This is why asking "What would the process be if I wanted to purchase a $50 book necessary for work?" tells you a lot about organizational culture. If they say "Department of Bikeshedding gonna bikeshed, what are you going to do", they have many more than one DoB. https://twitter.com/polisciprofhi/status/1215832410794819584 …
-
-
Then you get to a non-trivial tradeoff in values at the heart of the conflict: Does this organization exist to achieve this set of goals? Or does this organization exist to employ the people who work for the organization? Which tradeoff will we make at what margins?
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Given that so many organizations do this, is there a steelman argument for it actually being rational?
-
I can attempt a couple: 1) This is all about signaling and setting cultural norms. We don’t care *at all* about the $4 lunch. We care that when you’re a director and *could* figure out how to embezzle $1M you remember being asked about the $4 lunch. 2) This choice not made here
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
There's an argument to be made that it would be more productive to explicitly pay people to do nothing, rather than paying them to interfere with other work. This post I saw earlier today strikes me as somewhat relevant too:https://jesin00.tumblr.com/post/190223575000/queeranarchism-socalledunitedstates …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Then there's hardcoding of "rules" into software, often without any sort of workaround, and as people who knew the older approach leave, the knowledge that world is more complex leaves too.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.