3 ms·
Even if it's consistent behaviour, I'd consistently answer the same way, treating it as honest ignorance. Tasks always look simpler from the outside. If that c
by jbay808 4y ago
Even if it's consistent behaviour, I'd consistently answer the same way, treating it as honest ignorance. Tasks always look simpler from the outside.
If that conversation is happening with senior management, it can also identify some consistent mismatch between their perception and reality. (Didn't your team get 5 new hires last year? Yes but two are on leave and we also took over responsibility for customer-facing documentation from marketing). Or reveal new priorities when consistent themes come up -- maybe the testing process is being slowed down by a growing matrix of product configurations, and management had no idea how much work that creates.
When the language shifts to something like "regardless of your estimate, we need it done by the end of Q3, so make it happen", then I treat it as pushback.
- laserlight 4y ago> Even if it's consistent behaviour, I'd consistently answer the same way, treating it as honest ignorance. This has been how I handled issues, yet I'm getting more convinced that it is not productive. People don't learn through only repeated exposure. In the second time something happens, they should be reminded of the first time. And in the third time, they should be outright denied any explanation with a reminder of the first two incidents. Otherwise, they'll keep doing the same thing, probably because it's very low-cost to them, and I'll keep spending my precious resources.