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

431–440 of 482 posts

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#431

Post by ludicity »

uoaei wrote: post #95
reactordev wrote: post #39

While I don’t disagree, I think labeling and calling people “bad” is wrong. Derek is doing the best he can. He hired you to help make the company better, more profitable, etc etc. He’s trying anything to get you to understand that you need to deliver value, a product, a service, research output, something so the Bob’s have something to sell/offer/justify grant money. I’ve met a lot of engineers that think they were h…

So what do we call it when "the best they can" is not very good or is actively harmful? Do you mean to imply that intention factors into outcomes?

A few people really fixated on "bad", even though I'd never endorse calling a non-fictional person bad right to their face, if only because I don't think work is a good reason to make anyone feel bad (unless they're interfering with something important like lifesaving work and it's necessary).

But yes, intentions are unrelated to outcomes. There are many things that I do not do professionally because I don't want to make people's lives worse or do a bad job. That said, I'm sympathetic because the world is crazy and I'm sure these people have families to feed. Just, you know, don't get invested in them improving if they don't seem like they want to.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#432

Post by ludicity »

jalapenos wrote: post #186
prometheon1 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've written elsewhere on this. I actually did drastically reduce my work hours and begin exploring other careers, plus starting my own business. However, it didn't seem like it was my place to tell people what they should do, and decided to stick to commenting on what might be a waste of time instead. Everyone's on their own journey, etc, etc.

I've been much happier, but for hopefully understandable reasons, do not wish to bore my long-term readers by repeating myself re: all that history. After all, most of my posts are read fifty times tops by the same people.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#433

Post by ludicity »

zubairq wrote: post #195

Brilliant post. Yes, I agree with 99% of it. I do however think you should start your own business and be your own boss, to see if you can be any better. I used to complain about management all the time, and then I became management, and i was even WORSE than they had been! (But I was able to recognise that I was worse)

So true, haha. One of the engineers I look up to the most told me the same thing - he became a manager and was awful at it... which is why I didn't get into management. I suspect I'd recognize I was worse, but I'm much happier just doing an okay job (not trying to "fix" the organization) and clocking out on a part-time schedule.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#434

Post by ludicity »

politelemon wrote: post #119

I am intrigued by the spreadsheet to control infrastructure bit. > the engineers responsible for it elected to use spreadsheets to control the infrastructure Can you explain what this means, how would you control infra through spreadsheets? Is it something like terraform... You change a '1' to a '2' in a particular cell and some script queries that XLSX and notice the change and create a new EC2?

I can't go into a lot of detail for reasons of anonymity, but suffice it to say, this involves handing out spreadsheets to stakeholders, uploading them to Git repositories, then performing some truly unholy rites to create stuff in AWS and a database.

The gist of what you suggested is basically right though.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#435

Post by ludicity »

Niksko wrote: post #146

Thanks for writing this, it's incredibly cathartic to know that I'm not alone in feeling this way. Question for the audience: are there places where it isn't like this? Can anyone attest to having worked in places like the one that the author describes, and then escaping to somewhere that isn't like that? If so, are you hiring? Or should I just be content with spending 2 or so years somewhere and then moving on? (2 y…

I have had the good fortune of many, many blog readers with years of life experience writing in to me, and there are indeed places that aren't like this. They tend to be extremely small and have awesome owners.

Everywhere big seems to trend towards some level of garbage. However, the spectrum is massive. The worst place is many times worse than the average place, and the average place is many, many times worse than the best place.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#436

Post by ludicity »

pmontra wrote: post #337

I'm sure that the author understands the difference between a clearcut fencing competition and the messy competition between companies and between the very people inside those companies. Yet there is little or nothing about that in the article. Those Dereks can survive inside companies because the contribution of every single person is so tiny that it's very difficult to measure. Furthermore, most of the times it doe…

Very fair critique. I just thought it was very obvious, but perhaps I should have elaborated. The article is not confused about why Derek exists (I feel bad for anyone named Derek now!), it is about why Derek is not incentivized to change, and likely never will.

You can of course try to help, but if you find yourself putting energy into the world and not getting results, just stop and do something actually fulfilling.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#437

Post by ludicity »

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…

It all depends on your personal standards. This is a much more measured take than what I wrote above, and probably more accurate. Of course, Sturgeon's Law is obviously not literally true in every domain. 90% of people can successfully fry an egg, etc.

60% feels about right - they can get stuff done but I have to intervene because the damage they are causing is just beyond their ability to recognize (and I'm sure I do this too, for harder problems).

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#438

Post by ludicity »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #71

Which companies do things "right"? How do I select for them when interviewing? Also, how do I know that _I'm_ not the one who's wrong?

Some super easy heuristics.

If it's a government agency, or some other organization where it's possible that they're genuinely stunningly incompetent, I usually ask to see a Git repository. It's shocking how many places either literally don't version control code (including me, on my first team out of university) or can't even handle their branching strategy.

I usually ask a few questions about their management philosophy. A lot of people just immediately say crazy stuff around work hours and Agile.

I'll ask to look at their Jira backlog, or whatever they use. If they've got hundreds of cards in there, something has gone wrong (though this is not a dealbreaker by any means).

But for real, if they can keep a clean repository, that's so highly correlated with general competence that I can basically stop asking questions there. It's also nice because it isn't an aggressive question and you don't have to reveal what you're actually looking for.

And finally, I only interview at places through my network these days. Isn't worth the risk of running into a psychopath manager and having them ruins months of my life.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#439

Post by ludicity »

wcerfgba wrote: post #369

I would like to know what initiatives at systemic change the author has participated in, and what the outcomes where. There are plenty of case studies of action research and appreciative inquiry leading to more effective and fulfilling organisations.

I would love to have a look at your favourite reading material on this topic. I must admit that, while I've seen many attempts at improving things across numerous organizations (and the contacts through my blog give me a lot of vicarious experience), I've never seen a large organization take a serious attempt at a change, guided by sound theory, common sense, and appetite for risk.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#440

Post by ludicity »

lapestenoire wrote: post #13

Unreadable. Organize your thoughts, write concisely. You believe you have something to say; we would love to hear it. But we aren’t willing to wade through a sewage of words.

Agreed. Author is a pretentious moron, and it's people like him that ruin companies for everyone else. Absolutely toxic. I just wish he'd keep these opinions to himself instead of spreading them around the internet, lowering our collective IQs.
Post reply on HN