The fact that offering an idea that's better than what's already being done is seen as rebellious at all, as opposed to being the entire job of an engineer, or the definition of what engineers do, is not a good sign for any organization.<p>Next they'll be talking about rebellious accountants who have recorded more numbers by the end of the day than were in the spreadsheet at the beginning, or subversive lawyers who review contracts that had not already been reviewed. Before long it will take a fifth-column delivery driver to move a pizza to a location it's never been before.
I'm by no means a prominent employee within the company, but I am unusually well-remunerated for my role. I attribute this to hiding about 1/3 of what I do from my manager until it's ready to demonstrate.<p>I usually have 1-2 projects my manager knows about and is regularly tracking, then 2-3 "skunkworks" projects in various stages of development that get prioritized based on the word around the org. For example, I might hear from our data center team at a regular meeting that they need to buy 5% more racks based on current usage projections. I might have been working on optimizing a key data saving routine that reduces usage by 10% (fictitious numbers), so this gets bumped up in priority. So when my manager asks the team the following week if they have any ideas on how to improve our code, I've already got something halfway working. My manager (and I) get to look good, and I got to amortize the work across a few months instead of suffering through crunch time.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.<p>- George Bernard Shaw
The devil is always in the details and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Only in retrospect can you verify the "great" part in great idea. Until then you only really have an deviant idea which could be:<p>- taking a fence down without knowing why it was put up<p>- CV driven development<p>- is/ought problem<p>- the French revolution :)<p>Opposition to change is not a bad thing, if isn't extreme (we're not changing anything for any reason no matter what). It forces change to justify itself and its costs, because there are always costs.<p>Personally I hate these kind of articles. They take a few survivor examples and extrapolate that X is good, -X is bad. In reality you can only move the cursor a little on the (-X, X) axis and observe the outcomes after a relatively long term.
As an engineering manager I’ve found that the most innovative and impactful work is usually done when the pressure of being on the critical path for delivery is absent. One way to achieve this is to do the work under the radar and only expose it more widely once it’s at a point where the benefit is easier for general management to see.<p>Work on the critical path is visible and that, with the fear of the personal impact of failure can drive risk aversion behaviours in those engineers involved.
In my career, I have seen individuals all over the map if the x-axis is rebelliousness and the y-axis is value delivered.<p>There are high performing rebels and low performing do-rights and vice versa.<p>As someone with past experience in a highly regulated field (biopharma, food safety, etc.), the rule-followers are running the show and a rebel (as the article defines it) will be burned out if they aren't careful.<p>However, that industry is ripe for disruption. The rules and best practices that have emerged over the decades have weak link to regulatory or legal sources. I would frequently ask for justification how a particular policy connected to an audit finding or a law and these connections are usually weak or non-existent. Even moreover,
if the link could be established, it wasn't clear or documented why this decision taken was considered optimal for the organization, many times it was the fastest solution that made QA/QC happy.<p>As you can guess, the emergent systems are horribly inefficient yet difficult to change.<p>Highly-regulated industries are ripe with 'thats how we do it' inefficiencies that insiders have accepted as necessary for legal compliance but that could be disrupted by rebels that return to source material (legal statute, auditor interpretations) and reinvision the whole business model from the ground up.
In my experience "rebellious" workers provide many, many, many ideas.<p>BUT, most of them are absolute crap.<p>However the needle in the haystack? Is absolutely great. So the challenge is to not let yourself be led down the path of the crap ideas -- which happens more than what we would like to admit.
I love to hear about successful rebels, but for every success, there are <i>many</i> failures. Some, quite spectacular (google “Nick Leeson”).<p>Usually, in order to succeed, the “rebel” needs to have a lot of experience and good judgment. This generally comes from being older, and from surviving for a long time in the company; traits that do not necessarily suggest the rebellious attitude and courage needed.
Three books come to mind:<p>- "Rebel Talent : Why It Pays to Break the Rules" by Francesca Gino<p><a href="https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/rebel-talent-why-it-pays-to-break-the-rules-at-work-and-in-life_francesca-gino/17987469/?resultid=ebcb1b81-7be3-42ff-ae62-df97c217dde5#edition=18970366&idiq=27932496" rel="nofollow">https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/rebel-talent-why-it-pays-to-br...</a><p>- "Originals : How Non-Conformists Move the..." by Adam M. Grant<p><a href="https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/originals-how-non-conformists-move-the-world_adam-m-grant/9652057/?resultid=a91bb039-84cd-414c-927a-5d474740df73#edition=13244474&idiq=23737242" rel="nofollow">https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/originals-how-non-conformists-...</a><p>- "Outliers: The Story of Success"
by Malcolm Gladwell<p><a href="https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/outliers-the-story-of-success-by-malcolm-gladwell/245740/?resultid=8c47a715-33a7-428a-a19e-e33eca029408#edition=6000254&idiq=4013405" rel="nofollow">https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/outliers-the-story-of-success-...</a>
It's not just about rebellious. It's also about just about "just do something about it" without asking the boss/teamleader. The problem is often just how much free time you have on work to do such things. Another problem is, if you fix small things allways by yourself in the background, the real problem might stay forever.
Who exactly is characterizing the workers with great ideas as rebellious, here? The real story is always parasitic toxic management. An idea’s existence is enough to threaten power structures.
But that thing could also backfire. That reminded me of organizational chart that show divisions in Microsoft pointing gun at each other[0].<p>[0]: <a href="https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts" rel="nofollow">https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts</a>
Seems like a low risk test, it’s kinda a no-brainer. They used their free time and they had it running alongside the main program.
Have to remember if they didn’t have the comparison, I don’t think it would be as good a story.<p>“Nobody Ever Gets Credit for Fixing Problems That Never Happened”
Ideas are not that hard really.<p>What people have a hard time understanding is that ideas themselves are not worth that much, they're at the top of a wide funnel which is narrow at the bottom.<p>Ideas are cheap, they evolve into more fleshed out concepts, which evolve into products which evolve into 'good' products. It's a very narrowing process.<p>For every successful rebel, there are many for whom it didn't work.<p>Operational competence, scale, market power ... those things are what really facilitate good ideas and make them worthwhile.
Sometimes the one with the idea cannot know other, interwinded procedures which would break if his idea was implemented.
If this happens all the time and/or a product manager tells you to submit a ticket and the review does not happen within 6 months, if it is forcing you to do repetitive tasks and you can find better compensation elsewhere......run as fast as you can.
There is a fine line between those rebellious workers who give good ideas and then take ownership of their idea till the end, and those who throw ideas out, but don't want to have to do anything with implementing those ideas. No one likes the latter.
The revelation that sparked Silicon Valley is that you can either permit your rebellious workers to power you to great heights or you can let them leave to eat your lunch.<p>They will compete with you if you cannot let them serve you.
The main point is missing from the article: such rebels threaten the authority and career of seniors or other power dynamics at the organization.<p>You propose some new solution that may be somewhat better, but the existing system was designed by someone who seeks a promotion and is owed a favor by a superior for some reason. They may have insecurities around their existing system and feel the need to justify their high position and salary, even if they are now not as productive as the youngsters, because they may now have a family etc and don't have as much time and energy or whatever.<p>In other cases the problem can be that the career risk-benefit balance is negative for the manager.<p>Or they are planning on dragging out the improvements in smaller jumps, to demonstrate constant improvement over many years to optimize career advancement. If the improvement happens all at once and suddenly, it will look too simple and less credit that can be squeezed out of it.<p>TLDR improving things can make some people look bad and they will fight you.
It’s very romantic about these pirates. But what if the flight director was not leader from ancient times? I really like HP way and other antique management theories. But now I meet very often people that are really really comfortable in their management positions and only care about their compensation. Every rebellious idea is a risk project for them and must be killed ASAP. From I own experience I can say one thing: don’t rock the boat. In different organizations the risk level varies. Wanna risk and rebellion - start your own company!
><i>Often these ‘rebels with a cause’ – also known as positive or constructive “deviants” – may be motivated because they care for the organisation and its mission, and feel psychological discomfort when they see that important capabilities clearly need improvement.</i><p>I think this is a crucial distinction - the “rebels” are biased towards improvement.<p>However, I’ve also seen rule breaking tolerated in organizations as a means of maintaining the status quo which leads to complacency rather than progress.
The TED Talk on "internal rebels" within a company was extraordinarily insightful.<p><a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/shoel_perelman_how_a_company_can_nurture_its_internal_rebels/up-next" rel="nofollow">https://www.ted.com/talks/shoel_perelman_how_a_company_can_n...</a>
You might have a great idea if an unusually high number reject your idea for no good reason. On the other hand, you know you had a great idea if your boss takes credit for it.
For most companies, "rebellious workers" are a problem easily solved with issuance of pink slips.<p>It is in your career's best interest not to be too rebellious.
That reminded me of my own thought/opinion why China would be forever copycats compared to the US. At least the difference can be seen in China vs Taiwan. One is a suppressive government, and another one is a democratic country.