4 ms·

It's not unavoidable no, but it certainly makes you a better consultant. I found this out only a few years ago and franze is right on the money. I'd say it goe

It's not unavoidable no, but it certainly makes you a better consultant. I found this out only a few years ago and franze is right on the money. I'd say it goes beyond consulting, too, and that knowing how to "take the blame and distribute the praise" is a superpower. Especially that first part. Knowing to take responsibility for things, sometimes even things that are outside your control, puts you on a different level to many people who will simply try to dodge it as much as possible. As a consultants, clients aren't (generally) stupid and can smell the bullshit. What they'll see, if you do this right, is someone who is effective and professional. This inspires trust and gets you re-hired. If this sort of thing makes you miserable, IMO then yeah it's not for you. Personally, I'd advise introspection: Why does it make you miserable, exactly?

adwn 5y ago
> take responsibility for things, sometimes even things that are outside your control Although this might sometimes be a good idea for diplomatic reasons, it feels just as wrong and "bullshitty" as accepting praise for things that are outside your control. And it might lead to a loss of respect by people who see through this fake humility.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  You're not wrong, but there's two situations that can call for it. 1. You are indeed sometimes (more often than not) responsible for things that happen under "your watch" even if they're none of your doing, because you're responsible for calculating things that can go wrong. For a recent news comparison, the JWST is a great example of this mindset: If something goes wrong, NASA was responsible for predicting the chances of it happening and ultimately, having a plan for it. 2. As a consultant, you're sometimes hired so bigger clients can externalize blame. It makes no difference to you, doesn't matter, it's not like they're hampering your career opportunities or something. They love that they have someone to blame for shit instead of blaming the actual people responsible. Yes, it's entirely bullshitty in this case. But it gets you re-hired :)
  - adwn 5y ago
    1. I think we're assigning different meanings to "out of one's control": If you can "have a plan for it", as you say, than I wouldn't call that "out of your control", even if it's not your fault. In your example, the unfolding of the sunshield wasn't out of NASA's control, even though a failure might not have been anyone's fault in particular, so NASA would have been the one to blame. In contrast, an untracked meteorite hitting the JWST after launch would have been out of NASA's control. 2. Yes, that's what I meant by "for diplomatic reasons" :-)

adwn 5y ago

> take responsibility for things, sometimes even things that are outside your control Although this might sometimes be a good idea for diplomatic reasons, it feels just as wrong and "bullshitty" as accepting praise for things that are outside your control. And it might lead to a loss of respect by people who see through this fake humility.

scrollaway 5y ago
You're not wrong, but there's two situations that can call for it. 1. You are indeed sometimes (more often than not) responsible for things that happen under "your watch" even if they're none of your doing, because you're responsible for calculating things that can go wrong. For a recent news comparison, the JWST is a great example of this mindset: If something goes wrong, NASA was responsible for predicting the chances of it happening and ultimately, having a plan for it. 2. As a consultant, you're sometimes hired so bigger clients can externalize blame. It makes no difference to you, doesn't matter, it's not like they're hampering your career opportunities or something. They love that they have someone to blame for shit instead of blaming the actual people responsible. Yes, it's entirely bullshitty in this case. But it gets you re-hired :)
- adwn 5y ago
  1. I think we're assigning different meanings to "out of one's control": If you can "have a plan for it", as you say, than I wouldn't call that "out of your control", even if it's not your fault. In your example, the unfolding of the sunshield wasn't out of NASA's control, even though a failure might not have been anyone's fault in particular, so NASA would have been the one to blame. In contrast, an untracked meteorite hitting the JWST after launch would have been out of NASA's control. 2. Yes, that's what I meant by "for diplomatic reasons" :-)