For example, I explained that if it takes a foot-high pile of paperwork to obtain an internal use SSL certificate, then the highly predictable outcome of that policy is not "greater security", but unencrypted HTTP everywhere.
The inevitable response to such feedback is that "people ought to do the right thing", which is laughable on its face. Nobody, and I mean nobody in their right mind will subject themselves to months of paperwork, procedure, and pleading for something that they consider to be optional.
"But, but, the right thing is for them to jump through those hoops anyway!" is the typical response to such logic.
This kind of argument is just futile. Someone up high has decided that they know better, that human nature will bend to their will, and will forge ahead despite being told they are wrong.
Compare that to other companies that practically gave out no-limit credit cards and full access: imagine which companies attracted the best talent.
But, it amazes me just how long a company can survive being just mediocre and siloed. You often don't see the long-term effects until after those who implemented the policies have left or been promoted.
I think it's the same issue politicians have. No one of those in power ever thinks of unintended consequences. My guess: it takes a special kind of anal person to actually want to get into power (and thus to eventually get into power) - and they just can't imagine people acting not according to their great master plan.
This really annoys me about politics. They seems to reason as: We have problem A, so let's do solution B to solve this. And then the reasoning ends.
What should happen is to evaluate all the consequences of solution B. And sometimes those consequences work in such a way that they make problem A even bigger.
Reasoning about an interconnected system is crucial here. And as developers we are very well aware of systems and the impact changes can have. But it seems a lot of people are not able to reason about systems.
If there's one thing we should be teaching in schools, this is it. You can leave school and have no clue that everything is connected to everything else, and that if you're not focused on that reality your actions can have completely unexpected and counterintuitive (to you...) consequences.
I’m so tired of this advice. Maybe metrics are bad, but the only thing worse than metrics is no metrics.
Discouraging an action just because it doesn’t work 100% of the time doesn’t seem efficient either.
The argument really should be that certain metrics are bad. Sure, propose a better one, but saying that leaders don’t think hard enough just because a metric turns out to have ill effects seems useless advice. How can you be certain in advance when you have thought hard enough?
A better approach is probably to recognize that metrics are hard. Keep an eye on them, iterate, and be willing to make mistakes as that’s the only way to improve.
A good rule of thumb is when you find yourself making "obviously bad decisions" because you know as a result the metric will go up, not because a generally favorable outcome for the business is expected to be the result, then you might be a redneck middle manager driving the metrics.
No one should generally exercise tunnel vision and you should not be completely focused on metrics. (Although it might be OK to have one person in the business whose job is to maintain the tunnel vision, if you're telling the whole company to do this then you are likely creating blind spots that will come back to haunt you.)
If you focus on driving up the metrics it can be at the expense of the vision. The business is not the metrics, and the vision is not fully defined by the metrics.
Add autonomy and judgement for the managers, along with a battery of metrics that aren't binding.
Everyone will see that it doesn't help to sign up loads of customers while having loads of complaints coming through the helpdesk, or having loads of extra helpdesk staff with no sales. Where the balance goes is judgement.
Success is one of those nebulous things that can't be described sharply, but people often have an idea of how things are going anyway.
This sounds like a former professor of mine who would order phones and tables for everyone from the spare money on the end of the fiscal year for "research purposes" since otherwise the department would lose the budget.
My anecdote - at a former big tech company, we had a long hiring freeze, and they even decided that when someone leaves or gets fired, their headcount goes back up to senior leadership who decide where that headcount should be (so as a manager, if you fire someone - you might lose the position entirely).
So, naturally, even since then there have been zero people fired, even if they are low performers, since managers want to keep their headcount. But talented people obviously still get offers and leave, and when they leave, their headcount disappears.
So after a year or so of this great policy, the average level of talent across the company is steadily dropping, which also means it'll be much harder to recruit top talent even after this policy is over - because most talented people want to join a team where they can still learn and evolve, collaborate with other smart folks, etc.