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

Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

ludic.mataroa.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 482 posts

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#101

Post by ajkjk »

opportune wrote: post #73

The most jarring thing about entering the workforce to me, and it seems to the author as well, is the nigh-pathological lack of pride (or “passion”, which I think is a loathsome term) most people put into their jobs. I don’t accept that all of those people intrinsically are lazy morons - maybe some or even most are, but a lot of people get that attitude metaphorically beaten into them by lazy and disengaged coworkers…

I think it's basically circular. If you try to have pride in your job, your pride gets destroyed by the frustration of it all and you either quit or give up on the pride. So what deserves is pride-less work, which causes the frustration.

The best teams I've worked on were ones where we managed to locally have pride by feeling like a little team who cared about each other's work and occasional sacrifice (being on-call, etc) and it felt like a little family. As soon as further-away managers start reaching in and "fiddling" with it, from their prideless vantage post where everything is just a system to accomplish quarterly goals, the family-feeling fades away and it goes back to soul-crushing pointlessness.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#102

Post by nerdponx »

aeturnum wrote: post #35
ludicity wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's slightly more complicated, and the numbers are somewhat obfuscated to hide my actual employer. You're right that these numbers are not a huge deal - that much is obvious, or we wouldn't be wasting that money. What is more relevant to the average reader is that we have a large department in this space, and almost all (not all) the work is pointless because the numbers just don't matter at this scale. We have a co…

But again - isn't the antithesis of this that the company never does the work to look into any of this and, in doing so, misses a huge but non-obvious problem that these tools might reveal? So you need to build it to do the work and check, and then you need to maintain it (because you already built it and the possibility still exists, etc, etc).... Like, absolutely, there's some impossible to define line below which…

This. It's like arguing that we are wasting time with application logs because 99% of devs aren't reading them. They aren't there for your pleasure, they are there because, the one time you actually need them, you'll be sorry they aren't there.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#103

Post by astrange »

pdimitar wrote: post #7

That article was a very nice surprise and apart from how crushingly accurate it is (before somebody jumps in to defend all the corporate chaos, of course) it also had me giggling several times while reading it. The answer of course is financial incentives. It is the answer 99% of the time, I know quite a few high-profile managers at this point and they are all very smart and get stuff done people and yet they allow t…

> I keep remembering this old article -- "Bullshit Jobs" -- and yep, it still rings true to this day, and will likely do so for decades more, likely centuries even because our societal changes are slower than glaciers...

That idea is fake, Graeber is a moron, and it's rude to look at other people's work and conclude that it's useless just because you don't personally watch them all day.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#104

Post by astrange »

fallingfrog wrote: post #48
pdimitar wrote: post #7

That article was a very nice surprise and apart from how crushingly accurate it is (before somebody jumps in to defend all the corporate chaos, of course) it also had me giggling several times while reading it. The answer of course is financial incentives. It is the answer 99% of the time, I know quite a few high-profile managers at this point and they are all very smart and get stuff done people and yet they allow t…

Yeah perverse financial incentives describe 99% of the stupidity we put up with daily. Like, why when you look at the labeling of a bottle of Tylenol do you find a description of the trademarks, a non-discrimination clause, and several paragraphs regarding liability in imaginary scenarios written in impenetrable legalese? But, it’s impossible to find the actual dosage chart? Which one will kill you if you get it wron…

I'm 100% sure my Tylenol bottles have dosage charts on them, not only because it's so easy to fatally overdose on it but also because manufacturing it is extremely regulated and nobody cares what the manufacturers think about anything.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#105

Post by astrange »

pault wrote: post #54
ludicity wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's slightly more complicated, and the numbers are somewhat obfuscated to hide my actual employer. You're right that these numbers are not a huge deal - that much is obvious, or we wouldn't be wasting that money. What is more relevant to the average reader is that we have a large department in this space, and almost all (not all) the work is pointless because the numbers just don't matter at this scale. We have a co…

Are you hiring? I'm looking for a job that will allow me to explore my passions. My passions are: video games, anime, and watching youtube videos about video games and anime.

If you enjoy anime I can't think you'd get much enjoyment out of the horrifying low quality of anime YouTubers. They certainly don't seem to like it much.

One of the most popular channels is called Trash Taste in an attempt to act like it's all foreign oriental nonsense they're wallowing in.

(Although to be fair, the current anime trend is "guy who hates women gets transported to a fantasy novel where he gets a sex slave", and the previous trend was "incest romance".)

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#106

Post by borroka »

repomies69 wrote: post #93
borroka wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for a company that employs 100k people. The effects of my work strategy and behavior on the company's revenue, profit, vision, products are zero. On the contrary, the effects of my work strategy and behavior on my salary and position can be quite pronounced. My company can fire me tomorrow, they will forget my name in 5 days. To "fire" my company, I need to find another job, maybe in another city, working with…

> My company can fire me tomorrow, they will forget my name in 5 days. To "fire" my company, I need to find another job, maybe in another city, working with colleagues I don't know who may eat food at lunch break I don't like the smell of. I don't think is very good comparison, generally. Some other company could offer you a job and you can leave any time. Depending on your tasks, the company might have very difficul…

It is a very good comparison (I work in California, at-will contracts).

The effect of me leaving my company and the effect of my company leaving me, for the one who is getting dropped, are not even remotely comparable.

The negative effects of my leaving or being laid off/fired on the company of 100k people are, more often than not, not distinguishable from zero. Many folks left my group and other groups I worked in and, invariably, the escapees were barely remembered a few weeks after leaving. The cemetery is full of indispensable people, and I was never told that I was indispensable.

The negative effects of my dismissal by the company on me range from almost zero (I wanted to leave anyway, I have ten other jobs lined up, they offer me more money) to very substantial (I didn't want to leave, I can't pay my mortgage, my partner sees me as a failure).

I respect the company I work for and my colleagues. But if I have to choose between advancing my cause and advancing the cause of the company (assuming the two causes are somewhat misaligned and assuming I am not doing anything considered "wrong"), I choose myself every day of the week and twice on Sunday

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#107

Post by ajkjk »

zoomablemind wrote: post #45

It's obviously a rant-inspired introspection about a specific kind of organisations. These orgs are not truly functioning per market principles, yet for various reasons are stuck in a captive energy state that no one dares to disturb. It could be a niche product sold out to big orgs or other steady clients. It could be a subsidiary or some other steady org. Either way, there is no market pressure to really push such…

> These orgs are not truly functioning per market principles, yet for various reasons are stuck in a captive energy state that no one dares to disturb.

All signs point to market principles leading directly to this kind of situation. It seems like markets produce ruthless competition but that's a rudimentary and naive extrapolation from the prediction.

Reality gives good evidence to a more sophisticated prediction: that, in times of non-scarcity, markets produce docile mediocrity, because everyone's goal is to keep their job and make enough money and status to survive, rather than to maximize their money or status, and mediocrity attains that.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#108

Post by beachy »

jalapenos wrote: post #89

This is feelgood venting, but without addressing the root of the problem. All these managers are paid to do this BS. By the company. And that company is owned by people, who ultimately have the final say how it will be run, and who are paying the price. There needs to be a lot more discussion around corporate governance with regards to this topic. I.e. how is it allowed to happen. Why aren't companies adequently trai…

> Why aren't companies adequently training and selecting managers, when it's the biggest effector of their performance vs their competitors? To the extent that dysfunctional management is nearly ubiquitous?

That's how the world used to work, back in the 90s and before.

It doesn't work today, since job mobility is so high. What's the point in training up someone, just for them to jump ship to a competitor for a healthy pay raise?

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#109

Post by jiggawatts »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #87
jiggawatts wrote: post #82

> “This is because Power BI tracks usage metrics and almost all dashboards are completely unused.” Ha-ha… haaa Yes, I know that feeling all to well: I set up some fancy DevOps thing and then see that the all-time logins are a big fat zero for 70% of the people that should checking the system daily. This is reality: the DevOps team lead, the entire sysops team, and all but one developer literally never even looking at…

IDK, but a possible counterargument to some of your observation is that you could have a team where every day/week they have a meeting to look at the dashboards, and it's always Sam who opens the dashboard and shares on the big monitor/group call.

Replace Sam with me, the person that built the thing.

My experience aligns with the the author of the original blog article.

It's impossible for someone near the bottom of a hierarchy to convince anyone of anything, unless the building is literally on fire and you're the external fire safety consultant.

I'm the proverbial fire safety consultant. I come in, upgrade the suppression systems, hold multiple hour-long training sessions on how to check the figurative "water levels"... and nobody does. If I turn up a year later, it's guaranteed that the system is empty and rusting, and the monitoring panels have cobwebs on them.

I've actually noticed that you can have an emergency situation (a "raging fire"), and then sure, people will listen to you about that particular problem, but if you ask them to pour a glass of water onto something that is "just smouldering" they'll laugh in your face for wasting their time. "Come back later if it's really on fire."

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#110

Post by [deleted] »

pdimitar wrote: post #7

That article was a very nice surprise and apart from how crushingly accurate it is (before somebody jumps in to defend all the corporate chaos, of course) it also had me giggling several times while reading it. The answer of course is financial incentives. It is the answer 99% of the time, I know quite a few high-profile managers at this point and they are all very smart and get stuff done people and yet they allow t…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN