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

121–130 of 168 posts

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

#121

Post by Zak »

ike2792 wrote: post #116

In any large organization, there are basically two classes of rules: 1) stupid red tape rules that slow everyone down and 2) really important rules that you can never break ever. Effective people learn which rules fall into which group so they can break the red tape rules and get more stuff done.

This study seems to be focused on breaking rules imposed on the organization by external entities, not rules the organization created independently to support its own objectives.

Supervisors aligned with an organization's goals likely often view such external rules with contempt. It's not surprising they tolerate or support rule breaking as long as they believe it won't be punished externally.

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

#122

Post by [deleted] »

alienthrowaway wrote: post #62
randomNumber7 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarly, it is reprehensible but legal to pull up a chair and watch a child drown in a pool. In which country? Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy.

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#123

Post by potato3732842 »

taeric wrote: post #107
staunton wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like anything it's a balance.

On one extreme you have crap like the gig economy where workers have all of the responsibility and none of the control.

On the other extreme you have perverse workplaces where there would otherwise be no individual responsibility for work if people were not taking on that responsibility by working outside the rules.

I do think that having the system and the rules support the way the organization actually runs in reality is better than even a good implementation of systematic rule breaking.

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

#124

Post by rawgabbit »

jmyeet wrote: post #15

So 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…

Scavenging is the result of the low pay. In my experience, officers usually look the other way as they understand what it is, until they can't look away anymore. Many enlisted are paid so low, officers actually go out of their way to encourage them to sign-up for food stamps which many are eligible for. When "shrinkage" becomes a problem, they simply pause all requisitions for a while. Many of these items end up in "army surplus" stores surrounding the army base.

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

#125

Post by pixl97 »

empath75 wrote: post #103
dilyevsky wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I mean, it just seems like a false or unrealistic pretense to me.

For example while a hockey game is a 'game' what about a person making a bet on that game that now loses a bet because of the penalty actions? Or a team loses that would have won because of said penalty and does not go to the world championship. So yea, saying there is no consequences is like rejecting the premise of causality as the game doesn't live in a closed system.

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

#126

Post by moate »

harrall wrote: post #119
Enginerrrd wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst of all worlds is when a blind application of the rules results in bad behavior. This situation seems to come up frequently, and I'm very often appalled at how readily otherwise normal people will "follow the rules" even when it's clearly and objectively bad, and there may even be existing pathways to seek exceptions.

Some types of people are “rule followers” are can’t fathom breaking any rules. There are also “rule breakers” who can’t fathom being told what to do. Both types of people are insufferable.

puts Killing in the Name on at full blast

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

#127

Post by RunSet »

> While incompetence is merely a barrier to further promotion, "super-incompetence" is grounds for dismissal, as is "super-competence". In both cases, "they tend to disrupt the hierarchy." One specific example of a super-competent employee is a teacher of children with special needs: they were so effective at educating the children that, after a year, they exceeded all expectations at reading and arithmetic, but the teacher was still fired because they had neglected to devote enough time to bead-stringing and finger-painting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle#Summary_2

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

#128

Post by genewitch »

lazide wrote: post #20
tyleo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Someone who follows the rule even when it produces a terrible outcome is a painful liability. Just like someone who breaks the rule to do the same thing.

> Someone who follows the rule even when it produces a terrible outcome is a painful liability.

It is called malicious compliance for a reason.

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

#129

Post by sdwr »

mikepurvis wrote: post #111
bmacho wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A burning house is not "a pool". In my country you can't watch a kid drowning in a pool* but you are not obligated to help anyone in a burning house, since that would put you in danger too. I assume it is the same ~everywhere in the world, including the US. * assume rescuing would be fairly safe, you are a good swimmer, you have lifeguard education, the weather is nice and the kid is small. AFAIK rescuing drowning pe…

A drowning child is of fairly limited threat to an even halfway competent adult swimmer. Even at maximum panic/flailing, they just don't have the mass or strength to prevent you from at least treading water.

I'm a good swimmer, and 50 pounds of thrashing, scratching and climbing feels dangerous.

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

#130

Post by dontlikeyoueith »

randomNumber7 wrote: post #56
s1artibartfast wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For which side? Most examples boil down to common sense. Nobody is going to arrest a 14 year old for driving their dying parent to the hospital. Similarly, it is reprehensible but legal to pull up a chair and watch a child drown in a pool. There is a difference between law and morality, and humans will use the second to selectively enforce the former.

> Similarly, it is reprehensible but legal to pull up a chair and watch a child drown in a pool. In which country? Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy.

> Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy.

Then you're living in a fantasy world.

Post reply on HN