6 ms·

Ethically, if you do not agree with the company you work at, the optimal course of action if you can stomach it is to stay and do a bad job rather than get repl

Ethically, if you do not agree with the company you work at, the optimal course of action if you can stomach it is to stay and do a bad job rather than get replaced by someone who might do a good job. I have been in such a situation before, and while I was not able to coast along until the company went under, the time delta between me getting fired and the company going under was measured in weeks. In hindsight I'd probably not do it again, it was hugely mentally taxing, and knowingly performing work in such a way that it provides negative value to the company (remember, the goal is to make it go under) is in my experience actually harder than just doing a good job... Especially if being covert is a goal.

lesuorac 7mo ago
Ethically perhaps but financially and mentally its surely better to start looking for a new role (at a different company) that is more in alignment with you, no?
jkubicek 7mo ago
Have you read the CIA’s Simple Sabotage Field Manual? https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/SimpleSabotage.pdf https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/...
- MengerSponge 7mo ago
  I've seen it, but I think it's got some places that it would benefit from more clarity. Can we put together a committee to improve and protect our processes from it? We could call it a task force if that's easier to sell to management.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7mo ago
    This demands a tiger team.
- malikolivier 7mo ago
  I did not know the existence of this manual. It was a very interesting read! Especially after page 28 (General Interference with Organizations and Production).
AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
Even ethically, this is only true if you think the ethics of the place are so bad that sabotage is warranted. That's not every place that you have ethical problems with. To do that (and hide it), you have to become a dishonest person yourself. That is ethically destructive to you. So the threshold for doing this should be pretty high.
d0odk 7mo ago
Ethically, if you extend this reasoning, are we not obligated to find a position in the most morally repulsive organization we are aware of, and then coast?
- RobRivera 7mo ago
  I think there is an implied "given the company you joined turns out to be nonethically aligned"
  - d0odk 7mo ago
    Yes, that's what I'm addressing with my comment above.
- _bent 7mo ago
  yes, this is called 'effective altruism'
- metalcrow 7mo ago
  well not coast, the intent is sabotage
  - LtWorf 7mo ago
    Coasting you're already using resources that could be used more effectively. If you actively slow other people down as well it's even better though.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7mo ago
  One could find a position in the most morally attractive organization they are aware of, and then work really hard.
lithocarpus 7mo ago
Yeah, I could see this being true if there was really _nothing else_ I could possibly be doing with my time that is worthy. But there are a lot of worthy things I could be doing with my time.
jstummbillig 7mo ago
> Ethically, if you do not agree with the company you work at, the optimal course of action if you can stomach it is to stay and do a bad job rather than get replaced by someone who might do a good job. What...? In what way is it anything other than highly unethical to sabotage someone you have a contract with, because you disagree with them?
- 47282847 7mo ago
  Plenty of historical examples of work environments where sabotage would have been the most ethical thing to do (and often you will only know in hindsight). But yeah in most circumstances a simple disagreement doesn’t warrant the psychological cost of such sabotage.
  - jstummbillig 7mo ago
    What do you mean...? Plenty to do what? Your opinion of the situation is not enough to justify this course of action in 99.99% of cases and the residual 0.01% should not be enough to fuel your ego to do anything other than quit decently, and look for an employer that is more aligned with whatever your ideals are. I repeat the insane statement that we are arguing over here: "Ethically, if you do not agree with the company you work at, the optimal course of action if you can stomach it is to stay and do a bad job rather than get replaced by someone who might do a good job." This says: ANY company you work for and disagree with over anything: Don't quit! Sabotage [maybe people are confused about what "do a bad job" means, and that this usually leads to other people getting hurt in some way, directly or indirectly, unless your job is entirely inconsequential]. And that's supposed to be ethically optimal. What the fuck?
    - berdario 7mo ago
      I think there's a bit of confusion between > (Ethically, if you do not agree with the company you work at), the optimal course of action is.. And > Ethically, (if you do not agree with the company you work at, the optimal course of action is...) The former, should've probably been phrased "if you do not agree ethically with the company you work at, the optimal course of action is..." First example that comes to mind, about a movie that portrays ethical sabotage is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_List I'm actually a bit unsure about what could be the motivations of someone who engages in sabotage *not* for ethical reasons
Nevermark 7mo ago
As they say, two uneth’s make a thical. I really wouldn’t want to be in this position. But it feels very motivating. It would sooth some difficult memories. I can see myself putting in a lot of hours. The willingness to be fired, in both good and bad situations, can be mentally freeing and an operational/political advantage. Many of us fail to push as hard as we optimally could, when we have too much on the line.
super256 7mo ago
I don't think sabotaging a company just because you don't want to work with a certain framework and deploy it on k8s is a good idea.

lesuorac 7mo ago

Ethically perhaps but financially and mentally its surely better to start looking for a new role (at a different company) that is more in alignment with you, no?

jkubicek 7mo ago

Have you read the CIA’s Simple Sabotage Field Manual? https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/SimpleSabotage.pdf https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/...

MengerSponge 7mo ago
I've seen it, but I think it's got some places that it would benefit from more clarity. Can we put together a committee to improve and protect our processes from it? We could call it a task force if that's easier to sell to management.
- kevin_thibedeau 7mo ago
  This demands a tiger team.
malikolivier 7mo ago
I did not know the existence of this manual. It was a very interesting read! Especially after page 28 (General Interference with Organizations and Production).

AnimalMuppet 7mo ago

Even ethically, this is only true if you think the ethics of the place are so bad that sabotage is warranted. That's not every place that you have ethical problems with. To do that (and hide it), you have to become a dishonest person yourself. That is ethically destructive to you. So the threshold for doing this should be pretty high.

d0odk 7mo ago

Ethically, if you extend this reasoning, are we not obligated to find a position in the most morally repulsive organization we are aware of, and then coast?

RobRivera 7mo ago
I think there is an implied "given the company you joined turns out to be nonethically aligned"
- d0odk 7mo ago
  Yes, that's what I'm addressing with my comment above.
_bent 7mo ago
yes, this is called 'effective altruism'
metalcrow 7mo ago
well not coast, the intent is sabotage
- LtWorf 7mo ago
  Coasting you're already using resources that could be used more effectively. If you actively slow other people down as well it's even better though.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7mo ago
One could find a position in the most morally attractive organization they are aware of, and then work really hard.

lithocarpus 7mo ago

Yeah, I could see this being true if there was really _nothing else_ I could possibly be doing with my time that is worthy. But there are a lot of worthy things I could be doing with my time.

jstummbillig 7mo ago

> Ethically, if you do not agree with the company you work at, the optimal course of action if you can stomach it is to stay and do a bad job rather than get replaced by someone who might do a good job. What...? In what way is it anything other than highly unethical to sabotage someone you have a contract with, because you disagree with them?

47282847 7mo ago
Plenty of historical examples of work environments where sabotage would have been the most ethical thing to do (and often you will only know in hindsight). But yeah in most circumstances a simple disagreement doesn’t warrant the psychological cost of such sabotage.
- jstummbillig 7mo ago
  What do you mean...? Plenty to do what? Your opinion of the situation is not enough to justify this course of action in 99.99% of cases and the residual 0.01% should not be enough to fuel your ego to do anything other than quit decently, and look for an employer that is more aligned with whatever your ideals are. I repeat the insane statement that we are arguing over here: "Ethically, if you do not agree with the company you work at, the optimal course of action if you can stomach it is to stay and do a bad job rather than get replaced by someone who might do a good job." This says: ANY company you work for and disagree with over anything: Don't quit! Sabotage [maybe people are confused about what "do a bad job" means, and that this usually leads to other people getting hurt in some way, directly or indirectly, unless your job is entirely inconsequential]. And that's supposed to be ethically optimal. What the fuck?
  - berdario 7mo ago
    I think there's a bit of confusion between > (Ethically, if you do not agree with the company you work at), the optimal course of action is.. And > Ethically, (if you do not agree with the company you work at, the optimal course of action is...) The former, should've probably been phrased "if you do not agree ethically with the company you work at, the optimal course of action is..." First example that comes to mind, about a movie that portrays ethical sabotage is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_List I'm actually a bit unsure about what could be the motivations of someone who engages in sabotage *not* for ethical reasons

Nevermark 7mo ago

As they say, two uneth’s make a thical. I really wouldn’t want to be in this position. But it feels very motivating. It would sooth some difficult memories. I can see myself putting in a lot of hours. The willingness to be fired, in both good and bad situations, can be mentally freeing and an operational/political advantage. Many of us fail to push as hard as we optimally could, when we have too much on the line.

super256 7mo ago

I don't think sabotaging a company just because you don't want to work with a certain framework and deploy it on k8s is a good idea.