Re:Blizzard Manager Departs in Protest of Employee Ranking S...
by qikInNdOutReply on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @04:47AM
(#34501633)
Its usually higher ups trying to get out of responsibilities. Force the lower tier out of using company systems, and the administration is "home free" upon incident responsibility.
Re:Blizzard Manager Departs in Protest of Employee Ranking S...
by TrueDuality on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @08:45AM
(#34503439)
Preaching to the choir here, but I've been doing security for a long time and the only consistent way to make it work reliably is to make it invisible to the users it should apply to. It should add zero friction to what they would be doing anyway and ideally be the easier option. It's not always possible but having that as an end goal makes processes much more successful.
Re:Blizzard Manager Departs in Protest of Employee Ranking S...
by afpx on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @11:33AM
(#34505905)
I've worked at companies that had inane policies with perverse incentives. And, it was pretty funny in a "A Confederacy of Dunces" sort of way.
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.
Re:Blizzard Manager Departs in Protest of Employee Ranking S...
by int0x2e on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @06:02AM
(#34593701)
One story that stuck with me - at FB (at least in the past), there was no travel budget, and no list of sanctioned hotel chains. Any employee could travel as often and as expensively as needed with only their immediate manager's sign-off (unless their job requires weekly travel, in which case - no need for any approval).
The only control they put in place was that every week, the top 10 bills would be reviewed by Mark, and you didn't want to be on that list if you didn't have a good business reason.
Trust encourages people to do the right thing, and people flock to positions where they are trusted with the tools for the success of their mission...
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.