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

Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

journals.aom.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 168 posts

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#101

Post by heymijo »

madrox wrote: post #40

As a supervisor I didn’t resonate with this until I remembered in some jobs I have communicated the company attendance policy but didn’t enforce it unless someone was a poor performer. I trust adults to manage their own time until they give me a reason to believe otherwise. For my part, I’d rather trust people’s judgment and intrinsic motivation than enforce the rules. Enforcement is annoying, tedious, and distractin…

And while this works for you, labor and employment attorneys use your non-standard application of the rules as a way to win lawsuits when brought against the company. Another way we end up with annoying, tedious, and distracting compliance (U.S. based take here).

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#102

Post by empath75 »

ungreased0675 wrote: post #2

This study is about the NHL, hardly applicable to other contexts.

This whole thing is based on a serious misunderstanding on the role of penalties and fouls in sports. One can take a penalty strategically, for example to stop an almost sure goal, with the consequence of whatever the penalty is. That's just part of the game, and elite (ie: NHL) players are really smart about how they do it, and _should_ be rewarded for it.

Then there are "dumb" penalties, and worse -- things that aren't penalties at all, that break "unwritten rules", and there's a whole bunch of them, like showboating, dirty shots, etc, and those won't get you the support of the team.

And then there are you, know, team rules -- if you're out there not listening to the coach, you'll absolutely get benched.

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#103

Post by empath75 »

dilyevsky wrote: post #30
bee_rider wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s just a game, so there’s no real moral component and the stakes are much lower generally.

I can easily make a case that professional sports at the highest level (NHL, NBA, PL, etc) are much higher stakes than most peoples' jobs at least in $ dimension

Sure, but the pretense is that the game is a self contained reality and once the game is over, everyone has a life they can go on living. Tripping someone on the way to scoring a goal is _unfair_, and there is a defined penalty for it, but when the game is over, that's the end of the consequences for it.

There are, though, lots of penalties in hockey that are about not hurting or maiming (or even killing) people, and those sorts of penalties are very much not rewarded or encouraged by coaches or players.

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#104

Post by ecb_penguin »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #67
alienthrowaway wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In which country? Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy. There's video from a few years back that shows very American cops standing outside a burning house at night, knowing there was a young child still in it. A passing pizza delivery dude[1] rescued the 6-year old, handed her to cop, and ended up requiring hospitalization. In the online discussion, everyone called the rescuer a hero, but I…

Cops have no legal obligation in the US to protect people from crime. They can watch you be mugged without lifting a finger. They might be fired, but the victim isn't entitled to protection. It basically comes down to positive and negative rights. Someone is at fault if they harm you, but nobody is required to help you, even the government.

If police had a legal obligation to protect people from crime, everyone would have recourse if the police failed to protect them. Bar fight? Sue the police. Domestic violence? Sue the police.

It would literally lead to the collapse of the justice system.

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#106

Post by ecb_penguin »

genewitch wrote: post #75
kukkamario wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Finland, there is legal obligation to help people in emergencies, but this does not mean that you are required to danger yourself or act beyond your abilities. So usually only thing you are actually legally required to do is to call for help.

Are you legally required to carry a means of communication? If not, how can this possibly be enforced? It sounds like an end run to get to negligence charges. For example, how fast can I drive to get to a telephone if I don't carry one or otherwise cannot use it?

> Are you legally required to carry a means of communication? If not, how can this possibly be enforced?

Obviously not... If you have no means to communicate you are not required to communicate. I don't know why you'd think otherwise.

> For example, how fast can I drive to get to a telephone if I don't carry one or otherwise cannot use it?

This would obviously depend on circumstances and how safe you're able to drive without causing more incidents.

This is also why we have courts, and judges, and juries. They look at the totality of circumstances and arrive at judgement.

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#107

Post by taeric »

staunton wrote: post #63
taeric wrote: post #12

A 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.

Sometimes, the goal is to create an environment where people must break certain rules to get anything done, which everyone (including supervisors) understands, but by way of imposing those rules responsibility and liability is transferred to subordinates.

I think those environments are bad, most likely? Why would it be a goal to make it so that people break rules?

Making people think about the rules? That is fine and good. Setting them to be broken, though? That just sounds broken.

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#108

Post by bluefirebrand »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #14
doubled112 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Four minutes for roughing after you punch somebody in the face? Sign me up!

>> Four minutes for roughing 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.

> I've never seen a double minor for roughing. 2 minute minor or 5 minute major

I've seen a double minor for roughing when both players involved get the roughing minor but one player gets the double for instigating

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#109

Post by corytheboyd »

kqr wrote: post #60
chias wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw this put really, really well not too long ago: > A lot of us got the message earlier in life that we had to wait for other's permission or encouragement to do things, when in fact, all you need is the ability to understand the situation and deal with the consequences

So fun to see other variations of this. I have for a while said > You never need permission to do a good job. But of course, it takes the experience to understand the nuances of what a good job is in the domain at hand, in the organisation and society at hand.

I’m sure there’s a flashy way to say it, but yours reminds me of this one:

> Only ask for permission if you want to be told “no”

Post reply on HN