[ojkelly]

I think the comments here are missing the point.

Each of the items on the list are things you or someone else in an organisation does in good faith.

That is why these work.

When you do them in bad faith, you can stretch the timelines for things significantly while the responsibility for such a delay ends up so diffused among the bureaucracy that no one takes the blame.

“It’s just harder to get things done in a big organisation” as they say.

If you keep a lookout for these, particularly when they may be not in good faith you can head them off.

[542354234235]

Also, I feel like they are saying maybe you can/should look into some of these things, even done in good faith, to see if they are actually helping or hurting. “Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions” This may be done in good faith, but is the situation/task something that needs a ridged , precisely detailed, process and it is helping to insist on precision? Or is it something that could be done just as effectively without ridged precision? Or does it end up conflicting with other requirements?

If a report has to have days of the week spelled out (“Monday” rather than “MON”, “percent” rather than “%”) but you also have a strict limit on character count due to space constraints, you end up with less precise wording in the report. Taking a step back and looking at it from the “if I wanted to actively sabotage this process, what would I do” might allow you to see good faith efforts that end up in bad outcomes.