Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point
11–20 of 168 posts
Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point
#12The "point" where this fails, of course, is where the "cost" call above is such that the supervisor can't agree.
Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? The study is about leadership, decision making, and risk vs reward. Is there not demonstrable (and multiple levels of) leadership within sports teams? I'm genuinely curious if you've participated in collegiate above sports - or at maybe even High School level. I would be very surprised if someone who played or participated seriously in sports said they didn't take away lessons about leadership and decision ma…
I’m sure they did take away lessons. Are those lessons applicable to the real world is the salient question.
That's a new one for me today.
Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spending some time in the box for 'snowing that hot-headed coworker' doesn't sound so bad.
Four minutes for roughing after you punch somebody in the face? Sign me up!
I've never seen a double minor for roughing. 2 minute minor or 5 minute major.
4 minute double minor is typically when someone is high sticked and they're bleeding because of it.
So yeah, give a co-worker a hand to the face and if the manager catches it you're sitting out of the sprint planning meeting for either 2 or 5 minutes depending.
Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point
#15For those that don't know, you're generally either a commissioned officer (with ranks from 0-1 and up) or enlisted (E-1 to E-9). Some branches have warrant officers too but let's ignore that.
So if you join as an enlisted you start off as a private in the Army (it's called something else in different branches). By the time you finish bootcamp you're an E-2 private, possibly an E-3 (Private First Class). If you're not an E-3 it's automatic promotion after ~6 months assumpting you don't have any red flags AFAIK.
By the time you make it to E-4 (Corporal in the Army) you kinda know how things work BUT you're also in the last rank before you're in a leadership position. The next position (E-5, Sergeant in the Army) is a noncomissioned officer ("NCO"). Some people want to avoid that so they kinda hang around E-4 far longer than they should and they build up a body of knowledge on how to get things done. Or they may have been a higher rank and get busted down from an Article 15 (or NJP or whatever the specific branch calls it).
Requisitions can be a huge issue in the military, evne for simple things like office supplies. So you may find that E-4s can "acquire" needed supplies from other units. NCOs, Staff NCOs and command tend to be aware of it but will ignore it because it kinda needs to happen. And those E-4s are called the "E4 Mafia".
This, I believe, is the kind of "rule breaker" this post is referring to.
Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sure they did take away lessons. Are those lessons applicable to the real world is the salient question.
"Sports does not occur in the real world" That's a new one for me today.
Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point
#17A more palatable phrasing, "supervisors prefer people that engage with the rules with purpose." That is, choosing to break a rule because you are making a cost call based on what you were able to achieve is not, necessarily, a bad thing. The "point" where this fails, of course, is where the "cost" call above is such that the supervisor can't agree.
“They didn’t break the rule! They engaged in the rules with purpose unlike those rule followers.”
Though I’m not advocating your approach is incorrect.
Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point
#18Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point
#19So I'm fascinated with military culture and how systems work on this scale (ie millions of employees). And one interesting aspect is the E4 Mafia [1]. For those that don't know, you're generally either a commissioned officer (with ranks from 0-1 and up) or enlisted (E-1 to E-9). Some branches have warrant officers too but let's ignore that. So if you join as an enlisted you start off as a private in the Army (it's ca…
One thing I think would've been helpful for the article to address are operational and or program leaders that strive to get things done, respect their team's time, and want to be a good steward of resources. These leaders may ask probing "why" questions trying to do what's arguably common sense.
Cutting through red tape can be seen by others as rule breaking, but often it's just asking the questions others haven't and trying to do something in a new, hopefully better way. That means taking a risk that something could go wrong and that's received in different ways by people.
Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point
#20A more palatable phrasing, "supervisors prefer people that engage with the rules with purpose." That is, choosing to break a rule because you are making a cost call based on what you were able to achieve is not, necessarily, a bad thing. The "point" where this fails, of course, is where the "cost" call above is such that the supervisor can't agree.
You sound like a supervisor there ;) “They didn’t break the rule! They engaged in the rules with purpose unlike those rule followers.” Though I’m not advocating your approach is incorrect.