9 ms·

What Grace Hopper meant with “easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission”

160 points by fagnerbrack 7y ago

protomyth 7y ago
I remember a phrase that goes with this but cannot remember the origin: "actions taken without orders are not actions taken against orders".
- scarface74 7y ago
  That’s a great statement. Actions taken without orders will usually end up with at most a slap on the wrist “for not following the process” or a wink and “that was a great idea but can you try not to step on toes?”. Actions against orders is insubordination.
doc_gunthrop 7y ago
> First of all, many people don’t know that Admiral Grace Hopper said that; the attribution. Hopper popularized the term, but did not coin it. > Grace Hopper did employ and help to popularize the expression by 1982, but it was already in circulation.[1] [1]: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/19/forgive/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/19/forgive/
- jki275 7y ago
  The expression has been a military phrase from time immemorial. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that Roman Centurions used it.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    You should take a look at Quote Investigator. Many phrases have definite "start" times that are well documented.
thesuperbigfrog 7y ago
"She was a military officer in a large organization. If you’ve ever worked at a company or an organization that operates at that kind of global scale… it’s very hard to get permission to do anything, because you need to go up three or four levels in the hierarchy above your boss to get permission" Can confirm. I have worked in the military and large corporations with draconian policies. Any organization of that size tends to be bereaucratic in order to handle people at scale and therefore is resistant to change and out-of-the-box thinking even when it would greatly benefit the organization. Individuals and first-line managers are rarely empowered to make changes without several levels of approval. Only after a new idea or process has been proven to be more effective will it be acknowledged as an option that the organization should consider for wider use throughout the organization. This is essentially part of the reason why larger organizations have more difficulty being innovative compared to smaller, more nimble organizations.
- punnerud 7y ago
  This is why I love to be a consultant in a large corporation, because I can talk with a lot of people without the feeling that I have to obey the hierarchy. When I figure out the best common goal I can follow the hierarchy to get approval. Maybe this only works in Norway..?
  - sdegutis 7y ago
    I think the difference is that you’d then be an outside consultant, meaning they are consulting you to get your professional recommendations on what they should do to serve their interests best. So inherently they already want your advice and are willing to put it in action. Whereas an employee of any kind is not usually hired for their outside the box recommendations, but only to put into action decisions already made for them. Thus when one has an innovative idea, the company feels it is in their best interest to doubt your idea and conservatively err on the side of caution, since it’s not what they hired you for and they can’t trust your competence in innovating like that. In other words, employees are hired to keep the status quo and consultants are hired to decide what the status quo should be for the company’s best interests. At least, this is the best explanation I can come up with based on what people have said and mingling philosophy. I’ve never worked at a huge corporation so I could be all wrong.
dnautics 7y ago
> Move the extrinsic cost to the public domain so that we can profit. > ...whose primary business model is to take public goods and to turn them into private profits First, those two statements are not at all the same. Second, what constitutes "extrinsic cost" is subjective. If you go out and feed the homeless for a day, there is an extrinsic cost (to someone, somewhere) of the net sum of your activities. Judging whether or not the extrinsic cost is outweighed by the extrinsic is... Dangerous. Third, ALL corporations, (private corporations, nonprofits and governments), and all humans (miners, manufacturers, writers, artists) take public goods and turn them into private goods, of course, not all of them profit, either by design or by execution. Taking public goods and turning them into private goods is what it means to transact in society.
jcampbell1 7y ago
> I don’t wanna pick on any particular company, but I think we could rattle off a list of companies whose primary business model is to take public goods and to turn them into private profits There must be some echo chamber that I am not familiar with. What is an example of this? Are people buying the Brooklyn bridge again?
- chooseaname 7y ago
  AccuWeather tried it.
- umvi 7y ago
  Well more like shipping/freight companies taking advantage of public roads/infra and running them into ground with fleets of trucks, etc.
  - lopmotr 7y ago
    In America, do truck operators not have to pay for use of roads? Or are you talking about illegal activity?
    - shantly 7y ago
      The heavier the vehicle, the more damage it does, ~exponentially. Freight trucks use more fuel (and so, fuel taxes) and have more fees and such but nowhere near enough to make up for the extra damage they do.
      - jcampbell1 7y ago
        In the US we have maximum weight limits and it is enforced with weigh stations. I have wondered if tire pressure limits would be more effective at preserving the roads. Cars put about 35psi on the roads and trucks put 80-100psi.
        robocat 7y ago
        It isn't as simple as X kPa does Y damage. Damage also occurs due to dynamic loading, which depends upon suspension, tire weight, weight shifts between axles, and braking action (frictional horizontal loads).
bitwize 7y ago
I hear this a lot at my company as "take risks" with tales from people at director level or above about how they embarked on bold new marketing initiatives their bosses disapproved of that increased company visibility and thus, profits. But I'm just a programmer schlub. People like me don't get "asked to leave", we get fired. Plus, the activities of people like me are more closely tracked, and we are going to be noticed and corrected much earlier for going off script. We have less to gain, and more to lose, from taking risks than those with actual authority. The lower down the org chart you go, the more you benefit by keeping your head down, focusing on meeting or exceeding your KPIs, and not rocking the boat too much.
- zer00eyz 7y ago
  I think your missing a few keys here... > how they embarked on bold new marketing initiatives their bosses disapproved of The point is not to ASK and have it disapproved, the point is to simply do it without asking. These sorts of "cowboy" activities are normally low to no budget items that have outsized (noticeable) impact. > People like me don't get "asked to leave", we get fired. Outside of personal vendettas and genuine incompetence it is hard to get fired. > Plus, the activities of people like me are more closely tracked, and we are going to be noticed and corrected much earlier for going off script. Yes, this is true, to an extent. The way you make your way up is not by just being a cog but by showing a fair degree of initiative and NOT rocking the boat. Want to get promoted, judicious use of refactoring, and automation are the keys to getting noticed. If you're spending a small amount of time having a big impact people will notice. If you write some utility that takes a low grade complaint out of a team meeting your boss is going to notice it. These sorts of activities beget more freedom and more leeway for future endeavors. You don't bet the company as a jr programer but you can have an impact within your team.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    I agree with everything you said, I want to add a little nuance. There is a difference between “getting promoted” and having “more freedom and more leeway for future endeavors.” Even if your title doesn’t change or you don’t desire an official “promotion”, doing what you suggested is a way of being “more equal than others”. In my company, almost everyone comes to me for advice including management about areas that I have shown myself to be adept in. I get freedom to implement things and introduce technologies because of trust. Not only have I not gotten a promotion - I actively refused one.
chooseaname 7y ago
"If you're going to go down, take people with you." It means if you're going to do something risky, partner with someone at a higher level than you. If your idea is solid enough, they won't be too hard to find.
pacaro 7y ago
It's a useful maxim in an organizational or bureaucratic setting for sure, but is not generaly good advice in personal relationships
- doc_gunthrop 7y ago
  I've heard this quote used in a joke form. Something like "I prayed to God for a bike but never got one. So I stole one and asked for forgiveness instead."
  - pacaro 7y ago
    Yeah, I think that the general addendum is that it works if you have good reason to believe that you would have gotten permission had you asked for it. In a bureaucracy you avoid asking permission because it is expensive, it doesn't necessarily translate to other domains
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      It's more that had you asked, the reaction would be a kneejerk "no." So you delay asking as long as possible so that you can present whatever it is as already successful, at which point the bureaucratic tendency to stasis is more on your side than against.
      - pacaro 7y ago
        Indeed, so then you resubmit your request with evidence. Then a committee is formed, with sub committees to investigate each alternative. Then reports are delivered, deliberated on, discussed, disseminated, dissected I'm sorry what was the question?
        icebraining 7y ago
        "Precisely! Months of fruitful work, leading to a mature and responsible conclusion." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs
jl2718 7y ago
Regarding ethics referenced, it seems “ask forgiveness” has been the legal strategy of the biggest startups of the last 10 years. These were not so much innovation as much as exploitation of an obvious market that was restricted to preserve a public good (residential neighborhoods and streets). I suppose that the ethical way to get around such laws may be open marketplace platforms, such that the profits can only come from choice of technology, and not market control over scarce resources.
- scarface74 7y ago
  What was the ethical reason for the taxi medallion system? All it did was create an artificial shortage and a few people got rich buying medallions and the actual taxi drivers were just as shortchanged by the owners of the medallion as they are by Uber and it was a worse customer experience.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    The ethical reason was to reduce congestion. Whether that's the real intention and, if it was, whether it was accomplishing that goal is arguable, of course.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      Increasing the price of using a vehicle in the congested region would have been the ethical way to reduce congestion, not making a market controlled by government officials that they could collect rent on.
  - akvadrako 7y ago
    I think it mainly served the purpose of making cabs in demand, so private owners of cabs could make a living wage.
    - niij 7y ago
      It reduced supply, not increase demand.
jgalt212 7y ago
This should be the Cuba Gooding, Jr defense.
strictfp 7y ago
Optimistic locking makes better progress than pessimistic locking in a non-heavily-contended case ;P
fortran77 7y ago
I admire Grace Hopper, but she did not coin this phrase. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/19/forgive/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/19/forgive/
emmelaich 7y ago
Similarly, people misapply Postel's maxim. You have to read it with a knowledge of the context and history.

160 points by fagnerbrack 7y ago

I remember a phrase that goes with this but cannot remember the origin: "actions taken without orders are not actions taken against orders".

scarface74 7y ago
That’s a great statement. Actions taken without orders will usually end up with at most a slap on the wrist “for not following the process” or a wink and “that was a great idea but can you try not to step on toes?”. Actions against orders is insubordination.

doc_gunthrop 7y ago

> First of all, many people don’t know that Admiral Grace Hopper said that; the attribution. Hopper popularized the term, but did not coin it. > Grace Hopper did employ and help to popularize the expression by 1982, but it was already in circulation.[1] [1]: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/19/forgive/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/19/forgive/

jki275 7y ago
The expression has been a military phrase from time immemorial. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that Roman Centurions used it.
- fortran77 7y ago
  You should take a look at Quote Investigator. Many phrases have definite "start" times that are well documented.

thesuperbigfrog 7y ago

"She was a military officer in a large organization. If you’ve ever worked at a company or an organization that operates at that kind of global scale… it’s very hard to get permission to do anything, because you need to go up three or four levels in the hierarchy above your boss to get permission" Can confirm. I have worked in the military and large corporations with draconian policies. Any organization of that size tends to be bereaucratic in order to handle people at scale and therefore is resistant to change and out-of-the-box thinking even when it would greatly benefit the organization. Individuals and first-line managers are rarely empowered to make changes without several levels of approval. Only after a new idea or process has been proven to be more effective will it be acknowledged as an option that the organization should consider for wider use throughout the organization. This is essentially part of the reason why larger organizations have more difficulty being innovative compared to smaller, more nimble organizations.

punnerud 7y ago
This is why I love to be a consultant in a large corporation, because I can talk with a lot of people without the feeling that I have to obey the hierarchy. When I figure out the best common goal I can follow the hierarchy to get approval. Maybe this only works in Norway..?
- sdegutis 7y ago
  I think the difference is that you’d then be an outside consultant, meaning they are consulting you to get your professional recommendations on what they should do to serve their interests best. So inherently they already want your advice and are willing to put it in action. Whereas an employee of any kind is not usually hired for their outside the box recommendations, but only to put into action decisions already made for them. Thus when one has an innovative idea, the company feels it is in their best interest to doubt your idea and conservatively err on the side of caution, since it’s not what they hired you for and they can’t trust your competence in innovating like that. In other words, employees are hired to keep the status quo and consultants are hired to decide what the status quo should be for the company’s best interests. At least, this is the best explanation I can come up with based on what people have said and mingling philosophy. I’ve never worked at a huge corporation so I could be all wrong.

dnautics 7y ago

> Move the extrinsic cost to the public domain so that we can profit. > ...whose primary business model is to take public goods and to turn them into private profits First, those two statements are not at all the same. Second, what constitutes "extrinsic cost" is subjective. If you go out and feed the homeless for a day, there is an extrinsic cost (to someone, somewhere) of the net sum of your activities. Judging whether or not the extrinsic cost is outweighed by the extrinsic is... Dangerous. Third, ALL corporations, (private corporations, nonprofits and governments), and all humans (miners, manufacturers, writers, artists) take public goods and turn them into private goods, of course, not all of them profit, either by design or by execution. Taking public goods and turning them into private goods is what it means to transact in society.

jcampbell1 7y ago

> I don’t wanna pick on any particular company, but I think we could rattle off a list of companies whose primary business model is to take public goods and to turn them into private profits There must be some echo chamber that I am not familiar with. What is an example of this? Are people buying the Brooklyn bridge again?

chooseaname 7y ago
AccuWeather tried it.
umvi 7y ago
Well more like shipping/freight companies taking advantage of public roads/infra and running them into ground with fleets of trucks, etc.
- lopmotr 7y ago
  In America, do truck operators not have to pay for use of roads? Or are you talking about illegal activity?
  - shantly 7y ago
    The heavier the vehicle, the more damage it does, ~exponentially. Freight trucks use more fuel (and so, fuel taxes) and have more fees and such but nowhere near enough to make up for the extra damage they do.
    - jcampbell1 7y ago
      In the US we have maximum weight limits and it is enforced with weigh stations. I have wondered if tire pressure limits would be more effective at preserving the roads. Cars put about 35psi on the roads and trucks put 80-100psi.
      - robocat 7y ago
        It isn't as simple as X kPa does Y damage. Damage also occurs due to dynamic loading, which depends upon suspension, tire weight, weight shifts between axles, and braking action (frictional horizontal loads).

bitwize 7y ago

I hear this a lot at my company as "take risks" with tales from people at director level or above about how they embarked on bold new marketing initiatives their bosses disapproved of that increased company visibility and thus, profits. But I'm just a programmer schlub. People like me don't get "asked to leave", we get fired. Plus, the activities of people like me are more closely tracked, and we are going to be noticed and corrected much earlier for going off script. We have less to gain, and more to lose, from taking risks than those with actual authority. The lower down the org chart you go, the more you benefit by keeping your head down, focusing on meeting or exceeding your KPIs, and not rocking the boat too much.

zer00eyz 7y ago
I think your missing a few keys here... > how they embarked on bold new marketing initiatives their bosses disapproved of The point is not to ASK and have it disapproved, the point is to simply do it without asking. These sorts of "cowboy" activities are normally low to no budget items that have outsized (noticeable) impact. > People like me don't get "asked to leave", we get fired. Outside of personal vendettas and genuine incompetence it is hard to get fired. > Plus, the activities of people like me are more closely tracked, and we are going to be noticed and corrected much earlier for going off script. Yes, this is true, to an extent. The way you make your way up is not by just being a cog but by showing a fair degree of initiative and NOT rocking the boat. Want to get promoted, judicious use of refactoring, and automation are the keys to getting noticed. If you're spending a small amount of time having a big impact people will notice. If you write some utility that takes a low grade complaint out of a team meeting your boss is going to notice it. These sorts of activities beget more freedom and more leeway for future endeavors. You don't bet the company as a jr programer but you can have an impact within your team.
- scarface74 7y ago
  I agree with everything you said, I want to add a little nuance. There is a difference between “getting promoted” and having “more freedom and more leeway for future endeavors.” Even if your title doesn’t change or you don’t desire an official “promotion”, doing what you suggested is a way of being “more equal than others”. In my company, almost everyone comes to me for advice including management about areas that I have shown myself to be adept in. I get freedom to implement things and introduce technologies because of trust. Not only have I not gotten a promotion - I actively refused one.

chooseaname 7y ago

"If you're going to go down, take people with you." It means if you're going to do something risky, partner with someone at a higher level than you. If your idea is solid enough, they won't be too hard to find.

pacaro 7y ago

It's a useful maxim in an organizational or bureaucratic setting for sure, but is not generaly good advice in personal relationships

doc_gunthrop 7y ago
I've heard this quote used in a joke form. Something like "I prayed to God for a bike but never got one. So I stole one and asked for forgiveness instead."
- pacaro 7y ago
  Yeah, I think that the general addendum is that it works if you have good reason to believe that you would have gotten permission had you asked for it. In a bureaucracy you avoid asking permission because it is expensive, it doesn't necessarily translate to other domains
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    It's more that had you asked, the reaction would be a kneejerk "no." So you delay asking as long as possible so that you can present whatever it is as already successful, at which point the bureaucratic tendency to stasis is more on your side than against.
    - pacaro 7y ago
      Indeed, so then you resubmit your request with evidence. Then a committee is formed, with sub committees to investigate each alternative. Then reports are delivered, deliberated on, discussed, disseminated, dissected I'm sorry what was the question?
      - icebraining 7y ago
        "Precisely! Months of fruitful work, leading to a mature and responsible conclusion." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs

jl2718 7y ago

Regarding ethics referenced, it seems “ask forgiveness” has been the legal strategy of the biggest startups of the last 10 years. These were not so much innovation as much as exploitation of an obvious market that was restricted to preserve a public good (residential neighborhoods and streets). I suppose that the ethical way to get around such laws may be open marketplace platforms, such that the profits can only come from choice of technology, and not market control over scarce resources.

scarface74 7y ago
What was the ethical reason for the taxi medallion system? All it did was create an artificial shortage and a few people got rich buying medallions and the actual taxi drivers were just as shortchanged by the owners of the medallion as they are by Uber and it was a worse customer experience.
- icebraining 7y ago
  The ethical reason was to reduce congestion. Whether that's the real intention and, if it was, whether it was accomplishing that goal is arguable, of course.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Increasing the price of using a vehicle in the congested region would have been the ethical way to reduce congestion, not making a market controlled by government officials that they could collect rent on.
- akvadrako 7y ago
  I think it mainly served the purpose of making cabs in demand, so private owners of cabs could make a living wage.
  - niij 7y ago
    It reduced supply, not increase demand.

jgalt212 7y ago

This should be the Cuba Gooding, Jr defense.

strictfp 7y ago

Optimistic locking makes better progress than pessimistic locking in a non-heavily-contended case ;P

fortran77 7y ago

I admire Grace Hopper, but she did not coin this phrase. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/19/forgive/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/19/forgive/

emmelaich 7y ago

Similarly, people misapply Postel's maxim. You have to read it with a knowledge of the context and history.