Hacker News Reader

> I recommend a different strategy when you encounter annoying processes like this—insist upon following these processes, to the letter, and going through appropriate channels until the system collapses under its own weight.

Yup, this usually works. If lots of stupid bureaucracy is required for things that should be straightforward, then my daily summary will often be "yesterday morning I had to deal with stupid bureaucracy".

I can waste time if you pay me to do so, I'll just remind you that you're asking me to waste time where I could have been doing something useful. (Tip: I won't do this indefinitely, usually a short time is enough to make the broken processes evident).

Sounds like malicious compliance.

But electronic forms can be easily ignored. If so, I'd follow up with printing it out and handing it to the person responsible for handling it. If it's not handled immediately, then also deliver it to their boss. And so on. It has to actually be painful to the bureaucracy so they want to change it.

Applied to this example of course changes, you could do something simple like changing the title or intro and then physically going to each other person and telling them they need to approve the change.

Then innocently change it again right after approval. ("What? It's a WIP! I have a responsibility to make updates to teach the course in the best way.")

Bonus points to get other co-workers in on it so you're not the problem-person.

I think "malicious compliance" is sometimes a misnomer. I.e., when the goal is the common good rather then malice.

Good trouble?

"Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble." — John Lewis

It works if the people responsible/authorized for imposing the annoying process are the ones you can impose the burden of compliance on.

In OP's story, OP was the department head, the burden was imposed on faculty (requesting any change) and department head (approving the request), but the department head was not the one who could change the process (other than by the un-specified manner they apparently did, and described as "routing around the damage")

I still agree it's better to make noise and make it known you don't like it, but if "following the letter of the law" does not in fact impose any burden on those who could make a change, it alone is unlikely to be effective.

Of course... now that I think about it... effective "political" (one definition) organizing/action itself is basically always a means of imposing a burden on those in power that can be lifted if they do what you want. It's just a matter of finding the lever that can be used by the amount of counter-power you have managed to build, to impose a burden on those who can make the change you want.

I assume the department head had other work to do besides approving requests if the number of requests are significant to the point that the department head can't do any other work then the system still failed to bureaucracy. Either the higher ups are fine with department heads doing nothing but approve requests or they change the system.

Well, right.

> Either the higher ups are fine with department heads doing nothing but approve requests or they change the system.

First, you've never worked in academia have you? The "higher ups" (administration) really don't care at all about wasting department head time. Like, literally, zero care.

But you've just provided a syllogism. Since they have not changed the system, clearly the relevant decision-makers are okay with it's time wasting, right? Or else, it would already be changed and nobody would have to do anything about it!

If all it took was mentioning to somebody with the authority to change the system "Hey, you know this is taking up too much of my time, right?", I am confident the OP would have done that first. If that's all it took at most institutions, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

> Since they have not changed the system, clearly the relevant decision-makers are okay with it's time wasting, right?

That assumes that the relevant decision-makers are aware of the amount of time being wasted. If people are circumventing the bureaucracy to save time it would give them a false image of how much time was being wasted.

> If all it took was mentioning to somebody with the authority to change the system "Hey, you know this is taking up too much of my time, right?", I am confident the OP would have done that first. If that's all it took at most institutions, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

When a change is implemented "this takes too much time" is a common complaint from those who don't like change (like me), the new system will always be slower until people get used to it.

How much slower is the new system and is this a problem? Decision makers need to quantify this to make informed decisions not allow their decision making process be ruled by their or their employees sentiment.

I recommend a different strategy when you encounter annoying processes like this—insist upon following these processes, to the letter, and going through appropriate channels until the system collapses under its own weight.

In the Graeber model of bureaucracy [1], a functioning bureaucracy will not collapse. It will expand. It will add one or more people whose job is to badger professors toward compliance...and whose function is to expand the empire of the bureaucrats above (for this is why many requirements exist at all).

"Silently routing around bureaucracy” is a good plan if what you’re doing has some real importance to it.

If that's not the case, there's a chance your job is toward badger-professors-toward-compliance end of the spectrum.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kikzjTfos0s

> I recommend a different strategy when you encounter annoying processes like this—insist upon following these processes, to the letter, and going through appropriate channels until the system collapses under its own weight.

This is usually not what happens. Case in point: Our company had an easy means to share files with anyone at the company. You could specify exactly who is allowed to see it.

Suddenly IT took that means away, citing security reasons (people were not using it properly). However, all the alternatives they provided were unworkable - and I mean that literally. They only worked within people in the same department, but you couldn't send something to people of other departments.

The files (text) I needed to share were classified as top secret, so sending them via mail attachments (unencrypted) was a no-no according to IT. Encrypting them made them not work on the receiving end (the decryption process was somewhat faulty - although you could view them in the tool, it wouldn't save it properly to disk, so the tools that acted on them failed.

I made a fuss about this and for a few days complied with IT policy and work came to a halt.

But only my work. Everyone else just said "Screw IT" and sent the files unencrypted over email in violation of company policy.

My management isn't going to be sympathetic with me if none of my teammates are on board. And in general, this is how it plays out. Those who find non-kosher workarounds will utilize them, and you'll be in a small camp fighting IT. At your annual review, you'll be the least productive and will get the boot.

I agree with your overall sentiment that fighting beurocracy by dumping more paperwork is a good strategy.

However, that should be last resort in my opinion. Based on my experience, people (especially IT staff) are reasonable if you explain the issue nicely. Remember, honey attracts more bees than vinegar.

If it’s always your last resort, then you’ll run out of political capital at work. IT staff are also generally not responsible for these policies in the first place—IT staff wouldn’t install an internet filter, for example. That’s something that a VP would ask for. Getting into fights with a VP over policy can end badly if you ignore office politics.

> IT staff wouldn’t install an internet filter, for example.

i guess it depends on the network and IT staff in question. having strong firewall rules & monitoring is something you want (need?) in many higher-security networks. of course most networks don't actually need that but it's not exactly useless either

In the era of rampant ransomware, it isn't unreasonable to have some level of filtering.

"The Practice of Systems and Networks Administration"-book has this somewhere:

There are basically two strategies for getting what you want from slow bureaucrats:

- either: be the one nice and polite person they meet during the day. Chances are you will stand out and you might get preferential treatment. After all bureaucrats are humans too and they (the ones at the edges of the system) can face a lot of abuse during a day.

- or: follow the rules to a t. Not necessarily malicious compliance, just don't care that you overload the system. At some point someone will sit down and look at it and corners will be cut.

- maximum asshole. If you are politically powerful, escalate immediately and intensely. Theatrically demand, via your boss, their boss and in the name of the CEO and quarterly profitability that your project must be bureaucratically unblocked.

(Not an endorsement)

Be wary that bureaucracies are filled with people that know those rules better than you.