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

131–140 of 168 posts

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

#131

Post by andruby »

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.

That's a rather binary view and I disagree that rules always fall in either category.

Knowing _why_ a rule exists and what it's trying to prevent/achieve is much more valuable in my opinion. Wether or not to follow or bend a rule depends so much on the context.

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

#132

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

Unless you are the parent, legal guardian, or someone with some other special legal duty to the child where this might be criminal neglect, yes, this is legal in, AFAIK, every US legal jurisdiction — there is no general legal duty to render aid.

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

#133

Post by gweinberg »

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.

I disagree. I think it's more like the rules are there for a reason, but most of them can be broken if there is a good enough reason.

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

#134

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#135

Post by Quarrelsome »

This reminds me of the stories that Gary's economics shared with his time at Citigroup which corroborates some of the stories my dad had as an accountant in investment firms.

That is, a lot of dicey stuff happens and management tends to only care about the results and intentionally places the responsibility on the traders by operating a very loose leash. This is combined with a % based commission which encourages rule breaking, given how high the rewards can be. The loose leash means when something bad is discovered (and this was the sort of thing my dad would uncover as an accountant) supervisors had this plausible deniability they could fall back on. This meant they could reap the rewards of positive returns while mitigating the blowback on them in the worst case outcomes.

Gary specifically shared a story when he tried to quit in that he was threatened with an investigation to dredge up all the bad stuff he'd done in order to be one of the more successful traders, which ultimately ended up as a big nothing burger as he didn't break any rules to get his returns. What was telling, was the assumption that they _would_ find something to use a cudgel to keep him there, as if it was almost expected.

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

#136

Post by randomNumber7 »

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…

It is a very clear difference, if you need to bring yourself into danger (enter a burning house) vs just looking it drown in a pool.

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

#137

Post by tombhowl »

RunSet wrote: post #127

> 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…

[dead]

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

#138

Post by randomNumber7 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #132
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.

Unless you are the parent, legal guardian, or someone with some other special legal duty to the child where this might be criminal neglect, yes, this is legal in, AFAIK, every US legal jurisdiction — there is no general legal duty to render aid.

In Germany it is different.

- failure to render assistance ("unterlassene Hilfeleistung") up to one year in prison or a fine

- Exposed to a life-threatening situation ("Aussetzung", § 221 StGB) – If a person leaves someone helpless in a life-threatening situation, they could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison

Edit: Also note that murder would often give you 16 years in germany even though it is called live long.

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

#139

Post by mrdoops »

The important thing is to know fundamentally "why" a rule exists and what goal / organizational objective it's existence and constraints provides. Then breaking it can be productive if it meets the same ends. This usually puts the rule breaker at conflict with people in the organization who put adherence to process higher in priority than the actual organizational goals.

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

#140

Post by martinsnow »

andruby wrote: post #131
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.

That's a rather binary view and I disagree that rules always fall in either category. Knowing _why_ a rule exists and what it's trying to prevent/achieve is much more valuable in my opinion. Wether or not to follow or bend a rule depends so much on the context.

Your argument circles back to the posters point. Knowing which rule you can break at a specific point in time. Why are you being so anal about it?
Post reply on HN