5 ms·

Ha, I like the wording on the "The “Two-And-Done” Rule". I came to the same conclusion fairly early in my career. My anaology is a bit more grim, I would "hand

by doix 5y ago

Ha, I like the wording on the "The “Two-And-Done” Rule". I came to the same conclusion fairly early in my career. My anaology is a bit more grim, I would "hand them the rope" (so that they could hang themselves) after two arguments. I agree that two is the upper limit. Unfortunately it took me a little longer to drop the "I told you so". I also agree with the personal brand section. It's part of the reason I was so argumentative. I worked on internal tools that people were forced to use and some of the stuff that was done was hated by many. I was really worried that my association with the project would ruin my brand/reputation. So I would always argue to try and fix things that people hated. Eventually I gave up and started writing greasemonkey scripts to make things more usable.

riazrizvi 5y ago
+1 "Two-And-Done" rule. But there are factors that stretch the rule; 1) your certainty of failure if you go the wrong way, 2) the harm to the business/team given a failure, 3) your role in execution of the task. You can be put in a situation where you've got an approach that works but you have been overruled to use an approach that doesn't (assuming of course genuine best efforts to make it work, otherwise you're the problem). If you are the person on the spot in a critical business situation, you've got a choice, do you risk your job for doing what works despite being explicitly told not to, or do you risk your job anyway and the security of your team and company by executing a destructive sequence because you've been told. I keep reading lots of examples of these situations, especially in military non-fiction, where people go either way. In these rare situations, if it's your finger pulling the trigger so to speak, I think you have to do the only thing you know is right. And maybe dust off your resume when you get back home.
- jerf 5y ago
  "1) your certainty of failure if you go the wrong way, 2) the harm to the business/team given a failure, 3) your role in execution of the task." Relatedly, I use a very similar analysis when giving tasks to junior engineers. They almost always want to do something that isn't exactly what I would do, for a whole bunch of obvious reasons. Sometimes I need to override them, but it's a complicated analysis that sums up to what you wrote above. I will even sometimes let them do something that I think will lead to some negative, but recoverable consequences, because the best learning is from your own mistakes, but to learn from those mistakes you must first be allowed to make them. I just have to make sure the positives of learning outweigh the possible issues the mistakes could lead to. And sometimes, I'm wrong about whether it was a mistake or not, of course. :) An example of something I'll generally override regardless is a security issue, because the consequences of that can get pretty negative. But merely layout out the code with the IO & business logic more tightly coupled than I'd like is something I may let slide, especially if they're going to end up having to write automated testing for it anyhow. When I do let something go, I generally give a heads up about what negative consequences I expect may transpire, and then let them do their thing. I think that in general, "wisdom" can't be taught in the conventional sense of the term, but I do think you can sensitize people to the existence of certain patterns and accelerate the process of acquiring such wisdom as a result.
- AlexCoventry 5y ago
  Yeah, "disagree and commit" isn't a way to dodge personal responsibility.
gwbas1c 5y ago
When I onboarded at Intel in 2005, they had a similar rule called "Disagree and commit." I've generally always followed the same rule, long after I left Intel. But, to take it a step further: If someone wants to do something a certain way that I don't agree with, I give them my professional opinion, and then I tell them that it's their task, and overall I trust their hands-on opinion more than my hands-off opinion.
- goostavos 5y ago
  We have that one at Amazon. It took me quite awhile to realize that it meant in the "two and done" sense used in the article, and not the "I will literally die on this hill" sense. Younger me burned a lot of political capital fighting tooth and nail to change the course of a machine which had its tracks laid out by management with motivations separate from my own.
- canadian_tired 5y ago
  I love this rule! I try to do the same thing. I look at it as an investment...long return. Arguing to win daily is a fools game. As you say, make your point and watch things unfold. Over the long run, if your guidance along the way would have have been correct, well...the arguments stop eventually. The downside is that everyone assumes you are always correct...which is bad. Which means, you need to frame your guidance with some form of caveats/probability.
- belval 5y ago
  "Disagree and commit" is also an Amazon leadership principle and it's one of my favourite because it really help with internal discussion by acting as a wake up call for you or the other person. Saying: "I understand that you disagree with my plan but for this one I am asking you to disagree and commit so we can move forward" is surprisingly effective when used from time to time.
stronglikedan 5y ago
The part of this rule to watch out for is the "One is, it kind of releases you from responsibility if things should go wrong." Oh no it doesn't, unless you CYA. And by CYA, I mean documentation. I always send an email afterwards stating what was discussed, as I understood it, and requesting that everyone confirm that I understand it correctly. This has the benefit of confirming my understanding, as well as covering my ass if things go wrong.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I should adopt that for here on HN. I sometimes wind up in conversation with zealots (Churchill's definition: someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject). So: Two and done. If I give them reason to change their mind, and they won't even listen, then two-and-done.
bsder 5y ago
The only caution I will give to this rule is: "Estimate the likelihood of the person making this decision leaving the company." I have been burnt by two people padding their resumes before jumping out of the company. This caused me to rethink the "Two and Done" rule at higher management levels.
phendrenad2 5y ago
"Two-and-done" is good, but many times you run into people who don't give a s*t about the outcome. They're just making their employer their own personal debate club. "Oh you think X? Then I'll propose Y. Let's have a debate! Yay!" So always follow up after a "two-and-done" experience to see if the people who argued against you are suddenly disinterested in the entire project once they've won the argument, and do it your way anyway.

by doix 5y ago

riazrizvi 5y ago

+1 "Two-And-Done" rule. But there are factors that stretch the rule; 1) your certainty of failure if you go the wrong way, 2) the harm to the business/team given a failure, 3) your role in execution of the task. You can be put in a situation where you've got an approach that works but you have been overruled to use an approach that doesn't (assuming of course genuine best efforts to make it work, otherwise you're the problem). If you are the person on the spot in a critical business situation, you've got a choice, do you risk your job for doing what works despite being explicitly told not to, or do you risk your job anyway and the security of your team and company by executing a destructive sequence because you've been told. I keep reading lots of examples of these situations, especially in military non-fiction, where people go either way. In these rare situations, if it's your finger pulling the trigger so to speak, I think you have to do the only thing you know is right. And maybe dust off your resume when you get back home.

jerf 5y ago
"1) your certainty of failure if you go the wrong way, 2) the harm to the business/team given a failure, 3) your role in execution of the task." Relatedly, I use a very similar analysis when giving tasks to junior engineers. They almost always want to do something that isn't exactly what I would do, for a whole bunch of obvious reasons. Sometimes I need to override them, but it's a complicated analysis that sums up to what you wrote above. I will even sometimes let them do something that I think will lead to some negative, but recoverable consequences, because the best learning is from your own mistakes, but to learn from those mistakes you must first be allowed to make them. I just have to make sure the positives of learning outweigh the possible issues the mistakes could lead to. And sometimes, I'm wrong about whether it was a mistake or not, of course. :) An example of something I'll generally override regardless is a security issue, because the consequences of that can get pretty negative. But merely layout out the code with the IO & business logic more tightly coupled than I'd like is something I may let slide, especially if they're going to end up having to write automated testing for it anyhow. When I do let something go, I generally give a heads up about what negative consequences I expect may transpire, and then let them do their thing. I think that in general, "wisdom" can't be taught in the conventional sense of the term, but I do think you can sensitize people to the existence of certain patterns and accelerate the process of acquiring such wisdom as a result.
AlexCoventry 5y ago
Yeah, "disagree and commit" isn't a way to dodge personal responsibility.

gwbas1c 5y ago

When I onboarded at Intel in 2005, they had a similar rule called "Disagree and commit." I've generally always followed the same rule, long after I left Intel. But, to take it a step further: If someone wants to do something a certain way that I don't agree with, I give them my professional opinion, and then I tell them that it's their task, and overall I trust their hands-on opinion more than my hands-off opinion.

goostavos 5y ago
We have that one at Amazon. It took me quite awhile to realize that it meant in the "two and done" sense used in the article, and not the "I will literally die on this hill" sense. Younger me burned a lot of political capital fighting tooth and nail to change the course of a machine which had its tracks laid out by management with motivations separate from my own.
canadian_tired 5y ago
I love this rule! I try to do the same thing. I look at it as an investment...long return. Arguing to win daily is a fools game. As you say, make your point and watch things unfold. Over the long run, if your guidance along the way would have have been correct, well...the arguments stop eventually. The downside is that everyone assumes you are always correct...which is bad. Which means, you need to frame your guidance with some form of caveats/probability.
belval 5y ago
"Disagree and commit" is also an Amazon leadership principle and it's one of my favourite because it really help with internal discussion by acting as a wake up call for you or the other person. Saying: "I understand that you disagree with my plan but for this one I am asking you to disagree and commit so we can move forward" is surprisingly effective when used from time to time.

stronglikedan 5y ago

The part of this rule to watch out for is the "One is, it kind of releases you from responsibility if things should go wrong." Oh no it doesn't, unless you CYA. And by CYA, I mean documentation. I always send an email afterwards stating what was discussed, as I understood it, and requesting that everyone confirm that I understand it correctly. This has the benefit of confirming my understanding, as well as covering my ass if things go wrong.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

I should adopt that for here on HN. I sometimes wind up in conversation with zealots (Churchill's definition: someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject). So: Two and done. If I give them reason to change their mind, and they won't even listen, then two-and-done.

bsder 5y ago

The only caution I will give to this rule is: "Estimate the likelihood of the person making this decision leaving the company." I have been burnt by two people padding their resumes before jumping out of the company. This caused me to rethink the "Two and Done" rule at higher management levels.

phendrenad2 5y ago

"Two-and-done" is good, but many times you run into people who don't give a s*t about the outcome. They're just making their employer their own personal debate club. "Oh you think X? Then I'll propose Y. Let's have a debate! Yay!" So always follow up after a "two-and-done" experience to see if the people who argued against you are suddenly disinterested in the entire project once they've won the argument, and do it your way anyway.