Because it undermines the departments authority to make decisions regarding the systems they manage. Sure him having solitaire in and of itself isn’t a big deal, but it sets precedence that decisions made by the department can be overridden if someone simply complains loudly enough. This could be particularly dangerous in the case of new or tightened security policy put forth by the department (this exact scenario did actually playout with another individual a few years later regarding password policy)
I agree completely. “Executives” basically anyone above a director level loves to throw their authority aeound. We recently got a new CEO and he wanted to get OneDrive working even though we’re a Google shop. At least 3 different teams had to adjust policy and then put him in his own Active Directory OU, because he said “we shouldn’t be in the business of telling employees what software they should use, we should just support it.”
Because it undermines the departments authority to make decisions regarding the systems they manage. Sure him having solitaire in and of itself isn’t a big deal, but it sets precedence that decisions made by the department can be overridden if someone simply complains loudly enough. This could be particularly dangerous in the case of new or tightened security policy put forth by the department (this exact scenario did actually playout with another individual a few years later regarding password policy)
I agree completely. “Executives” basically anyone above a director level loves to throw their authority aeound. We recently got a new CEO and he wanted to get OneDrive working even though we’re a Google shop. At least 3 different teams had to adjust policy and then put him in his own Active Directory OU, because he said “we shouldn’t be in the business of telling employees what software they should use, we should just support it.”