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

71–80 of 405 posts

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#71

Post by noisy_boy »

mehrdadn wrote: post #68
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…

> Chesterton's fence Is there a "reverse" version of this where you do understand the reasoning, explain clearly why it doesn't apply anymore, but the other side just refuses to think for themselves and just sticks with the status quo because it must've been done with good reason and they don't want to second-guess it?

Quite often the other side is perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. They just don't want to lose their job on account of that one common-sense approval in case things go south. Self-preservation etc.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#72

Post by crispyambulance »

Yizahi wrote: post #60
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…

There is an opinion that the more manager resembles high functioning sociopath the more efficient he is. He may even look friendly and provide benefits for the employees but that would be not because of empathy but because of calculated decision. Personally I think there is some truth to this opinion and I don't believe in the "benevolent" corporations, especially big ones.

I don't believe in "benevolent" corporations either, but that doesn't excuse managers from being cold-fish personalities that border on sociopathic or machiavellian.

In fact, even the meanest largest corporations have excellent managers peppered throughout the organization that watch out for their people and genuinely care for them even though the corp as a whole might be a greedy SOB-- I'm thinking places like Comcast and Oracle here. ymmv.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#73

Post by RegW »

andi999 wrote: post #65

My reason for this rule would be: if you allow consultanta to work from home, how do you make sure they are not double- selling their workhours? Like they bill you 8h, but only work 4h on your project.

However they now have to be trusted. It might have been better to have figured out which you trust and only use those.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#74

Post by mysterydip »

In one of my previous jobs at a startup (~15 people), the reason for the color scheme we were forced to use on our ecommerce product wasn't the result of some marketing study or human interface recommendation, but rather the personal preference of another employee who had a "special" relationship with the company's president.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#75

Post by altacc »

In 1605 there was an attempt to blow up the British Parliament during the state opening by placing explosives in the cellars. 415 years later they still search the cellars for barrels of explosives, using oil lanterns and armed with swords. I feel that so many organisations are doing the same thing, maintaining an old solution for a problem that no longer exists.

So I think it's just as, or more, important to apply this thinking to the business requirements which drive development. Half of solution architecture is asking why something is the way it is, and asking again and again until you're sure there's a real reason. A lot of the time the answer is because that's how it's always been and traces back to a technical constraint from long ago. I see this a lot with companies moving from decades old legacy systems to modern applications.

Same with processes, authorisations, security risks, etc... They tend to start when somebody mad a mistake and they stick around regardless of if they're still relevant, effective or blocking progress.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#76

Post by gjvc »

serioussecurity wrote: post #52
Aeolun wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've seen individual engineers make a mistake that caused 100 engineer's salary worth of damage.

I would love to know more about the details of this example :-)

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#77

Post by wyclif »

avh02 wrote: post #31
wyclif wrote: post #21

To state a corollary of this: most "mandatory experience" on tech job requirements are imaginary. Therefore, if you're a job seeker, and especially if you're a woman or a minority, you shouldn't let not having any of these imaginary requirements stop you from applying for whatever job you want, especially if it's a junior role.

I got my first junior role by applying for a senior role. Granted, I was definitely lucky they had one, but I got my foot through the senior screening tests and then realised I was in over my head. HR was kind enough to redirect me to a newly opened junior position in another part of the company. Been with that company (directly or indirectly) for a total of 5 years now.

I wonder how often that happens. I'm guessing it happens more often than HR thinks it does. I've heard quite a few stories like yours. Usually it's from somebody who can pass all the screens but doesn't have enough years of experience to make the hiring committee feel comfortable, so they get offered a junior role that technically wasn't open and is created specifically for that person to grow in. Anyway, it's a smart move for companies that can recognise talent.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#79

Post by Perseids »

HenryBemis wrote: post #40
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 believe it's all about Security (C-I-A). To mitigate this issue, on paper, an (usually) HR policy writes "do not do non-work related stuff with your work computer". And since many people ignore this rule, because "why have a second laptop?", the next best thing is to route all traffic from your laptop through the company, and weed out the GigHubs and GitLabs of this world (in the same manner that they block all sex…

> You can't blame a company for wanted to protect itself against a disgruntled employee that wants to push the (example - not applicable to your company) ebanking software code out in the open.

The thing is, they can't, not if my PC is still usable for day to day work. For a legitimate user, the ways to extricate data are endless (e.g. tunnel out via DNS, embed into video streams (for customer training or something), hell, even simple stuff like embedding data into the monstrous modern MS Office files should fly under the radar). The real value comes from making certain that a) only those that need access, get access (e.g. why do I have read/write access to the sales file folder as a developer?) and b) minimize the result of a breach ahead of time, which often coincides with doing good work in general. For instance, don't lie to your customers on a regular basis, treat your employees respectfully, and – regarding your example – write closed source software as if it was open source the whole time. It's not as if attackers need the source code to fuzz your software for vulnerabilities.

On a principled basis, I really dislike the world view where the employees have to be constantly prevented from getting the better of the company. If you don't trust me enough to surf on news sites during my time off at work, you should not trust me with software development, where laziness has often far worse consequences than not doing any work at all.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#80

Post by perlgeek »

HenryBemis wrote: post #45
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.

Funny thing is: once you travel with a baby, basically anything goes. 1L water bottle? no questions asked. Even though the baby won't drink 1L of water on a 2-hours flight.

The whole restriction on liquids is fairly ridiculous, and even more of a security theater than most of the other checks. And I think the security guards know it, and use any excuse to look the other way.

Post reply on HN