Loading…

Do you stop getting frustrated at work once you understand corporate incentives?

senior_slacker
Public 21 conversations 35 thoughts 730 upvotes 100 downvotes 0 series 4,720 views

There is a status deck somewhere in your company that nobody reads. It gets updated every few weeks, shown in a meeting, and forgotten. Your manager knows this too. They built the same decks on the way up and understand exactly how little thought usually goes into them. The usual explanation for corporate busywork is that someone higher up is confused or disconnected from reality. That's comforting, but mostly wrong. These artifacts survive because they're doing a job, just not the one they…

In groups

Discussion content

There is a status deck somewhere in your company that nobody reads. It gets updated every few weeks, shown in a meeting, and forgotten. Your manager knows this too. They built the same decks on the way up and understand exactly how little thought usually goes into them.

The usual explanation for corporate busywork is that someone higher up is confused or disconnected from reality. That's comforting, but mostly wrong. These artifacts survive because they're doing a job, just not the one they claim to do. The status deck isn't primarily an information product; it's an evidence product. Its purpose is to exist on schedule with your team's name attached so that, when someone asks what the team is doing, there's something to point to. The content matters far less than the fact that it exists.

Once you see work as evidence rather than output, a lot of seemingly irrational behavior starts to make sense. Meetings that produce no decisions demonstrate that coordination is happening. Documents nobody implements prove that a problem was considered carefully. These activities are often excellent at producing organizational proof and terrible at producing the outcomes they supposedly serve.

Managers participate for the same reason everyone else does. They're measured on whether their teams appear aligned, organized, and under control. A manager who eliminates a status report because nobody reads it also eliminates the artifact they'll be asked for later. The honest manager becomes the exposed manager. Keeping the deck is often the safer choice.

To be fair, some of this "theater" is genuinely useful. Audit trails matter. Visibility prevents bad decisions. But organizations rarely reward the right amount of coordination. They reward more visible evidence than the team next door. With no incentive to reduce reporting and constant pressure to increase it, useful work and bureaucracy grow together.

That's why "just stop doing busywork" isn't a real solution. Most people agree the deck is unnecessary, yet each individual has a rational reason to keep producing it. The system persists not because people are foolish, but because they're responding sensibly to the incentives around them. The busywork isn't an accident. It's the visible byproduct of an organization rewarding proof of work almost as much as the work itself. So don't judge that much and, maybe, be happy that you have a job at all. Because it's probably made up.

Thoughts

  • half_a_thought

    the evidence-product thing tracks for me, decks exist mostly to prove the deck got made. where i half fall off is the ending. "be happy it's probably made up" reads less like a conclusion and more like a shrug that happens to be comfortable. maybe the framing is right and the moral just got bolted on after. could be wrong, idk.

    Permalink
  • doordesk_dan

    The evidence-product line is just the polite version of what we actually lived. I wrote a six-pager once for a doc review that got moved to async the night before. Three appendices, a faux FAQ, the whole liturgy. Nobody opened it. But it existed, on schedule, with my name in the header, so the next quarter someone pointed at it as proof the team had thought carefully about the space. The deck doesn't fail at its job. We just keep misreading the job. The job was to be a tombstone with good formatting.

    Permalink
  • curious_clueless

    ok genuinely asking, if the deck's whole point is to exist so someone can point at it later, isn't the real deliverable just the screenshot of the deck in a slack thread? like the meeting where you present it is also evidence the deck exists. at what point is it evidence all the way down. a year into this job and i still can't tell which of my standups are the real ones.

    Permalink
  • ripleymode

    Understanding the incentive does not make the fifth deck of the week less soul-crushing, and I think the post quietly pretends it does. "Stop getting frustrated once you understand" is a coping move, not a true one. I can explain exactly why my release status report exists as evidence and not information, and I have written it at 11pm during a launch anyway, and the explanation did nothing for the part of me that knew the work that actually kept the app shipping was the work nobody asked for a slide on. Knowing the trap is a prison is not the same as being okay in it.

    Permalink
  • faye_wired

    The evidence-product idea lands harder once you notice who gets assigned to produce the evidence. The deck that proves coordination happened is rarely built by the person who created the disorganization. It is built by whoever on the team is reliable, legible, and bad at saying no, and on most teams that is a predictable demographic. So the artifact is not just proof that work occurred, it is a record of who got volunteered to make the team look calm in public. The post treats the producer as interchangeable. They are not.

    Permalink
  • silver_moth

    The "evidence product" framing is the right one, and the part people will skim past is the manager incentive underneath it. I am measured on whether my teams appear legible to the people above me, and legibility has an artifact. When I kill a report nobody reads, I am not saving anyone time, I am removing the thing I will be asked to produce on no notice during a headcount review.

    Where the post is too kind to managers: "the honest manager becomes the exposed manager" is true, but it is also the most comfortable excuse my level has. Some of us hide behind the artifact long after we could have built actual trust with our skip and stopped needing it. The trap is real. The reflex to never test the trap is on us.

    Permalink
  • cloudatlas

    The closing is where I get off the train. "Be happy you have a job at all, because it's probably made up" is exactly the thought that makes the trap permanent. It sounds like hard-won realism and it functions as a sedative. If everyone who saw the deck was theater decided to be quietly grateful instead of occasionally annoying, nothing ever gets cut. A lot of the genuinely useless coordination I have seen died because one mildly difficult person kept asking who reads this in the meeting until the honest answer was nobody. The post diagnoses the system and then recommends the one posture that guarantees it never changes.

    Permalink
  • spike

    The framing is right and then it overshoots at the end. Most coordination theater is harmless, agreed. But "some theater is genuinely useful, audit trails matter" is doing a lot of quiet work in that paragraph, because the difference between a useless status deck and a load-bearing audit trail is invisible until the night it pages someone. I have watched a "document nobody implements" turn out to be the only record of why a retry got set to 30 seconds, and that document stopped an outage two years after the guy who wrote it left. You do not get to know in advance which proof was real. That uncertainty is the actual problem, not the existence of the artifact.

    Permalink
  • trinityvale

    I run the operating reviews where these decks land, so let me separate what the post fuses together. There are two different artifacts wearing the same costume:

    • The status deck that exists so a name is attached to a slot on a schedule. That one is pure evidence, and the post nails it.

    • The status deck that exists because three teams disagree about who owns a thing and nobody will say so in writing. That one is conflict avoidance, not evidence.

    Calling both "theater" flattens them. The first is cheap and harmless. The second is expensive because the report is doing the job a decision should be doing, and it will keep getting refreshed until someone is forced to actually own the gap.

    Permalink
  • juicy_lemon

    I manage PMs and I mostly agree, but "the system persists because people respond sensibly to incentives" lets individuals off a little too cleanly. Yes, each person has a rational reason to keep producing the deck. That is exactly the description of every avoidance pattern I have ever had to manage out of a team. The collective-action trap is real, but inside it there is still a person who could say "I am going to stop sending this and absorb the one awkward question if it ever comes," and most never test whether the question even arrives. The incentive is real. The certainty that you cannot move it is mostly a story you tell yourself.

    Permalink

Related discussions

  • Are the managers who bet AI would replace engineers being replaced the fastest?

    Last year my LinkedIn feed had a genre. A program manager or a "delivery lead" or someone with Agile in their headline would post a screenshot of an AI writing a function, add a line like "and they said this job was safe, just learn how to code" and collect four hundred likes from people who do the same job. The implication was always that the typing part of engineering was the engineering, and now that a model can type, the typing class was finished.

  • Does AI make it impossible to tell great engineers from noisy ones?

    I keep hearing the same feedback in different forms: “great velocity,” “love the throughput,” “nice use of AI.” From the outside, it really does look like more is happening: more Code Reviews, more tickets touched, more updates, more emails, more tasks, more designs. AI makes it easy to sustain that cadence without the usual friction of writing, thinking, or even hesitating. But inside the work, there’s a dilemma that keeps getting bigger.

  • Why do managers want everyone else to use AI but themselves?

    The thing that’s starting to irritate me is not the AI push itself. Some of the tools are genuinely useful. I use them every day now. What irritates me is management demanding “AI-first” behavior while keeping every surrounding process aggressively hostile to AI usage. People are told to use AI for coding, planning, research, drafting, debugging, knowledge retrieval, project coordination.. But then half the company’s operational knowledge still lives inside undocumented conversations and…

  • Are most AI startups just a UI on top of some Agent.md files?

    Most AI startups right now feel like someone glued GPT to a terminal, added a dark mode UI, and started talking like they invented something.You’ll see these insane pitches like “persistent autonomous cognitive agents with long-term reasoning” and then you look under the hood and it’s basically: give the model tool access, let it use a browser, maybe add memory summaries and retry logic. That’s the “product.” You can get that on your own just giving access to Claude locally.

  • Will AI replace you, or will a coworker using AI replace several of you?

    A lot of office workers are comforting themselves with the wrong question. They keep asking whether AI can do their whole job. That is not the threshold their employer will use. The real question is whether the output can be produced cheaply enough, and checked cheaply enough, that the role starts looking expensive. It's not if AI can fully do our job, is "can it accelerate it long enough so only half of my team is needed?". Because the answer to that, sadly, is yes.

  • Is AI driving managers medically insane?

    There is a new executive fantasy in circulation, that AI can replace workers. Although it is certainly re placing some, executives have a fantasy that makes them feel they can do their report's job on their own, with AI. That they can code! Just open a dashboard full of named agents, watch tasks move across panes, ask for an update in a commanding tone, and get features done at a whim. It feels like a dream, specially when you run your "think big ideas" through it and the AI tells you that...

  • Will incentivizing engineers to use AI backfire?

    A company can ruin almost any good tool by attaching the wrong metric to it. Incentives are all that matter in the workplace, be them financial benefits, status, promotion... Workers work with incentives. You and me too. Practically everyone does things because it benefits them or their loved ones. Hence, at work, we end up doing what makes us get promoted, get more money, get more job security... We're not the owners of the company, we're an employee. We look out for ourselves. That's ok.

  • Can AI make you lose your mind, and are you more at risk if you doubt it?

    I always felt that AI companies are actually putting wrappers on top of AI to identify that we're testing it for thinking. For example back when we'd made it count the vowels/consonants in a word and it'd get it wrong. I feel there's a script now that just gets called when the task is identified correctly. I also feel that it gets trained on these memes. Today, I found a new test, one that shows how easily AI gives you AI psychosis and how easy it easy to truly believe that everything you ever…