[HN Gopher] Hacking the bureaucracy to get stuff done (2020)
___________________________________________________________________
Hacking the bureaucracy to get stuff done (2020)
Author : ZainRiz
Score : 90 points
Date : 2022-05-21 01:47 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.zainrizvi.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.zainrizvi.io)
| castratikron wrote:
| What if "getting stuff done" ends up being more like "subvert the
| system and redefine my job to be whatever I want it to be"?
| fallingknife wrote:
| Sounds even better
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > Ever tried dealing with a large company, only to get
| stonewalled? You're talking to a black box that repeats "Sorry,
| that's against policy" or "I can't do that"
|
| Unless you have equity in the company, why would you waste time
| doing that?
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| Sometimes you need to deal with a glitch on their end and end
| up stonewalled because nobody who you're allowed to talk to has
| the authority to fix your problem
| elbigbad wrote:
| A paycheck, meaningful work that aligns with your values or
| goals in life, getting experience in a more mature org before
| jumping to a startup, job stability of a large company,
| interesting work, off the top of my head.
| naet wrote:
| I regularly have to interact with large companies I have no
| "direct" equity in, and I think it's fairly standard.
|
| Some are my clients, who may need my help BECAUSE their
| internal bureaucracy is causing them problems. One recent
| personal example: a company has a hiring freeze or other policy
| preventing them from hiring a new full time member, but they
| still require technical support, and have some budget for an
| "outside consultant" to get them through this period. I have no
| equity in this company, but I am still being paid by them and
| incentivized to work through their problem even when another
| internal department of theirs is blocking or otherwise
| complicating the process with bureaucracy.
|
| There have been times where I need to provision something for
| less than $20 dollars on a company card... and to justify that
| cost, I have to hold multiple hour long meetings with multiple
| higher level employees attending and discussing. My agency is
| billing them at least $100 for my hour alone, meaning that
| holding the meeting and deciding not to spend said money has
| already cost them more than just spending the $20 even if that
| was a complete waste of $20 on an unnecessary service.
|
| Another common example is working with my client's clients,
| usually large platform or service vendors. While I might not
| have direct equity in a provider, there is usually a high cost
| to re-platform or replace a key service, even with a near-
| equivalent provider, and so it makes sense for me to spend time
| trying to work with the original service provider even if they
| are difficult to work with.
|
| In my previous career as a teacher I had to deal with a metric
| fuckton of school bureaucracy and administrators. Not sure why
| the education system around my area is so bloated with non-
| teaching administrative staff members; not sure how you can
| justify paying more people as "administrators" than ground
| level workers like teachers and custodians, but some places
| seem to have the opposite allocation of staff resources.
| bombcar wrote:
| In the past this is why things like per diems came into being
| - the paperwork tracking it was more expensive than just
| letting everyone have their $50 and who cares if some brought
| a sandwich from home and pocketed it.
|
| A wise company would make sure any consulting contract had a
| fixed $500 or whatever for "incidentals" - and if they
| weren't needed and the consultant pocked it, who cares?
| hbarka wrote:
| There was this guy at my previous work who was in charge of
| Salesforce. Literal sales force members were denied access to
| Salesforce information under the guise of "SOX Compliance". He
| threw this bureaucratic wall out every time. I don't think he
| knew what SOX policy meant. It was purely subjective and was
| really a ploy for power and control. The company suffered for it.
| m463 wrote:
| reminds me of: https://review.firstround.com/lean-startups-
| eric-ries-on-how...
| ghostbrainalpha wrote:
| This article was hard to read, even though its short because I
| could just feel my anxiety rising while getting through it.
|
| After being a founder of a small startup, the adjustment back to
| corporate life has been difficult, and the instances where the
| company cannot behave logically as an organism really take an
| emotional tole.
| gkop wrote:
| > The cheaper hotels were 30 minutes away, but then I'd blow the
| budget for uber rides. I asked if I'd have to cancel my
| conference trip.
|
| > Manager: "There's not actually an uber limit"
|
| When the Man exploits you by keeping you guessing about the
| expense policy, it's your moral imperative to spend as much of
| the Man's budget as you possibly can.
| GlenTheMachine wrote:
| This works 10x with government.
|
| You'd be amazed how many things you can do - physical things you
| do with your hands, like, say, turning a storage room into an
| office, a thing I actually did - if you just ignore people
| telling you you aren't allowed to. If you ask the question "what
| will happen if I ignore this policy", and the answer is not "I
| will get a pay cut" or "I will get fired," then the policy in
| question isn't actually a policy. It's just a suggestion.
|
| Figuring your management's pain points is also very very helpful.
| I work in a building with metal walls and no windows. As a
| consequence we get no cell service in the building. We've been
| asking for cell repeaters for nearly fifteen years; we were
| always told "we can't do that, it's a personal service provided
| to employees, we can't pay for personal services."
|
| Eventually the fire alarm went out - for 18 MONTHS. During a lab
| wide conference call I pointed out that in case of a fire there
| was no way to alert employees in the building. They said "we'll
| send cell phone alerts", and I replied that as they knew, because
| I had been telling them every year for fifteen years, there was
| no cell service in the building, and that this was a lawsuit
| waiting for the next building fire.
|
| Guess what is being installed as we speak?
| kqr wrote:
| > If you ask the question "what will happen if I ignore this
| policy", and the answer is not "I will get a pay cut" or "I
| will get fired," then the policy in question isn't actually a
| policy. It's just a suggestion.
|
| I like to phrase this as "never think you need permission to do
| a good job", but it's ever so true.
| notch656a wrote:
| I still don't follow why they would elect to install a cell
| repeater rather than fix the fire alarm. One of the two sounds
| like a good way to get in jail for embezzling public funds; I
| certainly don't like the idea of my public tax money going
| towards unapproved repeaters (if the employees pooled together
| their own money or something, more power to them). On the other
| hand, no judge/jury is going to convict for fixing the fire
| alarm whether the money was authorized or not.
| GlenTheMachine wrote:
| "You have to learn why things work on a starship."
|
| The building itself is "owned" by a separate part of the
| government than the part that actually sits in it (and this
| is almost always true, no matter what part of the government
| you're talking about). As a consequence, getting the building
| fixed requires coordinating someone else's budget and
| personnel. Whereas installing unofficial cell repeaters can
| come out of your own budget, specifically because they're
| unofficial.
| notch656a wrote:
| Yeah I get that the convoluted arms of .gov are entangled
| to the point they strangle themselves; what I don't
| understand is why can't the unofficial budget be used to
| fix the fire alarm? It's not like the fire alarm guy is
| gonna ask for the deed to the building. I could probably
| get a fire alarm guy to come to the local coffee shop if I
| wanted and no one would even know the difference.
| toss1 wrote:
| >> I used to struggle with people not responding to my emails
| when I tried to get their approval on a change I was making.
| "People are busy," my manager explained. "Instead say, 'I'll be
| making this change on Thursday unless you object before then.'"
|
| YUP. I first heard of it as "UOD" = "Unless Otherwise Directed".
|
| Extremely useful, as in politely explain the basic reasoning and
| "UOD, I'll be implementing X, Y,, and Z starting Thursday..."
| make sure everyone gets that message and proceed. Works both
| within organizations and even with partners and customers. I also
| can't say I've ever heard a complaint when it was used.
| netsharc wrote:
| I thought it's "UNODIR", as described by General Patreus (who
| is apparently a good general but who got too horny once)
|
| https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2009/2/11/696188/-
| nicbou wrote:
| Calling also works. Emails get delayed but phone calls are
| harder to ignore.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| And also harder to use for CYA.
| toss1 wrote:
| "UOD, ..." can also work very well on a call.
|
| The point is to present a solution and give them the chance
| to just say "GO" or "Woah" instead of handing them a problem
| with the expectation to work through it with you.
|
| Moreover, the point of just notifying the "UOD, ..." is to
| minimize getting entangled in the bureaucracy. Calls can
| often lead to either massive time-wasting for _everyone_ in
| playing phone-tag, or escalation and further pointless delay
| which literally benefits no one.
|
| Distracting other people from _their_ tasks to get a
| definitive answer on an item where it is reasonable for me
| /you to make an executive decision and give them an
| opportunity to check it before implementing it is really most
| often best for everyone.
|
| Now obviously, if it is a real unknown on a critical item
| where getting it wrong will really fork-up someone's week,
| then you call and nail down a hard answer and then document
| it in writing.
|
| But, the point is that for a surprisingly large amount of
| stuff, "UOD, ..." works amazingly well for everyone -- and I
| do mean everyone.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Instant messaging is the happy medium.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| haha, classic
|
| > I booked that distant hotel and took an uber everyday. Now
| here's the kicker: the hotel + uber cost more than what I would
| have paid if I had gotten a hotel walking distance from the
| venue.
|
| I ran into the same problem. All the decent hotel rooms near a
| customer site were booked up, so I bought a blanket from Target
| for $20 and slept in my car rather than sleep in a bug-infested
| motel for $100. I couldn't expense the blanket, though. (In the
| company's defense, I think this is due to tax laws making it too
| complicated for the company to allow, rather than any particular
| person's incompetence)
| bombcar wrote:
| Buy something expensable (tech equipment often is, or even just
| drinks) and then photo the receipt, and return and buy the
| blanket.
|
| But that's technically fraud, heh.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| it's OK, I already wasted $20 worth of time reading
| HackerNews blog articles, haha
| HPsquared wrote:
| You'd probably have been ok if you destroyed the blanket after
| you were done with it. Maybe that's a business, certified
| destruction of items claimed on expenses.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Counterpoint: you're not that important, you're not that special,
| the control framework may exist for a reason that is not apparent
| to you or that you haven't bothered to understand, and the people
| who own that framework may well be empowered to get you fired as
| you try to circumvent.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Well, that's a possibility. Another possibility is that, yes,
| the work you are doing is as important as you imagine it to be.
| Not everybody is delusional.
|
| If you go and try to circumvent the process, there is a chance
| you will find out.
| Tade0 wrote:
| I've seen things getting fast-tracked because they were passed
| through the CEOs girlfriend (also employed there), who was but
| the only person able to consistently reach the man.
| woliveirajr wrote:
| > Remember there is no "company." All of the company's decisions
| are actually individuals acting within their own set of
| incentives. The "company" is what emerges when those individual
| incentives interact with each other.
|
| This! Doesn't matter what the "company" does, gives information
| to SEC, publishes Ads at the newspaper. A company is made of
| people - for good and bad.
| notch656a wrote:
| If there is no company then why don't individuals become felons
| when a company is convicted of a felony? Why aren't individuals
| typically liable when the company goes bankrupt; wouldn't you
| hold the employees to pay the debt if they were ? Why don't the
| non-equity holding individuals of the 'company' capture the
| capital gains and post-operating-expenses profits?
|
| It's important to remember when you are an individual you
| aren't the company. You typically hold no equity in the
| company, unless you are lucky enough to have it included in the
| benefits of certain professional and executive positions.
|
| No the company is carefully constructed to make sure you aren't
| in it. You are a resource FOR the company, not part of the
| company.
| GlenTheMachine wrote:
| Because the fire alarm is actually on someone's radar. it's
| been reported up the chain, budget requests have been
| submitted, it's on checklists and slide decks etc etc. In
| other words, someone would notice if it magically got fixed.
|
| But if your cell signal suddenly goes from zero bars to three
| bars in the building, nobody is the wiser.
| notch656a wrote:
| Yeah I mean I don't work for the government so I guess it
| doesn't make sense to me. So what, they show up and it's
| fixed. What's gonna happen, is someone seriously going to
| get fired / prosecuted for fixing the fire alarm?
|
| I presume if no one is ratting you out for the repeater
| they're not going to rat you out for the fire alarm, and
| even if they do the consequences can't be worse for fixing
| a life-saving alarm vs a possibly frivelous repeater.
| GlenTheMachine wrote:
| Probably not, but once you get high enough up in
| management, the pain issue really starts to become "how
| much paperwork will I be required to do?" And in the case
| of obviously spending money to do something that was
| someone else's job, the answer is "a surprisingly large
| amount."
|
| It's worth noting that a) this is a very complicated fire
| alarm, and fixing it is neither inexpensive nor easy; and
| b) the issue of warning employees applies to lots of non-
| fire emergencies. Such as an active shooter event.
| notch656a wrote:
| Well that sounds fucking painful. If you can swing the
| change there's lots of small private companies you can
| work at where getting authorization for a few thousand at
| a time is as easy as asking the CEO in a 5 second
| conversation (if that). I think I would last about 5 days
| with that kind of fuckery before self-imploding in anger
| and rage quitting.
|
| If you work somewhere where a thesis is required to fix a
| fucking broken fire alarm, I don't know what to say, that
| just isn't the right environment the thrive in.
| GlenTheMachine wrote:
| I know. But the trade off is that government is _very_
| well resourced. Applying those resources can be painful
| and slow, but once you get them in gear you can attack
| problems nobody else can touch.
| sneak wrote:
| > _If there is no company then why don 't individuals become
| felons when a company is convicted of a felony?_
|
| They do. Companies cannot be charged with criminal offenses,
| so "when a company is convicted of a felony" describes a non-
| event. Only humans can be charged and convicted of criminal
| misconduct.
| notch656a wrote:
| You might want to speak with the slightest shred of factual
| basis before you embarrass yourself.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_convicted_o
| f...
|
| >Volkswagen AG (VW) has agreed to plead guilty to three
| criminal felony counts
|
| https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-ag-agrees-plead-
| gu...
|
| >A four-count felony criminal information was filed today
| in federal court in the Eastern District of New York
| charging HSBC with willfully failing to maintain an
| effective anti-money laundering (AML) program,
|
| https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/bae-systems-plc-pleads-
| guilty...
|
| >Q. Can a corporation be held criminally liable in the same
| way as an individual can be held liable?
|
| >A. Yes. A corporation can be prosecuted for essentially
| all of the same crimes as individuals and, if proven guilty
| beyond a reasonable doubt, convicted of felonies and
| misdemeanors.
|
| https://www.mololamken.com/assets/htmldocuments/FAQs%20-%20
| C...
|
| In quite a few criminal cases, but not all, the company was
| charged without any individual being held criminally
| liable.
| bitwize wrote:
| "I'd _like_ to help you, but I can 't. I'd _like_ to tell you to
| take a copy of your policy to Norma Wilcox -- W-I-L-C-O-X -- on
| the third floor, but I can 't. I also don't advise you to fill
| out a WS-2475 form with our legal department on the second floor.
| I do not expect someone to get back to you quickly to resolve the
| matter. I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do..."
| [deleted]
| judge2020 wrote:
| For reference https://youtu.be/_R8GtrKtrZ4?t=39
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-23 23:00 UTC)