[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)