←back to thread

Understanding how bureaucracy develops

(dhruvmethi.substack.com)
192 points dhruvmethi | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.41s | source
Show context
sevensor ◴[] No.41889622[source]
When you treat every negative outcome as a system failure, the answer is more systems. This is the cost of a blameless culture. There are places where that’s the right answer, especially where a skilled operator is required to operate in an environment beyond their control and deal with emergent problems in short order. Aviation, surgery. Different situations where the cost of failure is lower can afford to operate without the cost of bureaucratic compliance, but often they don’t even nudge the slider towards personal responsibility and it stays at “fully blameless.”
replies(13): >>41890119 #>>41890303 #>>41890339 #>>41890571 #>>41891032 #>>41891181 #>>41891213 #>>41891385 #>>41891417 #>>41893574 #>>41894181 #>>41897147 #>>41903458 #
schmidtleonard ◴[] No.41891032[source]
Just one tiny problem: I've played the blame game before. I've worked there. You can't sell me the greener grass on the other side of the road because I've been to the other side of the road and I know the grass there is actually 90% trampled mud and goose shit.

The blame game drives the exact same bureaucratization process, but faster, because all of the most capable and powerful players have a personal incentive to create insulating processes / excuses that prevent them from winding up holding the bag. Everyone in this thread at time of writing is gleefully indulging in wishful thinking about finally being able to hold the team underperformer accountable, but these expectations are unrealistic. Highly productive individuals do not tend to win the blame game because their inclinations are the exact opposite of the winning strategy. The winning strategy is not to be productive, it's to maximize safety margin, which means minimizing responsibility and maximizing barriers to anyone who might ask anything of you. Bureaucracy goes up, not down, and anyone who tries to be productive in this environment gets punished for it.

"Blaming the system" doesn't prevent bureaucracy from accumulating, obviously, but it does prevent it from accumulating in this particular way and for this particular reason.

replies(6): >>41891203 #>>41893243 #>>41893666 #>>41894745 #>>41894956 #>>41905283 #
willcipriano ◴[] No.41894956[source]
People who aren't the getting blamed all the time call it accountability culture rather than blame culture.

Some people want to be holding the bag, if the bag is full of money. All risk no reward won't attract accountable people.

replies(1): >>41895601 #
1. ryandrake ◴[] No.41895601[source]
This is why CEOs and other very senior leadership people have no problem accepting “blame.” Because their contracts are set up so they get even richer no matter what they do! If your company does well, the CEO takes credit and becomes even more fabulously wealthy. If your company does poorly, the CEO takes the blame and leaves on a golden parachute, becoming only moderately more wealthy. Either way, they become more wealthy.

If screwing up my job meant getting fired with a $5M golden parachute, I would be more than happy to be assigned individual blame!

replies(1): >>41903499 #
2. potato3732842 ◴[] No.41903499[source]
CEOs get way f-ing richer when they succeed than they do when they pull the golden parachute cord.

Everyone's time is finite. Would you rather spend a few years to make high five figures slogging through a failure of mid 6s succeeding? It's the same mental calculation but with more 0s in to the left of the decimal.