I think there’s an emperors new clothes effect in chains of command. In every layer, the truth is altered slightly to make things appear a justifiable amount better than they really are, but because there can be so many layers of indirection in the operation of and adherence to policy, the culture can look really different depending on where you find yourself in the class hierarchy. This is especially true with thinking things through and questioning orders. I think people in roles to make policy are often far removed from the mentality that must be adopted to operate in the frantic, understaffed efficiency of front line workers carrying out policy.
“There is nothing that can force you to do something you know is wrong” seems like a very affluent pov. More working class families might suggest advice more like “lower your expectations to lower your stress”. I don’t know your background though. Do let me know if I’m misunderstanding you.
I am saying you do not literally have to be a cog in the machine. You have other options. The other options may sometimes be very unappealing; I don’t mean to sugarcoat them.
Organizations have choices of how they relate to line employees. They can try to explain why things are done a certain way, or not. They can punish line employees for “violating policy” irrespective of why they acted that way or the consequences for the org, or not.
Organizations can change these choices (at the margin), and organizations can rise and fall because of these choices. This is, of course, very slow, and from an individual’s perspective maybe rarely relevant, but it is real.
I am not saying it’s reasonable for line employees to be making detailed evaluations of the total impact of particular policies. I’m saying that sometimes, line employees can see a policy-caused disaster brewing right in front of their faces. And they can prevent it by violating policy. And they should! It’s good to do that! Don’t throw the squirrels in the shredder!
I don’t think my view is affluent, specifically, but it does come from a place where one has at least some slack, and works better in that case. As do most other things, IMO.
(I think what you say is probably an important part of how we end up with the dynamics we do at the line employee level. That wasn’t what I was trying to talk about, and I don’t think it changes my conclusions, but maybe I’m wrong; do you think it does?)
sometimes, line employees can see a policy-caused disaster brewing right in front of their faces. And they can prevent it by violating policy. And they should! It’s good to do that!
I really like this. Agreed.
Slack is good, and ideally we would have plenty for everyone, but Moloch is not a fan.
I feel like your pov includes a tacit assumption that if there are problems, somewhere there is somebody who, if they had better competence or moral character, could have prevented things from being so bad. I am a fan of Tsuyoku naritai, and I think it applies to ethics as well… I want to be stronger, more skilled and more kind. I want others to want this too. But I also want to acknowledge that, when honestly looking for blame, sometimes it may rest fully in someones character, but sometimes (and I suspect many or most times) the fault exists in systems and our failures of forethought and failures to understand the complexities of large multi state systems and the difficult ambiguity in communication. It is also reasonable to assume both can be at fault.
Something that may be driving me to care about this issue… it seems much of the world today is out for blood. Suffering and looking to identify and kill the hated outgroup. Maybe we have too much population and our productivity can’t keep up. Maybe some people need to die. But that is awful, and I would rather we sought our sacrifices with sorrow and compassion than the undeserving bitter hatred that I see.
I believe we very well could be in a world where every single human is good, but bad things still happen anyway.
In every layer, the truth is altered slightly to make things appear a justifiable amount better than they really are, but because there can be so many layers of indirection in the operation of and adherence to policy, the culture can look really different depending on where you find yourself in the class hierarchy. This is especially true with thinking things through and questioning orders.
Not sure whather that aligns with your thinking, but Jenifer Pahlka has this nice concept of rigidity cascades. What she means is that a process get ever more rigid as it travels down the hierarchy. What may have been a random suggestion at the highest level becomes a “prefered way of doing thing” a level below that and an “unviolable requirement” at the very bottom of the hierarchy.
https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/understanding-the-cascade-of-rigidity
Yes, I think this is exactly what I am thinking of, but with the implied generality that it applies to all domains, not specifically software as in the article examples, and also with my suggested answers to why it happens not being to avoid responsibility, but rather the closer you are to the bottom of the hierarchy, the more likely you are to be understaffed and overworked in a way that makes it logistically more difficult to spend time thinking about policy, and also to appear more agreeable to management.
I think there’s an emperors new clothes effect in chains of command. In every layer, the truth is altered slightly to make things appear a justifiable amount better than they really are, but because there can be so many layers of indirection in the operation of and adherence to policy, the culture can look really different depending on where you find yourself in the class hierarchy. This is especially true with thinking things through and questioning orders. I think people in roles to make policy are often far removed from the mentality that must be adopted to operate in the frantic, understaffed efficiency of front line workers carrying out policy.
“There is nothing that can force you to do something you know is wrong” seems like a very affluent pov. More working class families might suggest advice more like “lower your expectations to lower your stress”. I don’t know your background though. Do let me know if I’m misunderstanding you.
I am saying you do not literally have to be a cog in the machine. You have other options. The other options may sometimes be very unappealing; I don’t mean to sugarcoat them.
Organizations have choices of how they relate to line employees. They can try to explain why things are done a certain way, or not. They can punish line employees for “violating policy” irrespective of why they acted that way or the consequences for the org, or not.
Organizations can change these choices (at the margin), and organizations can rise and fall because of these choices. This is, of course, very slow, and from an individual’s perspective maybe rarely relevant, but it is real.
I am not saying it’s reasonable for line employees to be making detailed evaluations of the total impact of particular policies. I’m saying that sometimes, line employees can see a policy-caused disaster brewing right in front of their faces. And they can prevent it by violating policy. And they should! It’s good to do that! Don’t throw the squirrels in the shredder!
I don’t think my view is affluent, specifically, but it does come from a place where one has at least some slack, and works better in that case. As do most other things, IMO.
(I think what you say is probably an important part of how we end up with the dynamics we do at the line employee level. That wasn’t what I was trying to talk about, and I don’t think it changes my conclusions, but maybe I’m wrong; do you think it does?)
I really like this. Agreed.
Slack is good, and ideally we would have plenty for everyone, but Moloch is not a fan.
I feel like your pov includes a tacit assumption that if there are problems, somewhere there is somebody who, if they had better competence or moral character, could have prevented things from being so bad. I am a fan of Tsuyoku naritai, and I think it applies to ethics as well… I want to be stronger, more skilled and more kind. I want others to want this too. But I also want to acknowledge that, when honestly looking for blame, sometimes it may rest fully in someones character, but sometimes (and I suspect many or most times) the fault exists in systems and our failures of forethought and failures to understand the complexities of large multi state systems and the difficult ambiguity in communication. It is also reasonable to assume both can be at fault.
Something that may be driving me to care about this issue… it seems much of the world today is out for blood. Suffering and looking to identify and kill the hated outgroup. Maybe we have too much population and our productivity can’t keep up. Maybe some people need to die. But that is awful, and I would rather we sought our sacrifices with sorrow and compassion than the undeserving bitter hatred that I see.
I believe we very well could be in a world where every single human is good, but bad things still happen anyway.
Not sure whather that aligns with your thinking, but Jenifer Pahlka has this nice concept of rigidity cascades. What she means is that a process get ever more rigid as it travels down the hierarchy. What may have been a random suggestion at the highest level becomes a “prefered way of doing thing” a level below that and an “unviolable requirement” at the very bottom of the hierarchy. https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/understanding-the-cascade-of-rigidity
Yes, I think this is exactly what I am thinking of, but with the implied generality that it applies to all domains, not specifically software as in the article examples, and also with my suggested answers to why it happens not being to avoid responsibility, but rather the closer you are to the bottom of the hierarchy, the more likely you are to be understaffed and overworked in a way that makes it logistically more difficult to spend time thinking about policy, and also to appear more agreeable to management.