3 ms·

Do NOT do this with your manager. The key part of this article is: > When you have something you want to do and that you feel is in scope for your position, bu

Do NOT do this with your manager. The key part of this article is: > When you have something you want to do and that you feel is in scope for your position, but you want a bit of reassurance or to let the boss know what you are up to, it’s common to reach out and ask them for permission. Don’t. Don’t ask for a yes. Instead, offer a chance to say no, but with a deadline. If something is not in scope for your responsibility, obviously you must ask for permission. If something is in scope for your responsibility, then just do the thing. If it's in some weird edge case where you "feel" it is "in scope for your position" but you "want a bit of reassurance", then pick a lane. Either do the thing or ask for permission. Probably default to asking for permission unless a knowledgeable colleague tells you it's your call. But setting some kind of deadline for your manager to opt-out is extremely disrespectful. If I ever had a report try to pull a stunt like that, it would be the first thing we'd talk about in our next 1-1. Because if you have a manager who usually responds promptly, then you can ask for permission and get a quick reply. "Asking for no" is not making it more convenient for your manager, it comes across as trying to usurp their authority. "Hey, I'm going to tell HR you gave approval for a raise unless I hear from you by noon." That's... just not how anything works. And if you have a manager who often misses e-mails or takes forever to respond, then it comes across as trying to take advantage of that to do stuff they wouldn't approve, in a sneaky way. This is a bad look in every possible situation. Do not do this. Like, if you're a journalist telling a source you'll print the story unless you get a correction by a deadline, OK fine. If you're looping in a peer as a courtesy (NOT a manager), then OK. But with your manager? That's crazy.

kstrauser 4mo ago
I think missing from these conversations is the work environments involved. At a large company, a lot of what you said is true. At a startup, almost everything is in scope for everyone. I mean, someone has to do the thing. Part of the ask-telling is broadly communicating "I'm doing this unless someone else has already started on it or strongly wishes to do it themselves." > And if you have a manager who often misses e-mails or takes forever to respond, then it comes across as trying to take advantage of that to do stuff they wouldn't approve, in a sneaky way. I strongly disagree with that. Such a person is not a good manager. Their job is to be on top of things and keep their reports unblocked. If their reports are stuck waiting on them, or they claim ignorance of things they've been told about but neglected, they're not doing their job and have to be routed around.
j-bos 4mo ago
> "Hey, I'm going to tell HR you gave approval for a raise unless I hear from you by noon." That's... just not how anything works. I haven't seen a strawman this big since the county corn maize.
corpoposter 4mo ago
> If something is not in scope for your responsibility, obviously you must ask for permission. Agree, but this can often be blurry. > If it's in some weird edge case where you "feel" it is "in scope for your position" but you "want a bit of reassurance", then pick a lane. I disagree here. I think there are often cases where this really functions as an "FYI" and is helpful. You are not shifting responsibility to the other party, but do... * CYA if they say they weren't informed * Get an opportunity for feedback without stalling progress in the case that they don't respond
jdlshore 4mo ago
This is a very strident response, presented with a lot of confidence, and I think that confidence is unwarranted. I haven’t read the article, so maybe it’s been covered, but here’s a simple way I usually “ask for no.” I send a message on Slack: “Hey (name), I’m planning to (do a thing) on Wednesday. Let me know if you have concerns.” It doesn’t come across as usurping authority, or sneaky, or any of the other very italicized things you’re worried about. It comes across as polite and confident. I’m a VP and this is how I expect my managers to interact with me on major decisions that are within their purview (I don’t need to hear about minor decisions) and it’s also the culture I’m trying to create at the team contributor level as well. Ownership and autonomy, within well-defined guardrails. See also Turn the Ship Around and its “I intend to” structure.
- smugglerFlynn 4mo ago
  The culture you are creating is actually the opposite: no ownership, and no autonomy You are delegating decisions that are in your responsibility to another person (=no ownership), and you are not able to progress unless someone else [even if silently] green lights your approach (=no autonomy). Another similar management anti-pattern is “please copy me on all your communications” [for a chance to override your decisions]. This one feels more obviously off for many people, but works exactly the same way. This is a valid team collaboration approach, but a major smell if people run their decision making like this with higher-ups. People often mix up these two.
  - IIsi50MHz 4mo ago
    Disagree. If this VP is delegating to direct reports things they should be capable of handling, that's normal. If a direct report informs this VP of intended action, it both keeps the VP informed and acknowledges that the VP might have other information that should alter the intended course. I'm assuming a trusted, competent direct report, and that the DR has chosen a timeframe that is reasonable give the situation. For example: Customer has a problem that will cause them to miss payroll on Friday. We've known about it since Tuesday morning. VP, DR & team spent Tuesday understanding the underlying problems. VP has found one of the issues is in a third-party product, who are notably resistant to believing they have a bug, and are prone to not deploying a fix until either the next major update or three months after first report. VP is working on a software fix that makes use of another esoteric behaviour of the third-party product to potentially prevent the current problem from recurring, but now expects to not be done before Thursday. DR & team spent Wednesday testing, and believe they can ensure payroll will be ontime by deploying a workaround Wednesday night, during the customer's existing maintenance window, where customer's I.T. group are known to be available for this issue. DP sends email to VP with intended course of action and known caveats. VP knows he can keep working on the longterm fix without the customer's ability to make payroll hinging on it. . o O ( The above actually happened, approximately thrice, due to different vendors committing shenanigans. It is abstracted from different customers. )
SwtCyber 4mo ago
I think this depends a lot on how the message is phrased and what kind of action we're talking about

kstrauser 4mo ago

I think missing from these conversations is the work environments involved. At a large company, a lot of what you said is true. At a startup, almost everything is in scope for everyone. I mean, someone has to do the thing. Part of the ask-telling is broadly communicating "I'm doing this unless someone else has already started on it or strongly wishes to do it themselves." > And if you have a manager who often misses e-mails or takes forever to respond, then it comes across as trying to take advantage of that to do stuff they wouldn't approve, in a sneaky way. I strongly disagree with that. Such a person is not a good manager. Their job is to be on top of things and keep their reports unblocked. If their reports are stuck waiting on them, or they claim ignorance of things they've been told about but neglected, they're not doing their job and have to be routed around.

j-bos 4mo ago

> "Hey, I'm going to tell HR you gave approval for a raise unless I hear from you by noon." That's... just not how anything works. I haven't seen a strawman this big since the county corn maize.

corpoposter 4mo ago

> If something is not in scope for your responsibility, obviously you must ask for permission. Agree, but this can often be blurry. > If it's in some weird edge case where you "feel" it is "in scope for your position" but you "want a bit of reassurance", then pick a lane. I disagree here. I think there are often cases where this really functions as an "FYI" and is helpful. You are not shifting responsibility to the other party, but do... * CYA if they say they weren't informed * Get an opportunity for feedback without stalling progress in the case that they don't respond

jdlshore 4mo ago

This is a very strident response, presented with a lot of confidence, and I think that confidence is unwarranted. I haven’t read the article, so maybe it’s been covered, but here’s a simple way I usually “ask for no.” I send a message on Slack: “Hey (name), I’m planning to (do a thing) on Wednesday. Let me know if you have concerns.” It doesn’t come across as usurping authority, or sneaky, or any of the other very italicized things you’re worried about. It comes across as polite and confident. I’m a VP and this is how I expect my managers to interact with me on major decisions that are within their purview (I don’t need to hear about minor decisions) and it’s also the culture I’m trying to create at the team contributor level as well. Ownership and autonomy, within well-defined guardrails. See also Turn the Ship Around and its “I intend to” structure.

smugglerFlynn 4mo ago
The culture you are creating is actually the opposite: no ownership, and no autonomy You are delegating decisions that are in your responsibility to another person (=no ownership), and you are not able to progress unless someone else [even if silently] green lights your approach (=no autonomy). Another similar management anti-pattern is “please copy me on all your communications” [for a chance to override your decisions]. This one feels more obviously off for many people, but works exactly the same way. This is a valid team collaboration approach, but a major smell if people run their decision making like this with higher-ups. People often mix up these two.
- IIsi50MHz 4mo ago
  Disagree. If this VP is delegating to direct reports things they should be capable of handling, that's normal. If a direct report informs this VP of intended action, it both keeps the VP informed and acknowledges that the VP might have other information that should alter the intended course. I'm assuming a trusted, competent direct report, and that the DR has chosen a timeframe that is reasonable give the situation. For example: Customer has a problem that will cause them to miss payroll on Friday. We've known about it since Tuesday morning. VP, DR & team spent Tuesday understanding the underlying problems. VP has found one of the issues is in a third-party product, who are notably resistant to believing they have a bug, and are prone to not deploying a fix until either the next major update or three months after first report. VP is working on a software fix that makes use of another esoteric behaviour of the third-party product to potentially prevent the current problem from recurring, but now expects to not be done before Thursday. DR & team spent Wednesday testing, and believe they can ensure payroll will be ontime by deploying a workaround Wednesday night, during the customer's existing maintenance window, where customer's I.T. group are known to be available for this issue. DP sends email to VP with intended course of action and known caveats. VP knows he can keep working on the longterm fix without the customer's ability to make payroll hinging on it. . o O ( The above actually happened, approximately thrice, due to different vendors committing shenanigans. It is abstracted from different customers. )

SwtCyber 4mo ago

I think this depends a lot on how the message is phrased and what kind of action we're talking about