You can't get permission for the wrong thing and don't need it for the right thing(brookeallen.com)
brookeallen.com
You can't get permission for the wrong thing and don't need it for the right thing
http://brookeallen.com/pages/archives/1300
19 comments
Don't most of the problems come up in the excluded middle? Things where people are doing things that they think are right but then, through their ignorance or otherwise, have negative consequences that would have been foreseeable by others.
Maybe you have a suggestion for improving the operation of a drill-press, but you still ask for permission on improving it because maybe other people have more knowledge than you do about why things were done in a certain way, as well as seeing potential pitfalls of your new way.
Maybe you have a suggestion for improving the operation of a drill-press, but you still ask for permission on improving it because maybe other people have more knowledge than you do about why things were done in a certain way, as well as seeing potential pitfalls of your new way.
You are correct in that you accurately describe the problem and human behavior.
What Jeb taught me that day was that I should put a lot more effort into thinking about what is right and wrong and not assume that just because everyone around me is doing something - or it has always been done that way - that it is right in a moral, legal, or ethical sense.
But if it is not illegal, immoral, or unethical in its implementation or in its consequences then why not try? All you risk is failure. So what?
Many people's sense of ethics really boils down to their selfish interests. They don't blow the whistle until they are denied a raise but until then they don't mind lying to clients, for example.
There are people who tell me that how I hire people is "wrong" because many of my job prospects put in a lot of work learning something that did not lead to a job.
But, look guys, I'm a nerd and a maker. I love learning things for its own sake and making stuff of no use to anyone. I was just looking for fellow nerds and makers and I started out saying that as long as we were not doing anything illegal, immoral, or unethical let's just hunker down and do something hard and fun together.
Some people thought that was BS and dropped out. So, "bye bye." The rest of my candidates just wanted to learn and yet many didn't cut it. So what? Trying to learn something and failing is no sin.
And then they take grief from friends, and the general public: "You loser... you wasted your time and nothing came of it (i.e. no job)."
That's another thing; we nerds take a lot of shit from idiots.
I did not care then and I still do not care that much what people think of me. I care whether I am doing the right thing or the wrong thing.
And I did not care about EVERYONE I did not hire.
But I sure cared about those people who put in the effort whether I could hire them or not because they are MY people.
What Jeb taught me that day was that I should put a lot more effort into thinking about what is right and wrong and not assume that just because everyone around me is doing something - or it has always been done that way - that it is right in a moral, legal, or ethical sense.
But if it is not illegal, immoral, or unethical in its implementation or in its consequences then why not try? All you risk is failure. So what?
Many people's sense of ethics really boils down to their selfish interests. They don't blow the whistle until they are denied a raise but until then they don't mind lying to clients, for example.
There are people who tell me that how I hire people is "wrong" because many of my job prospects put in a lot of work learning something that did not lead to a job.
But, look guys, I'm a nerd and a maker. I love learning things for its own sake and making stuff of no use to anyone. I was just looking for fellow nerds and makers and I started out saying that as long as we were not doing anything illegal, immoral, or unethical let's just hunker down and do something hard and fun together.
Some people thought that was BS and dropped out. So, "bye bye." The rest of my candidates just wanted to learn and yet many didn't cut it. So what? Trying to learn something and failing is no sin.
And then they take grief from friends, and the general public: "You loser... you wasted your time and nothing came of it (i.e. no job)."
That's another thing; we nerds take a lot of shit from idiots.
I did not care then and I still do not care that much what people think of me. I care whether I am doing the right thing or the wrong thing.
And I did not care about EVERYONE I did not hire.
But I sure cared about those people who put in the effort whether I could hire them or not because they are MY people.
> But if it is not illegal, immoral, or unethical in its implementation or in its consequences then why not try? All you risk is failure. So what?
I think maybe it's the tendency when bad things happen for people to go "why? who's fault was this?". And if they can find something that feels to them like it could have been avoided in hindsight, they're going to lash out.
Even in the nerd world, think of when a non-technical friend or relative goes and installs some random free program off the Internet that they thought would help them with their job. And as usual these things come loaded with miscellaneous adware and other garbage. They were just trying to take the initiative to solve a problem that they had on their own by downloading this tool, but it's very frustrating to have to go and clean up their mess when they did something that feels "obviously stupid" even though they didn't know better.
I guess I just feel that while we live in a world where anybody can go "I told you so" when you mess up, and then get a whole lot of other people to agree that your failures were more that a mere mistake but instead negligence, we're going to be stuck with this burden of process and approval committee any time someone shows initiative.
I think maybe it's the tendency when bad things happen for people to go "why? who's fault was this?". And if they can find something that feels to them like it could have been avoided in hindsight, they're going to lash out.
Even in the nerd world, think of when a non-technical friend or relative goes and installs some random free program off the Internet that they thought would help them with their job. And as usual these things come loaded with miscellaneous adware and other garbage. They were just trying to take the initiative to solve a problem that they had on their own by downloading this tool, but it's very frustrating to have to go and clean up their mess when they did something that feels "obviously stupid" even though they didn't know better.
I guess I just feel that while we live in a world where anybody can go "I told you so" when you mess up, and then get a whole lot of other people to agree that your failures were more that a mere mistake but instead negligence, we're going to be stuck with this burden of process and approval committee any time someone shows initiative.
All you risk is failure. So what?
Others may have a stake in your failure. The risk may not be yours alone.
Others may have a stake in your failure. The risk may not be yours alone.
Others like who? Parents, say? My parents would probably be more concerned if I were unwilling to try something out of fear of failure than if I tried and failed.
Or others like investors? Tell them the truth about risk up front. Also, don't use people like parents as first-stage investors - it can get way too nasty if you fail.
People like spouses and children are a special case. If I chase a startup idea and fail, my spouse may share in the financial hit. I know, "For richer, for poorer", but she may not be comfortable with that risk, and is entitled to me being sensitive to how she feels about this. (If you're married, don't go into a startup without your spouse's full support.)
Or others like investors? Tell them the truth about risk up front. Also, don't use people like parents as first-stage investors - it can get way too nasty if you fail.
People like spouses and children are a special case. If I chase a startup idea and fail, my spouse may share in the financial hit. I know, "For richer, for poorer", but she may not be comfortable with that risk, and is entitled to me being sensitive to how she feels about this. (If you're married, don't go into a startup without your spouse's full support.)
I have a manager precisely because I need to not know everything my work impacts; my head is full enough with what I'm doing to make this app work without pursuing perfect knowledge of how coworkers, customers, sales, marketing, investors, etc all fit in with decisions. I may be directed to do "not the right thing" not because someone is stupid, but because I don't know (and don't need to know) some of the interactions & consequences of doing it (say, spending another day refining a process means good chance of losing a potential major customer).
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Douglas Adams, H2G2
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Douglas Adams, H2G2
I think there is a hidden lesson there. Jeb spent months working on the drill press, he knew exactly what his job was, he'd probably come up with most, if not all of the downsides to his suggested improvement.
Too often someone with an automation mindset will see an task and decide that it can be automated without actually understanding half of what the task involves.
Too often someone with an automation mindset will see an task and decide that it can be automated without actually understanding half of what the task involves.
> "Too often someone with an automation mindset will see an task and decide that it can be automated without actually understanding half of what the task involves."
Depressingly common. And also depressingly futile to argue against sometimes.
Person tries to automate something they don't understand. They come up with simple, elegant "solution" that fails to address half of what the task involves. When presented people are, naturally, "what about X?", where X is important and addressed in the previous solution, and not at all addressed in the simpler, more elegant new solution.
Cue blog post where automator complains about how "management" piled on "edge cases" "at the last minute".
Depressingly common. And also depressingly futile to argue against sometimes.
Person tries to automate something they don't understand. They come up with simple, elegant "solution" that fails to address half of what the task involves. When presented people are, naturally, "what about X?", where X is important and addressed in the previous solution, and not at all addressed in the simpler, more elegant new solution.
Cue blog post where automator complains about how "management" piled on "edge cases" "at the last minute".
The problem is often that the project is underspecified from the beginning, people are very bad at specifying their requirements. I think this is because the edge cases can seem so obvious for someone experienced in X that they don't see the need to mention them.
I've experienced situations like that on the other foot, where the people above me are saying "We will spend our money on X to solve our problem", when it was obviously not an adequate solution. It really makes you feel like your expertise doesn't matter and that the captains are happy to run the ship into the rocks, so long as they are the ones who get to steer.
> Too often someone with an automation mindset will see an task and decide that it can be automated without actually understanding half of what the task involves.
I know I've been guilty of this. The only solution I've found--be humble and ask as many questions as you can. (I guess working in the job for a few months is another solution, but sometimes that is a luxury you can't afford.)
I know I've been guilty of this. The only solution I've found--be humble and ask as many questions as you can. (I guess working in the job for a few months is another solution, but sometimes that is a luxury you can't afford.)
I think the key point is that knowing the right thing to do is more important that asking for permission. Thinking this way puts you in charge of your own life and the consequences of your actions.
It's an algorithm that leads you to check that you actually DO know the right thing, before you take action. Crucial distinction here: that's education, not permission. It's the difference between asking "can I change this thing?" and "why is this thing the way it is?" Or "can you help me think through a new idea?"
Too often, asking permission is a just way of transferring responsibility and therefore blame--a CYA maneuver. "I was just doing what I was told," can be a convenient excuse, but not really a good way to grow personally.
It's an algorithm that leads you to check that you actually DO know the right thing, before you take action. Crucial distinction here: that's education, not permission. It's the difference between asking "can I change this thing?" and "why is this thing the way it is?" Or "can you help me think through a new idea?"
Too often, asking permission is a just way of transferring responsibility and therefore blame--a CYA maneuver. "I was just doing what I was told," can be a convenient excuse, but not really a good way to grow personally.
I don't get why that Bootlegger K-turn is less likely to lead to a crash. Don't you risk a crash while backing up from A to B? But with a regular K-turn, if you make a tighter turn while backing up from A to B you can stay on the safe side of the road the entire time.
The primary advantage of that Bootlegger K-turn seems to be speed: by swerving across the opposite side of the road, you can make a quick turn into the side street, and then you don't have to make a tight reverse turn to get out. Less turn -> more speed. But if I'm worried about a crash, I'd rater stay on the opposite side of the street.
The primary advantage of that Bootlegger K-turn seems to be speed: by swerving across the opposite side of the road, you can make a quick turn into the side street, and then you don't have to make a tight reverse turn to get out. Less turn -> more speed. But if I'm worried about a crash, I'd rater stay on the opposite side of the street.
Backing up is relatively fast, especially when you are running from the cops. But you can't avoid the time you need to reverse at B, which is the most likely moment the cops will catch up with you. So it's better to be at the other side of the road then.
Funny how we think differently: I looked at the drawings and immediately saw why he reversed that way, even before I read the explanation.
Funny how we think differently: I looked at the drawings and immediately saw why he reversed that way, even before I read the explanation.
It's to do with how close the cops are following. The bootlegger turn uses the opposite lane for more time and spends time in the existing lane at the start of the turn, rather than at the end with the regular turn.
So it's about reducing the amount of time your in the same lane as the cops behind you, and making sure that the time spent in that lane is before they catch up.
So it's about reducing the amount of time your in the same lane as the cops behind you, and making sure that the time spent in that lane is before they catch up.
don't need it for the right thing
That's presuming you have all the relevant information, which is typically not the case in a larger organization.
That's presuming you have all the relevant information, which is typically not the case in a larger organization.
When I read the title I honestly thought this was an article on Unix permissions. Got pleasantly surprised by a great story instead.
Great story. Thanks for the morning inspiration.
In wading through all the comments I categorize the reactions into two camps:
1) That's cool. 2) You're asking too much.
I am preparing an essay addressing most of the issues but I thought I'd share my thoughts on inventiveness because, after all, what happened was that my job candidates and I together invented a new process; nothing had been pre-planned.
My dad told me the secret to success was to not be evil (way before google). He didn't care if I became rich but he would be ashamed of me if I were evil.
This story from a someone who picked me up hitchhiking really makes a point about the relationship between good, evil, and inventiveness. Hope you like it.
(Original HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8859199)