←back to thread

155 points stock_toaster | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pm90 ◴[] No.45096104[source]
I have principles-fatigue after going through a number of companies that promise to abide by certain good sounding principles only to backtrack at the slightest pushback. I would actually trust a company more if it had no defined principles. Perhaps just honesty and transparency.
replies(12): >>45096144 #>>45096158 #>>45096189 #>>45096272 #>>45096887 #>>45096917 #>>45099128 #>>45099131 #>>45099432 #>>45100289 #>>45101382 #>>45113142 #
hibikir ◴[] No.45096272[source]
Possibly a better alternative than, say, Bridgewater when Ray Dalio was in charge. Adherence to principles was part of a high percentage of decision making conversations, but since is book is so big, they might be best compared to theological arguments in the middle ages, with different specialists arguing with different quotes from different parts of the book.

All in all, once an organization gets big enough, power does what power wants, and power wants what is good for them in the short term, regardless of what is good for the organization. That's how most large companies end up spending very large amounts of money on things that wouldn't actually pass muster to anyone aiming for the organization's best interest and with actual knowledge of what is being accomplished.

You see new, wide eyed PMs approaching budgeting processes as if the goal really was profitability, or customer satisfaction, or something reasonable. But if they are going to stay as PMs for long, they better realize quick that the vast majority of project proposals have only a passing interest in what will be accomplished, and are mainly about making sure every sub-organization gets fed sufficient money to not lose people, or possibly even grow if the manager is well liked. All the efforts in documentation and justification are just theater.

replies(5): >>45096717 #>>45098184 #>>45098546 #>>45103340 #>>45105185 #
neilv ◴[] No.45098184[source]
> All in all, once an organization gets big enough, power does what power wants, and power wants what is good for them in the short term, regardless of what is good for the organization.

This has the ring of truth.

Has anyone solved this problem?

Is anyone trying to solve this problem? (Or is everyone in a position to work on the problem just playing the game?)

replies(5): >>45098427 #>>45098560 #>>45098850 #>>45100377 #>>45106066 #
o1bf2k25n8g5 ◴[] No.45100377{3}[source]
>> power does what power wants

> Has anyone solved this problem?

You're asking if anyone has solved the problem... of human nature? I don't think it's at the top of most people's lists of action items.

> Is anyone trying to solve this problem?

Your nearest meditation center, I suppose.

replies(1): >>45101357 #
1. benreesman ◴[] No.45101357{4}[source]
Human nature admits a spectrum of outcomes on this, and I'd argue that most humans are not in fact pathologically acquisitive and power obsessed. Most humans value high status, but healthy societies confer high status in ways de-coupled from counterproductive Putinism. The people who attended the fifth Solvay Conference (that famous photo), who ran the Manhattan Project, who put men on the moon (or went) all were fabulously high status for good reasons with incentives that served society rather than parisitizing it. Those people got to be admired and enjoy the privileges of high status without bankrupting the body politic for countless commas.

This Bezos-style hyperaquisition isn't new exactly but it's not the constant norm its currently made out to be: its a sociecal failure mode with clear precedent but by no means a constant and its not at all obvious that it's inevitable.

replies(1): >>45103909 #
2. bluesroo ◴[] No.45103909[source]
I’d agree that most humans are not pathological power seekers; however I believe that’s exactly why we end up with successful pathological power seekers.

Like the world is learning with nukes, you cannot rely on the powerful for mercy. You can only rely on the powerful to grasp for more power and the only way to stop them is to yourself be as strong as possible.

If a utopia ever exists, it will only be because of a stalemate arms race (see: no nuclear powers have had an open war). Peaceful utopia is otherwise too easily disrupted by a single asshole with a big stick.