Would “maze behavior = playing company politics, especially punishment of attempts to communicate clearly about ethics and object level output” be a good way to sum it up? (Or is it missing something important?)
Without anchoring anyone too much on my question elsewhere in the thread: I would say that this is certainly a central case of maze behavior and points in the correct direction, but as a definition of all maze behavior it is importantly too small a class of things. There is something more fundamental going on, and it is a Fnord (I have Fnord as the top of my future post pile, where Fnord is a thing that makes you want to not notice look at it or notice it.)
I think it’s technically right, but something like “company politics is more horrifying than you think in subtle ways” that people will tend to gloss over, or something.
Would “maze behavior = playing company politics, especially punishment of attempts to communicate clearly about ethics and object level output” be a good way to sum it up? (Or is it missing something important?)
Without anchoring anyone too much on my question elsewhere in the thread: I would say that this is certainly a central case of maze behavior and points in the correct direction, but as a definition of all maze behavior it is importantly too small a class of things. There is something more fundamental going on, and it is a Fnord (I have Fnord as the top of my future post pile, where Fnord is a thing that makes you want to not notice look at it or notice it.)
I think it’s technically right, but something like “company politics is more horrifying than you think in subtle ways” that people will tend to gloss over, or something.