occasional situations. An example of a "coup de main" is when a friend gives you a few minutes of his time to help you move a heavy piece of furniture.
- gilbetron 3y agoI like the idea of this, but many of the list items come off as things the author doesn't like. Lets restate some: "Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions." -> "Insist on doing everything through 'short-cuts'. Never permit official channels to be taken in order to expedite decisions" "Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible." -> "Insist that things you don't like are irrelevant as frequently as possible." "Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions." -> "Argue that people are being caught up trying to be precise, leading to documents that are lacking precision" "Insist on perfect work in relatively unimportant products" -> "Insist that products are unimportant and so sloppy work is ok" "Hold conferences when there is more critical work to be done." -> "Claim that doing work is the only important thing and that communication is wasteful" "Do your work poorly and blame it on bad tools, machinery, or equipment. Complain that these things are preventing you from doing your job right." -> "When you have the right tools and equipment, use them well, but then claim you are just really talented and that a master can work with poor tools." "Never pass on your skill and experience to a new or less skilful worker." -> "Watch new workers like a hawk and never let them think for themselves." The idea is interesting, the implementation in the article is tepid.
- oscillonoscope 3y agoPart of the purpose of the document is to sabotage surreptitiously. If you always take shortcuts and something gets messed up, it's easy for people to see that you were the cause. However, if you always insist on doing things through the proper channels then it's a lot harder for people to see that you're the problem or argue against your methodology.
- pickledish 3y agoI think I agree with you —- phrases like “irrelevant issues” and “more critical work” are so subjective, that everyone can read along with this and agree with it, but it’s not actually saying much, since the agreeing on WHAT is relevant or critical has always been the hard part
- rcxdude 3y ago
- jt2190 3y agoLink to the declassified “Simple Sabotage Field Manual” document at the top of this article: “The Art of Simple Sabotage” (2019) https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/the-art-of-simple-sabotage/ https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/the-art-of-simple-sabotage...
- ojkelly 3y agoI think the comments here are missing the point. Each of the items on the list are things you or someone else in an organisation does in good faith. That is why these work. When you do them in bad faith, you can stretch the timelines for things significantly while the responsibility for such a delay ends up so diffused among the bureaucracy that no one takes the blame. “It’s just harder to get things done in a big organisation” as they say. If you keep a lookout for these, particularly when they may be not in good faith you can head them off.
- 542354234235 3y agoAlso, I feel like they are saying maybe you can/should look into some of these things, even done in good faith, to see if they are actually helping or hurting. “Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions” This may be done in good faith, but is the situation/task something that needs a ridged , precisely detailed, process and it is helping to insist on precision? Or is it something that could be done just as effectively without ridged precision? Or does it end up conflicting with other requirements? If a report has to have days of the week spelled out (“Monday” rather than “MON”, “percent” rather than “%”) but you also have a strict limit on character count due to space constraints, you end up with less precise wording in the report. Taking a step back and looking at it from the “if I wanted to actively sabotage this process, what would I do” might allow you to see good faith efforts that end up in bad outcomes.
- blitz_skull 3y agoJocko Willink recently talked about this very topic on his podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nU2qkRUk5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nU2qkRUk5o In fact, it kinda reads like someone just took the podcast and wrote a blog post on it. Not a critique, just an observation.
- GartzenDeHaes 3y agoOr you could just use ISO 9001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9000.
- turtleyacht 3y agoThe ebook link on the blog 404s. Updated Project Gutenberg link (multiple formats): https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184
- 29athrowaway 3y agoThe most modern version of this sabotage manual are MBA programs.
- darkclouds 3y ago> Amongst its responsibilities was frustrating the German war effort, and to that end, it wrote a short set of “best practices” - the Simple Sabotage Field Manual. I read anything that's referring to Germany or Austria as a group of people close to or on the spectrum. Perhaps this is why the saying exists "it takes one to know one" when thinking of Hans Asperger! And you have to question, are govt budgets a representation of the characteristics of society, ergo are large military budgets reflecting the violent nature of a country?