Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

nibblestew.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 405 posts

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#41

Post by Aeolun »

trabant00 wrote: post #23

I find these types of articles to be truisms. We have some imperfect system. Everybody knows about the problems it has. Somebody writes an article about how stupid and wrong those problems are. How does that help anybody? The real question is how you fix those problems without introducing others. Passed a certain age and work experience you start to notice that the bureaucracy that stops you from doing quick smart fi…

If only people were willing to place all responsibility with me. I’d happily take it if we don’t have to deal with all the senseless policies/teams any more.

The bureaucracy stops idiots from being idiots. The logical solution is to not hire (or retain) idiots, not to add more bureaucracy.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#42

Post by Maxion »

Aeolun wrote: post #33
sfifs wrote: post #25

In BigCorps, if there's a stupid requirement, there's usually a reason for the stupid requirement to be there in the first place but getting to the reason might require un-peeling a few org layers to since the people enforcing the policy will not be the people who wrote the policy. A more productive use of time would be to understand the reason for the policy, document out why it doesn't apply to your case and then a…

I think the problem with this logic is it hinders a hundred people on a daily basis to prevent one person from doing something stupid once a year. That’s just not great ROI.

Depends a lot on the company and what it's mission is, not every company needs to be able to move quickly on every front.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#43

Post by watwut »

sfifs wrote: post #25

In BigCorps, if there's a stupid requirement, there's usually a reason for the stupid requirement to be there in the first place but getting to the reason might require un-peeling a few org layers to since the people enforcing the policy will not be the people who wrote the policy. A more productive use of time would be to understand the reason for the policy, document out why it doesn't apply to your case and then a…

> A more productive use of time would be to understand the reason for the policy, document out why it doesn't apply to your case and then attempt to get approval.

My experiences with big organizations is that the above is complete absolute waste of time, unless you are in some kind of high level position already.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#45

Post by HenryBemis »

nisse72 wrote: post #39

Related, after telling us for years how dangerous it would be if people flew with more than 100 ml of liquid, it's now allowed (i.e. no longer dangerous?) to carry a larger quantity of hand sanitizer because of coronavirus: https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2020/04/15/tsas-tips...

In Europe (did a lot of flying lately) the 100ml still stands for sanitizers. You can go over the 100ml only if you got a baby with you and they allow the water/milk for the baby.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#46

Post by twhitmore »

sfifs wrote: post #25

In BigCorps, if there's a stupid requirement, there's usually a reason for the stupid requirement to be there in the first place but getting to the reason might require un-peeling a few org layers to since the people enforcing the policy will not be the people who wrote the policy. A more productive use of time would be to understand the reason for the policy, document out why it doesn't apply to your case and then a…

Management works by creating processes and systems. There are always inaccuracies and imperfections in how these are targeted, and inefficiencies resulting.

Yet creating processes and systems is the expected task of management -- it's a key way to scale.

I'm fairly much averse to process myself, but have been occasionally involved.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#47

Post by DEADBEEFC0FFEE »

Aeolun wrote: post #33
sfifs wrote: post #25

In BigCorps, if there's a stupid requirement, there's usually a reason for the stupid requirement to be there in the first place but getting to the reason might require un-peeling a few org layers to since the people enforcing the policy will not be the people who wrote the policy. A more productive use of time would be to understand the reason for the policy, document out why it doesn't apply to your case and then a…

I think the problem with this logic is it hinders a hundred people on a daily basis to prevent one person from doing something stupid once a year. That’s just not great ROI.

Anyone who has spent a bit of time trying to calculate the lost productivity caused just the meetings needed to discuss breaches (internal, accidental), knows it's great ROI.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#48

Post by Perseids »

zimbatm wrote: post #15
simonbarker87 wrote: post #3

This is why managers need a high level of emotional intelligence, the ability to empathize and quickly place themselves in the position of others. Without those three qualities management is ill equipped to handle these kinds of things sensibly. Sadly the above traits are more deemed leadership qualities rather than management qualities and so often missing in management. Leadership skills are far harder to teach tha…

Even the best manager is faced with a bandwidth problem. It's impossible to collect accurately everything that the engineers are doing. And each layer of management is applying its own compression on what information they get from the levels below. What is frustrating when having the feet on the ground (or in the code), is that we clearly see the issues on our level. But conveying that in a understandable and nuanced…

A complementary phrasing is to apply the subsidiarity principle ("the principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level" – OED) to companies, which would be the antithesis of micro-management. When your boss is an enabler first and a decision maker second, they are already following a variation of that principle.

I wish there was a standard way to work against the institutionalized trust issues that creep up in larger companies. E.g. when managers can only take actions if they can show an issue exists using their (arbitrary) metrics, and not when their reports directly tell them about it.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#49

Post by tialaramex »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #18

Aren't all rules imaginary? > Every time someone in the management chain has axed the proposal with some variation of "this policy can not be changed because this is our policy and thus can not be changed", possibly with a "due to security reasons" thrown in there somewhere. That's circular, no doubt there. We've decided this rule must remain in place, because it's a rule . This decision-making process doesn't make a…

> Aren't all rules imaginary?

No. The Laws of Football and the Laws of Australia are imaginary in the sense you mean, but the Law of Gravity isn't.

Mother Nature's rules are different than ours, stubborn far beyond all reason and not recorded anywhere for our inspection.

Video games are interesting because we make them, yet for the most part some of their rules are like Ma's rules not ours. Watching Mario Maker 2 troll levels, the fact is that even if the player, and the viewer, and even the people at Nintendo who made the game think that Skipsqueak can't jump through that platform, if the game was coded such that it does, it will anyway.

Anyway, I think part of what you're missing is that the people in this story often don't know the rule is imaginary. Sometimes it's an excuse, but sometimes they honestly just assumed there was a reason for things being as they are and never stopped to go find out why. Not everybody has the sort of inquisitive nature that would afford that, some lines of business crush that right out of you.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#50

Post by roel_v »

nisse72 wrote: post #39

Related, after telling us for years how dangerous it would be if people flew with more than 100 ml of liquid, it's now allowed (i.e. no longer dangerous?) to carry a larger quantity of hand sanitizer because of coronavirus: https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2020/04/15/tsas-tips...

When circumstances change, risk profiles and trade offs change. News at 11. I mean you can rage about the unlikeliness of people concocting explosives from various liquids, but that is entirely besides the point here.
Post reply on HN