5 ms·
It's not just "I don't know" that is important, but also the next part of the thought: "but I can find out." Just admitting you don't know is great, but it's n
by Jemaclus 13y ago
It's not just "I don't know" that is important, but also the next part of the thought: "but I can find out."
Just admitting you don't know is great, but it's not good enough. You have to also be able to take the next step and find out.
If I ask two people if they know how to do something, and one of them says "I don't know" and the other says "I don't know, but I can find out," then... well, I don't really need to complete that thought. You can see the difference right there.
But other than that, Jason is spot on. This is something I've been keeping an eye out for for years. When I interview people, I ask a question, and when they're clearly bullshitting me, I'll stop them and say, "It's okay if you don't know." The best candidates will often back down, like Jason did in his example, and say "Yeah, I don't really know, but I'll figure it out."
Bullshitting me with an answer isn't a red flag. It means you're at least thinking about the problem. But admitting you don't know but are willing to figure it out is a far, far superior answer. Very few real-world problems demand an answer RIGHT NOW. Most can wait until some research is done.
- joshdotsmith 13y agoI happen to be in Army Officer Candidate School at the moment, and this is how the majority of the selection and training process works. A lot of pressure for people to answer things right now, but most of us don't actually know the answer. Without fail, the most motivated and successful candidates are the ones who say "Sir, Officer Candidate ______, I don't know but I will have an answer to you by [hack time]."
- chris_mahan 13y agoHow can one know how long it will take to get an answer? That's just a lie of bravado, a pressure-driven estimate. It's horrible in a business environment. What happens is the person will give the first answer that makes sense, which, while the answer may be correct, discourages deep analysis of the problem. I never give estimates, to the great fury of my boss, but I told him I don't want to lie. Lying is unethical, and accepting a lie, or not calling out a liar, is encouraging unethical behavior. If someone tells me: "I'll have an answer, or: be done with the work, by a certain date/time, I shake my head, then reply: "Don't make promises. Just let me know when it's done."
- flebron 13y agoSo how do you handle any sort of software development planning? Do you just tell the client "It'll be done eventually. I'll let you know when.", or would you accept that reply from your employees?
- chris_mahan 13y agoThat's why agile is used: We'll show you what we have at an agreed upon time (1 week, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, whatever) and you can say "that's fine keep going" or "hmmm, we should change direction."
- joncrocks 13y agoBut even with agile, you have to have some kind of idea how long an overall project might take, otherwise how do you even decide if a project is worth starting? Estimating is hard, but it's an estimate. Problems usually arise when one gives an estimate of 'X days' and what the manager hears is 'It will take X days, and no longer.' An estimate will increase in accuracy the more you know, so if you don't feel comfortable giving an estimate, ask the question: "What information do I need to know to give me comfort for an estimate of Y% accuracy" and ask more questions.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> But even with agile, you have to have some kind of idea how long an overall project might take, otherwise how do you even decide if a project is worth starting? If each iteration is producing sufficient independent business value (e.g., not dependent on subsequent iterations), then you don't have to estimate the size of the "overall project" to determine if it is worth starting. That's actually a key part of the risk mitigation provided by agile/lean methods.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago> It's horrible in a business environment. That may be so, but the military environment is different. Officers need to be able to make good-enough decisions on the spot, without the benefit of careful consideration, because there might be a literal dead line, after which people die. Sometimes being in motion is more important than the actual direction.
- SilasX 13y agoReminds me of the (probably apocryphal) story about the military officer test that asks "How do you dig up a ditch?" where most candidates answer with detailed instructions about how dig it, when the "correct" answer is something like "I say, 'Private, dig me a ditch!'" The point being that, at that level, it's more important to know how to deploy your soldiers toward a goal as opposed to the low-level details of every individual task.
- benched 13y agoI think this is so absurdly overrated. It's like forcing a toddler to say thank you. "Now, subordinate/rival, What do we say?? I didn't hear the magic words! We need to find out, mmkay? Can you say you can find out?"
- flyinglizard 13y agoYou have a point (valid every time someone details the structured behavior he expects of other human beings), but you need people with initiative and positive thinking who can assume control of a situation outside their comfort zone. I'd go nuts working with someone who responded to issues with just "I don't know".
- megablast 13y ago> It's not just "I don't know" that is important, but also the next part of the thought: "but I can find out." This isn't about asking someone else to find out how to do it, this is about solving a problem, which may no solution. So saying, "but I can find out" it is comically ridiculous. Consider this, how are you going to solve the traveling salesman problem, for 10,000 nodes on your iPhone in 5 seconds? I don't know, but I can find out.