2 ms·

You may be able to pinpoint a few people who signed off on the decision, but it's rarely a decision they would have made outside of the context of the organizat

You may be able to pinpoint a few people who signed off on the decision, but it's rarely a decision they would have made outside of the context of the organization. The organization provides the incentives, shapes the data used in the decision process, and determines the set of decisions which can be made. For instance, an executive may sign off on a feature after viewing data that says its a good idea, but the data was prepared by another part of the organization which is trying to advance their own agenda. And for-profit organizations being as they are, options which don't increase or even decrease profit are essentially off the table, unavailable for real consideration, so the person signing off on the feature already had their options winnowed down by the organization itself.

0x000xca0xfe 1y ago
> The organization provides the incentives, shapes the data used in the decision process, [...] Exactly! And who sets those incentives? Imagine if Satya Nadella was an avid Windows power user that thinks having a vertical tab bar is the best invention since sliced bread. Would he really fuzz around with StartAllBack etc.? Because "it just is like this now"? Or would he be able to influence the Windows team to simply implement it? Of course he could. He just doesn't care about vertical tab bars. As a side note, I see the blaming of bad situations on "for-profit organizations" as if management had no other choices just because somebody made a spreadsheet as an easy excuse for them to not stand behind their decisions. If this "profit-uber-alles" theory was true executives would reduce their compensation to minimum wage. It clearly is more complicated.
- lupusreal 1y ago
  > Exactly! And who sets those incentives? The organization. Executives like to think they're in charge, but they're selected for their alignment with the goals of the organization and if they stray far from that they get replaced. Satya isn't the kind of man who would put good taste in software design first, and if he was then he wouldn't be in the position. > As a side note, I see the blaming of bad situations on "for-profit organizations" as if management had no other choices They have one key choice, they can walk away. Whenever they realize the corporation is going to do something they don't want to be involved with, they can and should walk away. Sometimes they do, but when they choose comfort over good aesthetic sense, ethics, morales, laws.. they can and should be judged for that. The worldview I am advocating for (viewing organizations as organisms, or Slow AIs as others have put it) is not about absolving individual humans of responsibility. As long as they continue to participate in the organization, they're responsible. Rather, the point of the mental model is to remind people that organizations, particularly in this case corporations, are inhumane monsters which lack an innate understanding of human values.

0x000xca0xfe 1y ago

> The organization provides the incentives, shapes the data used in the decision process, [...] Exactly! And who sets those incentives? Imagine if Satya Nadella was an avid Windows power user that thinks having a vertical tab bar is the best invention since sliced bread. Would he really fuzz around with StartAllBack etc.? Because "it just is like this now"? Or would he be able to influence the Windows team to simply implement it? Of course he could. He just doesn't care about vertical tab bars. As a side note, I see the blaming of bad situations on "for-profit organizations" as if management had no other choices just because somebody made a spreadsheet as an easy excuse for them to not stand behind their decisions. If this "profit-uber-alles" theory was true executives would reduce their compensation to minimum wage. It clearly is more complicated.

lupusreal 1y ago
> Exactly! And who sets those incentives? The organization. Executives like to think they're in charge, but they're selected for their alignment with the goals of the organization and if they stray far from that they get replaced. Satya isn't the kind of man who would put good taste in software design first, and if he was then he wouldn't be in the position. > As a side note, I see the blaming of bad situations on "for-profit organizations" as if management had no other choices They have one key choice, they can walk away. Whenever they realize the corporation is going to do something they don't want to be involved with, they can and should walk away. Sometimes they do, but when they choose comfort over good aesthetic sense, ethics, morales, laws.. they can and should be judged for that. The worldview I am advocating for (viewing organizations as organisms, or Slow AIs as others have put it) is not about absolving individual humans of responsibility. As long as they continue to participate in the organization, they're responsible. Rather, the point of the mental model is to remind people that organizations, particularly in this case corporations, are inhumane monsters which lack an innate understanding of human values.