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.
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.