3 ms·

One of the easiest strategies to protect your reputation in life and business is to never venture to say yes (because if it fails you are on the hook), and to l

One of the easiest strategies to protect your reputation in life and business is to never venture to say yes (because if it fails you are on the hook), and to let your discussion always revolve around an idea's failings, never its strengths. It gives an appearance of expertise and command, but risks little, and thus often leads to promotion. But I personally find it poisonous to the enterprise's progress: Even the best plans have weaknesses.

dijit 7y ago
Er. This is awful advice. You’re also on the hook for impeding the organisation. I’m a “no” guy. My boss is a pure yes man. I don’t say no to impede progress. I say no to avoid overworking my team which would reduce the quality of our work. I say no, because it changes the scope of work in progress, and that requires sufficient justification because it means either throwing work away (which is both demoralising and wasteful), potentially increasing time to delivery or creates technical debt in droves. I say “no” so that people don’t make their own standards (like not following logging patterns, or metric naming conventions) which would cause all kinds of gunk in the infrastructure. It’s not about following a strict process. Although that can be important for streamlining workflow through an understaffed team like mine, it’s about ensuring that the quality of what we do is not at risk. Quality is our only currency, without it everything suffers.
- SubiculumCode 7y ago
  What you say is true, which makes the topic so very subtle because it depends on the context. Saying no to protect your people/process is a good thing. Saying no because it is personally profitable to be disdainful of other's ideas while offering up none of your own, irrespective of what is good for the organization or your team, is not. If one needs a mental picture, think of the quintessential hipster: https://sabotagetimes.com/life/hipster-irony-is-destroying-our-idea-of-sincerity-and-creativity https://sabotagetimes.com/life/hipster-irony-is-destroying-o...
- Aloha 7y ago
  Change for the sake of change is almost always bad, making decisions without considering externalities is worse.
tabtab 7y ago
It's better to list the risks in a matter-of-fact way rather than imply a project is summarily a bad idea. If you act like Chicken Little on everything, then your next complaint will have no credibility, like in the boy-calling-wolf story. But there are times, such over ADA/accessibility and data security issues where I am somewhat insistent, but people ignore me. They seem to value a "cute" UI over these. I'm doing the right thing but get rebuffed. We are not in the cute-UI business. Our domain is not a toy or fashion store. We've been sued for ADA issues in the past, and our competitor has had data breaches, so they are relatively likely risks. It's frustrating to be dismissed the way I am.

dijit 7y ago

Er. This is awful advice. You’re also on the hook for impeding the organisation. I’m a “no” guy. My boss is a pure yes man. I don’t say no to impede progress. I say no to avoid overworking my team which would reduce the quality of our work. I say no, because it changes the scope of work in progress, and that requires sufficient justification because it means either throwing work away (which is both demoralising and wasteful), potentially increasing time to delivery or creates technical debt in droves. I say “no” so that people don’t make their own standards (like not following logging patterns, or metric naming conventions) which would cause all kinds of gunk in the infrastructure. It’s not about following a strict process. Although that can be important for streamlining workflow through an understaffed team like mine, it’s about ensuring that the quality of what we do is not at risk. Quality is our only currency, without it everything suffers.

SubiculumCode 7y ago
What you say is true, which makes the topic so very subtle because it depends on the context. Saying no to protect your people/process is a good thing. Saying no because it is personally profitable to be disdainful of other's ideas while offering up none of your own, irrespective of what is good for the organization or your team, is not. If one needs a mental picture, think of the quintessential hipster: https://sabotagetimes.com/life/hipster-irony-is-destroying-our-idea-of-sincerity-and-creativity https://sabotagetimes.com/life/hipster-irony-is-destroying-o...
Aloha 7y ago
Change for the sake of change is almost always bad, making decisions without considering externalities is worse.

tabtab 7y ago

It's better to list the risks in a matter-of-fact way rather than imply a project is summarily a bad idea. If you act like Chicken Little on everything, then your next complaint will have no credibility, like in the boy-calling-wolf story. But there are times, such over ADA/accessibility and data security issues where I am somewhat insistent, but people ignore me. They seem to value a "cute" UI over these. I'm doing the right thing but get rebuffed. We are not in the cute-UI business. Our domain is not a toy or fashion store. We've been sued for ADA issues in the past, and our competitor has had data breaches, so they are relatively likely risks. It's frustrating to be dismissed the way I am.