2 ms·

I disagree. One aspect of "tact" is that it's not always necessary.

• scarface74 4y ago
  I agree. Once my former CTO (and now friend) got to know each other, we had a common vision of what needed to be accomplished and sometimes bumped heads about the best way to do it (in hindsight he was right about 60% of the time). I was leading the “cloud native” initiatives. We had no time for “shit sandwiches”. I would just as often tell him that “you know in your heart that’s a dumb idea” and he would often tell me “I don’t have time for this shit can you just get to the point”. He was very technical. But focused on strategy. Of course this only happened behind closed doors and we would go to lunch afterwards. We got a lot done. Because of his mentorship on how to navigate politics and talk to and present to CxOs, I went from not knowing “cloud” in 2018 to working in the loud consulting department two years later. On his end, the company had sn exit for 10x revenue about six months after I left. It was a small company with only 3 million in revenue.
  • latchkey 4y ago
    Two heads are always better than one.
• geocrasher 4y ago
  "Does it work for every situation? You guessed it. No." I agree that tact is not always appropriate. Sometimes the only way to get the point across is to be point blank with the answer. "Can you do XYZ" "Nope, not in a million years." Does it work for every situation? You guessed it. No.