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

181–190 of 482 posts

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#181

Post by denton-scratch »

depr wrote: post #145
pixelfarmer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is systemic fault. It starts with hierarchical structuring. It doesn't mean that hierarchies are inherently bad, but there are consequences from that and the additional things that people usually imply that come with it. This can seriously hamper productivity, for example, even in the small scale. Once you start to think that through you will also see how far reaching the agile manifesto truly is and that the c…

If you have no explicit hierarchy then an implicit hierarchy will start to form in most cases, which can be even worse. In many cases you have both.

> in most cases

I'd say "in evey case". And I'd say this happens whether or not there's an explicit hierarchy. Being articulate, or having knowledge or contacts, will get you more attention. The only way to mitigate this is through explicit processes, which have to be regularly reviewed. Meetings have to be chaired strictly. Everybody has to sign-up to the agreed processes.

These processes are time-consuming, and decisions can be slow. It becomes worse the bigger the organisation. I don't know how non-hierarchical decision-making can work in an enterprise where there are significant assets at stake; I've only ever seen it work in voluntary political associations in which non-hierarchical organisation is one of the prime objectives.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#182

Post by badpun »

lordnacho wrote: post #140
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…

This is why I'm thinking we need a new system. Not capitalism, not communism, not anything that's already been talked about for 200 years. It seems to me that our real problem is that we are wired to demand everybody contributes. Both righties and lefties actually agree on this, they just have different views on how to get it done theoretically, and in practice have also come up with various schemes to make this happ…

> I mean that in general it appears to me that almost everything is produced by a very small number of people. We're no longer living in a world where you need 9 people to feed 10 people.

This is only true for complex positions, where it's almost impossible for management to suss out individual employee's impact. Vast majority of jobs are not like that - they're driving trucks, stocking shelves, processing paperwork in some government job, driving farm equipment, assemblying smartphones, selling retail financial products etc.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#183

Post by RandomLensman »

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…

The other answer is risk: large, poorly reversible changes can go wrong and there will be blame. Even if there is golden parachute, within the respective social group that matters - and to regulators where applicable.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#184

Post by jalapenos »

beachy wrote: post #108
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 health…

A skilled acquirer would've interviewed engineering before moving forward, ostensibly on the grounds of "knowing what they're buying". They'd then know who to give bonuses and promotions to, vs those to kick out, from day one.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#185

Post by borroka »

badpun wrote: post #179
borroka wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not black and white, both morally and in terms of the way I work. Let's say that certain choices, strongly supported by my boss, who is ultimately responsible for my career in the short term (and the short term career consequences of my actions then inform my career even further down the line), are seen by me as not particularly brilliant, maybe even "dumb." If I say nothing and nothing happens, the product we…

> Years ago, when I was younger and more idealistic, I would have expressed my opinion on the choices made, even forcefully so. After I got fired at one of my previous jobs, I tend to side with the boss, strategically. Perhaps I'm a natural-born sycophant, but I always understood that my primary role in the company is to serve/help my boss, and, most notably, making him look good in from of his boss. Incidentally, I'…

It is mostly a matter of personality. I consider myself very competent, after decades of study, and brilliant, and silencing my competence in order to achieve "labor peace" has been a tough sandwich to swallow.

Today, I see my competence as a tool that has allowed me to be in the position I am in, which is enough.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#186

Post by jalapenos »

prometheon1 wrote: post #138
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…

Is the article not valuable without address the root of the problem? The author explains how he copes with the way organisations behave. Without this coping mechanism, he would be less happy and more angry. This coping mechanism could help a lot of unhappy/angry people right now, while solving the root problem requires more time and collaboration. Maybe it is also okay if we make people more happy right now, and work…

Maybe but I feel the philosophy of this article is the same as that which the "checked out" employee I've frequently met in my career has swallowed.

They aren't happy people, because they've kind of given up and become cynical at life as a whole.

The article would've been more helpful if it had, say, encouraged people to start their own businesses and do better.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#187

Post by pdimitar »

patmcc wrote: post #90
pdimitar wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? Programmers don't have executive powers. You are very often told that this is not your job and you should be doing yours and leave the "experts" to theirs. Well, they are not experts. They are not even at the level of informed amateurs. But they have the power. What would you do? Sure, there are good companies and you can switch until you find one but let's recognize that statistically speaking this absolutely d…

>>>How? Programmers don't have executive powers. The secret is - and this is wielded a million times a day in a million small ways - of course we do. Lots of people do in lots of jobs, whether intended or not. You just do the thing . You don't ask about doing the thing, you don't put in a project planning proposal, you don't beg your manager to devote 20% of your time to the thing, you just go and do it because you p…

Yeah, that's the only thing that ever worked. I still don't recommend it because people do notice, it's just that many don't care. But when they do, you're in trouble.

But yeah, I've done it.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#188

Post by borroka »

smeej wrote: post #168
borroka wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not black and white, both morally and in terms of the way I work. Let's say that certain choices, strongly supported by my boss, who is ultimately responsible for my career in the short term (and the short term career consequences of my actions then inform my career even further down the line), are seen by me as not particularly brilliant, maybe even "dumb." If I say nothing and nothing happens, the product we…

I think you just gave words to something I'd noticed about myself but had never been able to articulate, which is the reason I can't operate in large companies. Every time a company gets past its first thousand employees, I have to find another job, because it starts to become as you describe and it feels like it grinds my soul to dust. I'm convinced there do need to be big companies, therefore I'm glad so many peopl…

If I were interested in doing the work I am able to do, and if my life satisfaction depended on this fulfillment, I would never work where I work. That would be intolerably frustrating.

But I see my work as a means to other ends, and I am fine with my current situation.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#189

Post by denton-scratch »

Drakim wrote: post #175
bryananderson wrote: post #169

There’s some worthwhile stuff here about how perverse incentives lead to pathological outcomes in large organizations, but… > Here's the pressure if you're in the 10% of people that aren't crud at their jobs - you're surrounded by people that are crud. > In professional settings, approximately all of my time goes into solving problems introduced by people that are just indescribably bad. Jesus. If this is really the…

The thing is, there isn't one singular measure of value in terms of how the product can be "bad" or "good". I've very often seen less experienced engineers make stuff that helps a specific customer (good), but makes the app just a little less organized and understandable in the long run (bad). I often have to step in and fix the damage done that might not be visible at first glance for a lot of my coworkers. I wouldn…

> but makes the app just a little less organized and understandable in the long run (bad)

This sounds like normal code-rot; code is changed to achieve some particular goal, but budget isn't allocated for the requisite refactoring. I personally prefer that refactoring opportunities are seized whenever they appear; managers with budgets don't usually agree, for understandable reasons. Eventually you end up with a hairball that can't be refactored, and has to be rewritten.

Whether a change should be made at all, whether to go ahead and refactor there and then, or how long to postpone the refactoring, are all business decisions that have to be taken by the person that manages the budget.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#190

Post by lifeisstillgood »

I have a new heuristic on this sort of stuff. Assume the rule of 80/20 is accurate. 80% of profits come from 20% of customers, 80 % of usefulwork comes from 20% of employees etc.

but then of the remaining 20%, 80% of that (16%) will come from 20% of the 80% of other workers.

So just two rounds of this and basically 1/3 of your company produces 96% of the results.

this 1/3-2/3 split weirdly seems to correlate with other sources (see Google as it grew compared to established firms of same revenue)

Post reply on HN