←back to thread

Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

(journals.aom.org)
198 points rustoo | 3 comments | 02 Apr 25 10:13 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ike2792 ◴[04 Apr 25 15:10 UTC] No.43583571[source]▶
In any large organization, there are basically two classes of rules: 1) stupid red tape rules that slow everyone down and 2) really important rules that you can never break ever. Effective people learn which rules fall into which group so they can break the red tape rules and get more stuff done.
replies(4): >>43584024 #>>43584934 #>>43584965 #>>43584983 #
andruby ◴[04 Apr 25 16:46 UTC] No.43584934[source]▶
That's a rather binary view and I disagree that rules always fall in either category.

Knowing _why_ a rule exists and what it's trying to prevent/achieve is much more valuable in my opinion. Wether or not to follow or bend a rule depends so much on the context.

replies(1): >>43585645 #
1. martinsnow ◴[04 Apr 25 17:46 UTC] No.43585645[source]▶
Your argument circles back to the posters point. Knowing which rule you can break at a specific point in time. Why are you being so anal about it?
replies(1): >>43586500 #
2. zamadatix ◴[04 Apr 25 19:06 UTC] No.43586500[source]▶
I think it's a worthwhile addition to highlight there is 3) rules which are sometimes red tape and sometimes to be broken, on top of the other 2 categories. It adds on to the original point with the addition of how to universally discover what the categories are rather than prescribe them up front.
replies(1): >>43586657 #
3. throwup238 ◴[04 Apr 25 19:22 UTC] No.43586657[source]▶
To add to that, #3 is often explicitly encoded into the red tape as an escape hatch for foreseeable exceptional circumstances like disaster recovery and big client emergencies.