6 ms·
i think the reason this works is an implication that the article doesn't explicitly cover: if you tell somebody you're going to to do something, you're not ask
by notatoad 4mo ago
i think the reason this works is an implication that the article doesn't explicitly cover:
if you tell somebody you're going to to do something, you're not asking them to take responsibility. you're telling them that you're taking responsibility for whatever you're going to do. If you ask somebody's permission, you're asking them to take some portion of responsibility for what you're doing.
which is the same risk that the sibling comment is warning about - if you're trying to do this for things that you aren't ultimately responsible for, you're goign to piss people off. only take responsibility for things that are actually within your area of responsibility.
- tyre 4mo agohuh, that's an interesting perspective. I've never thought of it that way. This framing could explain some of the bullshit I went through with a politicking manager and a less experienced leader. Personally, I tend to assume accountability for things I lead, but as a manager, of course, I am also responsible and accountable for my team; including both things I signed off on and things I didn't (because I entrusted that independence to them.) It's an interesting line to walk.
- torben-friis 4mo agoAbsolutely! This is a point that tends to kill introverted/insecure people I think. They assume that asking for permission is making things easier for people, but there's a limit where you're not allowing others to delegate responsibility onto you. Your job is for others to not have to think about the things you take care of.
- Chyzwar 4mo agoYou can only take responsibility if you also have ownership. Large organizations very quickly become like communist state, nobody own anything and any individual action is suspicious.
- rho138 4mo ago*failed communist state In proper function, ownership is an essential identity of any government.
- krapp 4mo agoThe end goal of communism is supposed to be the elimination of government - a stateless, classless and functionally anarchist society. Unsurprisingly no state which ever implemented communism ever took that part seriously.
- epolanski 4mo agoThere's many different communist philosophies.
- karmakurtisaani 4mo agoIndeed, makes all these discussions about communism so pointless.
- gacgacgac 4mo agoThis is the end goal of one form of communism, but certainly not the end goal of communism. Many communists want a strong state and see a single party as desirable.
- GMoromisato 4mo agoI would love to hear an example of a successful communist state. You can even restrict it to a limited period in time (USSR 1959-1968 or something). I promise that I will not try to discredit your answer. I'm just curious what people think. But if you come back with "the communism I have in mind hasn't been tried yet" then I will definitely make fun of your answer.
- epolanski 4mo agoAnother reason is that you're making a choice for them. We think we like more choices, but it's generally proven that having less makes it easier to decide. One path is: "fuck sake, I need to review all of this and make an informed decision". The other is: "If I have time I'll check it otherwise who cares". There's another benefit in the change of tone: you're preserving their authority, while at the same time making things easier.
- SwtCyber 4mo agoThe phrasing is not just a communication trick, it changes who owns the decision