3 ms·

The standard procedure invented by management(mostly as a 'cya' tactic) is this. They can never be wrong. Like never. Your bosses are never wrong. No matter how

by kamaal 8y ago

The standard procedure invented by management(mostly as a 'cya' tactic) is this. They can never be wrong. Like never. Your bosses are never wrong. No matter how effectively you communicate with them to convince them to arrive at different decisions. From Shuttle disasters to Diesel scandals to Data breaches. The obvious solution to this is by blaming engineers. Engineers must try harder. If the management still doesn't agree, well then you are not trying hard enough. Remember the rule, they are never wrong, if you fail to convince them its your mistake because you didn't convince them otherwise. Hence a 'Communication problem'. Which implies management is mostly innocent, and engineering didn't do its job well enough. This absurd rule exists for a simple reason. Who is supposed to audit these disasters and arrive at a root cause? Answer: Management.

smacktoward 8y ago
Which is where "managing up" comes in. Want your manager to change their mind and do the right thing? Find a way to package the right thing so they can do it without having to admit they were wrong. (Yes I know, it's awful that people have to do this, in a perfect world things like this would be unnecessary, etc. When you find a perfect world, call me, I would like to buy some real estate.)
- kamaal 8y ago
  >>Find a way to package the right thing so they can do it without having to admit they were wrong. Please note that this scenario would arise only after the disaster happens. These people have to make a decision before that. There is no concept of a blame before a disaster, only accountability. For a simple reason that it has not happened yet. Now if a room full of engineers said NO in consensus, and you still go ahead and say YES. Then you either know something they don't which in case you must mention what that information is, and get it reviewed from those engineers who don't have that information. Then vote again, make the YES/NO decision appropriately. Repeat until there is consensus between both you and them. If not take complete responsibility for making that decision, because only you know why you are making that decision. Decisions this crucial are not left to gut feeling and Rambo level on-the-field thinking. There is a reason you have a panel of experts/engineers sitting. You don't make any decisions in reality. You only iterate the process of arriving at YES/NO once all the data and scenarios are reviewed. Situations like these happens when managers/administrators think they are kings with veto to override decisions at whim. Even at the very highest levels. Including that of Prime Ministers and Presidents, governments are largely run by expert panels and commissions, with politicians only give policy directions. And manage things based on recommendations.

by kamaal 8y ago

smacktoward 8y ago

Which is where "managing up" comes in. Want your manager to change their mind and do the right thing? Find a way to package the right thing so they can do it without having to admit they were wrong. (Yes I know, it's awful that people have to do this, in a perfect world things like this would be unnecessary, etc. When you find a perfect world, call me, I would like to buy some real estate.)

kamaal 8y ago
>>Find a way to package the right thing so they can do it without having to admit they were wrong. Please note that this scenario would arise only after the disaster happens. These people have to make a decision before that. There is no concept of a blame before a disaster, only accountability. For a simple reason that it has not happened yet. Now if a room full of engineers said NO in consensus, and you still go ahead and say YES. Then you either know something they don't which in case you must mention what that information is, and get it reviewed from those engineers who don't have that information. Then vote again, make the YES/NO decision appropriately. Repeat until there is consensus between both you and them. If not take complete responsibility for making that decision, because only you know why you are making that decision. Decisions this crucial are not left to gut feeling and Rambo level on-the-field thinking. There is a reason you have a panel of experts/engineers sitting. You don't make any decisions in reality. You only iterate the process of arriving at YES/NO once all the data and scenarios are reviewed. Situations like these happens when managers/administrators think they are kings with veto to override decisions at whim. Even at the very highest levels. Including that of Prime Ministers and Presidents, governments are largely run by expert panels and commissions, with politicians only give policy directions. And manage things based on recommendations.