4 ms·
This is a recipe for disaster the first time you break something. Getting a yes or a no indicates that your boss is aware of it. When you’re in the hot seat,
by JackFr 2y ago
This is a recipe for disaster the first time you break something. Getting a yes or a no indicates that your boss is aware of it.
When you’re in the hot seat, and someone asks “Who approved this?”, the truthful answer is that no one approved it.
- ludston 2y agoIt really depends on the culture of your organisation and how effective management is. If there is nobody that can act like this at your org it shows that your leadership team suffers from failure to delegate.
- lelanthran 2y ago> It really depends on the culture of your organisation and how effective management is. If there is nobody that can act like this at your org it shows that your leadership team suffers from failure to delegate. I think it's more than just that - upthread I posted that I used this technique for over a decade against a difficult party. This approach is, briefly, for CYA: It's for when you are in the following situation: You have to do something and will be punished if you don't, but a stakeholder is being difficult and/or hostile. They can delay you or outright sabotage you just by silence and/or bike-shedding.
- Imustaskforhelp 2y agoThanks. Made things a lot more clearer. It seemed that my natural response reading the article was to use such approach everytime no matter what & some people in the comments also said that they use this approach everytime.
- prh8 2y agoThis is such a helpful way of viewing it. I have a principal at work that will comment on things to delay or slow down, and then never revisit after their comments are addressed.
- sdwr 2y agoYeah this only works for decisions you are basically allowed to make yourself.
- brookst 2y agoThe key insight is that the concept of “allowed” is flawed. Most of us are responsible for outcomes, not actions. If you communicate well that an action is necessary for the outcome you are responsible for, that’s enough. Obviously with notice, and with a genuine effort to get acknowledgement, but ultimately it’s not about what you’re allowed to do, it’s about what you’re expected to achieve. Now, if you’re wrong, or capricious, or disingenuous… well all bets are off. But done responsibly this is a completely appropriate and defensible approach.
- rendaw 2y agoI think this isn't for your superior, it's for lateral people who need to be involved some the work. Like person X in team Y is arguing against something. If your boss 1. tells you that something needs to be done, 2. refuses to approve any plans, then you just don't do it - in that case it's on them to direct the work in a way that it gets done.
- capkutay 2y agoOwning things is breaking things (and fixing it).
- Cthulhu_ 2y agoThis is why (at least in software), nobody should be able to do anything on their own. The "I will do this" is fine, but it can't go to production without a review and of course automated testing and the like. Of course, then you create a bottleneck; if you write a MR but nobody reviews it in a timely fashion, nothing happens. But this is where you have to make agreements, and probably on a management level (= team lead, doesn't need to be heavier) about e.g. acknowledging and reviewing within a certain time period.
- Etheryte 2y agoIf your boss has to sign off on everything you do, that's not a boss, that's a micromanager and you're both doing it wrong.
- pixl97 2y agoOr it's a regulated industry