Research suggests supervisors often favor employees who moderately bend the rules, viewing them as resourceful and proactive. These "constructive nonconformists" challenge procedures in ways that benefit the organization, while still adhering to core values and demonstrating respect for authority. However, this tolerance has limits. Employees who consistently or significantly violate rules, exhibiting "destructive nonconformity," are viewed negatively and penalized. Supervisors perceive a key difference between rule-breaking that aims to improve the organization versus self-serving or malicious violations.
Nick Janetakis's blog post explores the maximum number of Alpine Linux packages installable at once. He systematically tested installation limits, encountering various errors related to package database size, memory usage, and filesystem capacity. Ultimately, he managed to install around 7,800 packages simultaneously before hitting unavoidable resource constraints, demonstrating that while Alpine's package manager can technically handle a vast number of packages, practical limitations arise from system resources. His experiment highlights the balance between package manager capabilities and the realistic constraints of a system's available memory and storage.
Hacker News users generally agree with the article's premise that Alpine Linux's package manager allows for installing a remarkably high number of packages simultaneously, far exceeding other distributions. Some commenters point out that this isn't necessarily a practical metric, arguing it's more of a fun experiment than a reflection of real-world usage. A few suggest the high number is likely due to Alpine's smaller package size and its minimalist approach. Others discuss the potential implications for dependency management and the possibility of conflicts arising from installing so many packages. One commenter questions the significance of the experiment, suggesting a focus on package quality and usability is more important than sheer quantity.
Summary of Comments ( 117 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43555220
HN commenters generally agree with the study's findings that moderate rule-breaking is viewed favorably by supervisors, particularly when it leads to positive outcomes. Some point out that "rule-breaking" is often conflated with independent thinking, initiative, and a willingness to challenge the status quo, traits valued in many workplaces. Several commenters note the importance of context and company culture. In some environments, rule-breaking might be implicitly encouraged, while in others, it's strictly punished. A few express skepticism about the study's methodology and generalizability, questioning whether self-reported data accurately reflects supervisors' true opinions. Others highlight the potential downsides of rule-breaking, such as creating inconsistency and unfairness, and the inherent subjectivity in determining what constitutes "acceptable" rule-breaking. The "Goldilocks zone" of rule-breaking is also discussed, with the consensus being that it's a delicate balance, dependent on the specific situation and the individual's relationship with their supervisor.
The Hacker News post titled "Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point" sparked a lively discussion with several compelling comments. Many commenters related the findings of the study to their own experiences.
Several commenters highlighted the nuance of "rule-breaking" discussed in the study, emphasizing that it's not about flagrant disregard for rules but rather about strategically challenging or bending them for positive outcomes. One commenter illustrated this by contrasting "malicious compliance," which aims to harm the organization by strictly adhering to unhelpful rules, with constructive rule-breaking that aims to improve processes or outcomes. Another pointed out that the type of rule-breaking matters, with some rules being bendable (bureaucratic red tape) and others not (safety regulations).
The concept of context was also a recurring theme. Commenters noted that the acceptability of rule-breaking depends heavily on the specific industry, company culture, and the individual supervisor's personality. One commenter shared an anecdote about working in a large organization where rule-breaking was tolerated, even encouraged, during periods of rapid growth and innovation, but became frowned upon during periods of consolidation and cost-cutting. Another commenter suggested that supervisors might appreciate rule-breaking in employees who demonstrate competence and loyalty, while viewing the same behavior in less trusted employees as insubordination.
Some commenters discussed the potential downsides of tolerating rule-breaking, such as creating an inconsistent environment or fostering resentment among employees who consistently follow the rules. One commenter cautioned that supervisors might unconsciously favor rule-breakers who are similar to themselves, leading to bias and unfair treatment. Another raised concerns about the potential for escalation, where tolerated minor rule-breaking could embolden employees to break more significant rules.
The discussion also touched on the challenges of defining and measuring "constructive" rule-breaking. One commenter questioned how organizations could systematically encourage beneficial rule-breaking without creating chaos. Another suggested that organizations should focus on fostering a culture of open communication and psychological safety, where employees feel comfortable challenging outdated or ineffective rules without fear of retribution.
Finally, several commenters pointed out the practical implications of the study for both managers and employees. They suggested that managers should be mindful of their own biases and strive to create clear guidelines about which rules are flexible and which are non-negotiable. Employees, on the other hand, should carefully consider the potential consequences before breaking any rules and ensure that their actions are aligned with the organization's overall goals.