It's also easier to give forgiveness than permission, especially in an institutional context. Forgiveness after the fact doesn't imply approval of the act the way permission beforehand does.
Which makes me wonder, are there cultures wherein permission is easy, but forgiveness is not?
See "The influence of Arab culture on Arab military effectiveness", Kenneth D. Pollack (https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/11219). Pollack pulls up examples that don't even involve materially superior Western armies, such as conflicts against ill-equipped Iranian, Kurdish, or Sub-Saharan African forces.
Sounds really interesting, any examples?
An excerpt is below; what I can say from my understanding is that upper echelons of officers are deliberately understaffed, and superiors are encouraged to give general objectives (or sometimes even just areas of operation) to their subordinates rather than detailed orders; and much planning and communication is done peer-to-peer among officers of the same rank.
========
Among the many lessons that can be taken from the history of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) in combat, one key issue is the high degree of officer casualties, often proportionally up to three times higher than enlisted casualty rates. Hence, leaders in the IDF regard initiative as not just a point of pride, but an absolute necessity to overcome leader casualties during battle. IDF Officer Candidates undergo training designed to force them to develop initiative (some of these training techniques will be recommended in the final chapter). In training, it is also emphasized that the commander will accomplish his mission according to the general spirit of the command. Additionally, IDF standing orders promote initiative (as well as aggressiveness an ' offensive spirit):
1. When orders can't get through, assume what the orders would be.
2. When in doubt, hit out. The short route to safety is the road to the enemy hill.
The stat about 3x officers casualty rate is surprising, I would have imagined the enlisted would generally become cannon-fodder (for lack of a less demeaning word). I guess that's what makes the Israeli forces unique.
That's not how I've seen "ask forgiveness" used in industry. Usually it's a self-confident maverick who goes off and does something that breaks the rules of organisation or process. I did it once; I thought I was doing the company a favour. Information Security came down on me like a ton of bricks, with good reason, and I nearly lost my job. There was no forgiveness. The Director ensured that it was well publicised and a lot of people learned from my hubris.
The phrase is a crock and should never enter your mind. If you're sure Your Way is best, ask for permission or get consensus. If you get neither, lodge your protest with your superiors and get on with something else. Then in a year's time perhaps people will look back and consider you a visionary, or a hot-headed fool...
That said I think your cautionary tale is really valuable and your uncompromising view toward the phrase actually serves to emphasize how serious everyone should take it. If I were you I wouldn’t change a thing. Actions can have real and sometimes dangerous consequences.
We should always try to understand what we’re putting at risk (as much as we can) so at the very least we can weigh the unknown risks even when asking permission. If you can’t even list the risks off mentally that’s probably a good sign that you should stick to asking permission.
Perhaps the entirety of the European continent (or most of the world re: Germany) fighting back meant the war was essentially unwinnable no matter what, but perhaps the successes they did have were due to the process they used.
I do agree that trying to draw business practice conclusions from the very different military setting. This includes the quote of the OP.
Stealing that.
(Assuming you didn't actually mean "wax poetic"?)
I could have used the US as an example too, as well as Russia by the end of world war 2, they went on to have a bit too loose of a command structure with their nuclear arsenal.
I don't know that I agree with any of this argument trying to relate business practices to military practices -- civilians and soldiers have some fundamental differences -- just trying to imagine it philosophically.
In what way were these successful warfighting organizations exemplars of the merits and nurturing of independent thought and initiative, though?
In WW2 that generally was up until the squad level, with a focus on NCOs (non-officers leading ~10 men) taking initiative; in earlier times infantry required a bit larger formations to be able to fight efficiently, so initiative of relativerly lower-ranking officers.
Not only does it apply in a company setting but if you were to build something on your property without permission from neighbours / government you will have to tear it down and face the fines even if in the end no one have an actual problem with it.
Like "planning permission"? Don't they have this everywhere?
Seems fair enough to me. Built structures have such an impact on the environment it absolutely makes sense to regulate construction.
Fences don't require planning permission nor do temporary structures [0].
If you build a house without seeking permission though they will make you tear it down again.
[0] http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-planning/frequen...
It would mostly tie in with European environmental regulations too.
That's not to say these regulations are flauted from time to time, or if you were out of site on your own estate you could do what you want. But there have been cases of people being told to demolish their houses.
Here's an example [0] where it should be clear why planning laws are needed ...
[0] https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme...
For example, here in the US teenagers usually tell their parents that they are going out. In my culture, teenagers usually ask their parents if they can go out.
And I cannot remember ever been denied when I was teenager. I think if I had simply told my parents that I was going out, they would have stopped me to ask more question or even stopped me from going out.
It's the degree to which people in a society capitulate to power and to which those in power are aloof to their subordinates.
There are some very interesting patterns in that measurement indeed.
[0] http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimen...
Weird dances like that are one of the reasons why it's difficult for foreigners to fit in :-)
Western cultures have them too but they are so ingrained you don't notice them. This video highlights some of the more interesting ones (e.g. refusing to accept an apology being offensive): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfO9gL28pAs
I didn't catch that. He only offered a somewhat contrived example of it being rude to "take back" an apology (which is, of course, not a thing) after being told it "wasn't owed".
His thesis was, AFAICT, that this is an example of empty gestures, that we don't really mean it.
However, that falls flat with the apology example. An apology that is actually sincere isn't something that can be taken back, so it could only be empty if it were insincere, and in his anecdote, he did not even imply insincincerity.
He talks about the words not making sense when analyzes, which I assume is in reference to the fact that "you don't owe me an apology" sounds like a rejection of the apology, but, it isn't. If it's truthful and can be interpreted literally, then no offense was taken in the first place. If it's untruthful, then offense was taken but the apology was accepted (and presumably the insincerety was a lie told to spare further bad feelings). Either way, no offense remained on the part of the apology recipient.
None of that was empty gesture, and there was only one opportunity for lying to spare someone's feelings (though this was not called out in the video).
The rest was about Japan and the old Soviet bloc.
I think you need to come up with a better example of a "weird dance" in Western culture, preferably with more observers than just the (usually two) participants.
That's a really loaded and almost certainly inaccurate premise.