[kqr]

Whenever someone suggests introducing process that could lead to just as much harm as good, I remind them that we should prefer to hire smart people, and trust that they are smart enough to recognise when they've made a mistake so they can, if not outright fix it, at least ask for help in fixing it.

Sometimes an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. Often an ounce of prevention turned into process becomes several pounds of prevention and the cure is easier.

[cgio]

Smart people also don’t want to be spending their time assessing the risks of unknown situations. E.g. something I came upon recently when someone asked if they could work remotely from abroad for a while. Sure, from a technical contribution perspective it made sense to approve straight away. But if there was no policy and process I would never think to inquire about the tax implications with the relevant team. You don’t only count pounds and ounces but also who has to lift them. I don’t like smart engineers having to learn tax legislation, and at least some processes act more like interfaces between teams rather than stupid controls within a team. When it’s about the latter I am all with you as long as you add responsible team members next to the smart condition.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

That's pretty much what I mean by “an heuristic approach”: "Always consider fiduciary obligations. Here's where to find..." etc. In the WTF, there are likely to be specific directions and policies, but having a "navigator" for these policies ("A) Which nation is the employee in? B) Which office will be directing their work?, etc.) is a good idea.

[doctor_eval]

Came here to say something similar. Sometimes the best policy is to avoid creating policies.