What Grace Hopper meant with “easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission”
changelog.com
changelog.com
Can confirm. I have worked in the military and large corporations with draconian policies.
Any organization of that size tends to be bereaucratic in order to handle people at scale and therefore is resistant to change and out-of-the-box thinking even when it would greatly benefit the organization. Individuals and first-line managers are rarely empowered to make changes without several levels of approval.
Only after a new idea or process has been proven to be more effective will it be acknowledged as an option that the organization should consider for wider use throughout the organization. This is essentially part of the reason why larger organizations have more difficulty being innovative compared to smaller, more nimble organizations.
Maybe this only works in Norway..?
Whereas an employee of any kind is not usually hired for their outside the box recommendations, but only to put into action decisions already made for them. Thus when one has an innovative idea, the company feels it is in their best interest to doubt your idea and conservatively err on the side of caution, since it’s not what they hired you for and they can’t trust your competence in innovating like that.
In other words, employees are hired to keep the status quo and consultants are hired to decide what the status quo should be for the company’s best interests.
At least, this is the best explanation I can come up with based on what people have said and mingling philosophy. I’ve never worked at a huge corporation so I could be all wrong.
But my experience is from Sweden so maybe it only works in Scandinavia.
The guys I find I “fight” the most is often from OPS and in-house SW developers.
A lot of fancy terminology, web frameworks and looks beautiful but don’t get the real sh*t done that make the organization more effective or give them more money (compared to all the time used).
More often though, it's just the apocryphal story of the monkeys and the ladder that informs the organisation's behavior:
> This human behavior of not challenging assumptions reminds me of an experiment psychologists performed years ago. They started with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, they hung a banana on a string with a set of stairs placed under it. Before long, a monkey went to the stairs and started to climb towards the banana. As soon as he started up the stairs, the psychologists sprayed all of the other monkeys with ice cold water. After a while, another monkey made an attempt to obtain the banana. As soon as his foot touched the stairs, all of the other monkeys were sprayed with ice cold water. It's wasn't long before all of the other monkeys would physically prevent any monkey from climbing the stairs. Now, the psychologists shut off the cold water, removed one monkey from the cage and replaced it with a new one. The new monkey saw the banana and started to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attacked him. After another attempt and attack, he discovered that if he tried to climb the stairs, he would be assaulted. Next they removed another of the original five monkeys and replaced it with a new one. The newcomer went to the stairs and was attacked. The previous newcomer took part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, they replaced a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey tried to climb the stairs, he was attacked. The monkeys had no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they were beating any monkey that tried. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys had ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approached the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been around here
In other words, we simians can be stupid, but we aren’t that stupid.
Where things get really interesting is when we honestly can't tell or don't remember which cultural traditions are still relevant and why. Cultural evolution is often smarter than we are:
> And then there’s manioc. This is a tuber native to the Americas. It contains cyanide, and if you eat too much of it, you get cyanide poisoning. From Henrich:
> > In the Americas, where manioc was first domesticated, societies who have relied on bitter varieties for thousands of years show no evidence of chronic cyanide poisoning. In the Colombian Amazon, for example, indigenous Tukanoans use a multistep, multiday processing technique that involves scraping, grating, and finally washing the roots in order to separate the fiber, starch, and liquid. Once separated, the liquid is boiled into a beverage, but the fiber and starch must then sit for two more days, when they can then be baked and eaten. Figure 7.1 shows the percentage of cyanogenic content in the liquid, fiber, and starch remaining through each major step in this processing.
> > Such processing techniques are crucial for living in many parts of Amazonia, where other crops are difficult to cultivate and often unproductive. However, despite their utility, one person would have a difficult time figuring out the detoxification technique. Consider the situation from the point of view of the children and adolescents who are learning the techniques. They would have rarely, if ever, seen anyone get cyanide poisoning, because the techniques work. And even if the processing was ineffective, such that cases of goiter (swollen necks) or neurological problems were common, it would still be hard to recognize the link between these chronic health issues and eating manioc. Most people would have eaten manioc for years with no apparent effects. Low cyanogenic varieties are typically boiled, but boiling alone is insufficient to prevent the chronic conditions for bitter varieties. Boiling does, however, remove or reduce the bitter taste and prevent the acute symptoms (e.g., diarrhea, stomach troubles, and vomiting).
> > So, if one did the common-sense thing and just boiled the high-cyanogenic manioc, everything would seem fine. Since the multistep task of processing manioc is long, arduous, and boring, sticking with it is certainly non-intuitive. Tukanoan women spend about a quarter of their day detoxifying manioc, so this is a costly technique in the short term. Now consider what might result if a self-reliant Tukanoan mother decided to drop any seemingly unnecessary steps from the processing of her bitter manioc. She might critically examine the procedure handed down to her from earlier generations and conclude that the goal of the procedure is to remove the bitter taste. She might then experiment with alternative procedures by dropping some of the more labor-intensive or time-consuming steps. She’d find that with a shorter and much less labor-intensive process, she could remove the bitter taste. Adopting this easier protocol, she would have more time for other activities, like caring for her children. Of course, years or decades later her family would begin to develop the symptoms of chronic cyanide poisoning.
> > Thus, the unwillingness of this mother to take on faith the practices handed down to her from earlier generations would result in sickness and early death for members of her family. Individual learning does not pay here, and intuitions are misleading. The problem is that the steps in this procedure are causally opaque—an individual cannot readily infer their functions, interrelationships, or importance. The causal opacity of many cultural adaptations had a big impact on our psychology.
> > Wait. Maybe I’m wrong about manioc processing. Perhaps it’s actually rather easy to individually figure out the detoxification steps for manioc? Fortunately, history has provided a test case. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Portuguese transported manioc from South America to West Africa for the first time. They did not, however, transport the age-old indigenous processing protocols or the underlying commitment to using those techniques. Because it is easy to plant and provides high yields in infertile or drought-prone areas, manioc spread rapidly across Africa and became a staple food for many populations. The processing techniques, however, were not readily or consistently regenerated. Even after hundreds of years, chronic cyanide poisoning remains a serious health problem in Africa. Detailed studies of local preparation techniques show that high levels of cyanide often remain and that many individuals carry low levels of cyanide in their blood or urine, which haven’t yet manifested in symptoms. In some places, there’s no processing at all, or sometimes the processing actually increases the cyanogenic content. On the positive side, some African groups have in fact culturally evolved effective processing techniques, but these techniques are spreading only slowly.
Source: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/book-review-the-secret... (reviewing a book, which itself is most of the quoted material)
...
So yes, while it's cute to point out that you can easily gaslight a population of monkeys into behaving in a way that makes no sense, the mechanism that leads them to behave that way has an adaptive value that we misunderestimate at our peril.
Hopper popularized the term, but did not coin it.
> Grace Hopper did employ and help to popularize the expression by 1982, but it was already in circulation.[1]
> how they embarked on bold new marketing initiatives their bosses disapproved of
The point is not to ASK and have it disapproved, the point is to simply do it without asking. These sorts of "cowboy" activities are normally low to no budget items that have outsized (noticeable) impact.
> People like me don't get "asked to leave", we get fired.
Outside of personal vendettas and genuine incompetence it is hard to get fired.
> Plus, the activities of people like me are more closely tracked, and we are going to be noticed and corrected much earlier for going off script.
Yes, this is true, to an extent. The way you make your way up is not by just being a cog but by showing a fair degree of initiative and NOT rocking the boat.
Want to get promoted, judicious use of refactoring, and automation are the keys to getting noticed. If you're spending a small amount of time having a big impact people will notice. If you write some utility that takes a low grade complaint out of a team meeting your boss is going to notice it. These sorts of activities beget more freedom and more leeway for future endeavors.
You don't bet the company as a jr programer but you can have an impact within your team.
Even if your title doesn’t change or you don’t desire an official “promotion”, doing what you suggested is a way of being “more equal than others”. In my company, almost everyone comes to me for advice including management about areas that I have shown myself to be adept in. I get freedom to implement things and introduce technologies because of trust. Not only have I not gotten a promotion - I actively refused one.
Getting anything done in an organization means building the right relationships first. Building the right relationships is the difference between being able to ask the infrastructure guys to create some VMs for you in Slack, they do it immediately and then ask you to fill out a ticket and having to fill out the ticket and wait for two weeks.
The second part of that is “pre-wiring” - convincing one of two people of your idea, taking their objections into account and improving on your idea until you can make a convincing argument to your manager. It’s a lot easier to be in a technical meeting where you already have your coworkers buy in than one where you are fighting on multiple fronts.
Once you have the relationships, you have to convince people that you know what you’re doing by having a few successful projects under your belt. It’s a lot easier to convince people once you have a track record of success.
Role power in my experience is the least effective - especially in the software industry. If you don’t have the other two, it’s way too easy for people who report to you to jump ship.
Honestly, in today’s market for software developers. If you live in any major metropolitan area in the US (I’m in Atlanta) and you keep yourself marketable jobs are a dime a dozen. The last thing I worry about is long term unemployment - this has been true for the last two decades.
Theoretically, what you get paid is based on what it would take to find someone with your expertise and the additional value you bring to the company based on the relationships you built (it’s a lot easier to get something done when you have the relationships) and based on your knowledge about the business.
If they are willing to pay you 4x the average salary, they must respect your expertise enough to listen to you.
I can’t help but think you are either underestimating the influence you actually have in your company, your market value or both. If the company you are working for doesn’t value your opinion or insights, why would they be paying you 4x your market average?
I should clarify. My salary is not unique. Everyone who is lucky enough to work there is well paid – unrelated to the stock market. It is privately owned. I have been there for almost a decade and I have some big successes under my belt, but not enough to justify a similar salary at other companies.
Also, just out of curiosity, what skillset do you think you’re lacking after 10 years?
I'm manic. I can't produce reliably, and that means I can't present reliably. As I observe the industry grow I find communication is more and more the center of the job. Tech skills are table stakes. I need to prepare for big meetings days in advance with opportunity cost, etc.
By nature, I have almost no emotional intelligence and it held me back for the first 10 years of my career and so stayed at one company for almost a decade when I left after year 9, I was only making $7K more than year 2. But I wasn’t comfortable leaving because my skillset had atrophied and I knew my interpersonal skills sucked and I would probably be fired from anywhere else.
Over the next ten years and five jobs, I had to be very introspective and think about how I could do things differently. It took about seven years for me to get caught up with where I should be.
While I have learned how to build relationships and navigate through corporate America, I found at my last job where I was the dev lead, that I still sucked at communicating with non technical and differently technical (IT infrastructure) people and wasn’t great with management.
My only suggestion is reading the “48 Laws of Power” and ignore one or two of the less than ethical “laws” and listen to the Manager Tools/Career Tools podcast. They have podcasts that date back to 2005. The easiest way to navigate it is to download the Manager Tools app and go to the “Hall of Fame” section and then go to “Communication”. There are podcasts about “Prewiring a meeting”, the levers of power, and dealing with different personality types (DISC).
Funny, they keep rolling out more 'advanced' helpdesk software where I work to avoid building social connections. In the old days I got to know people, now there's no chance of that. There isn't even a name on the emails.
I think in the long run this really hurts the company. It also makes it much easier to be upset at the 'stupid help desk people' rather than individuals you know might just be having a bad day.
As soon as I got phase 1 completed of the project, I found another job as “just” a senior software engineer and the day I came in, immediately got full access to everything and admin credentials to our AWS accounts.
Before the IT gatekeepers respond about how crazy it is to give software engineers unfettered access to the production infrastructure, I was brought in partially for my AWS architectural experience (adult supervision), I negotiated not to be a team lead and I switch back and forth between development and cloud infrastructure depending on the day of the week.
That's where I think the post is weakest. That statement is an obviously immoral thing, but apart from a few people who genuinely don't care, most don't join a company that they see as doing obviously immoral things. They join them because they view the activity differently (such as, "breaking a monopoly that was harming the public to enrich a few"). So I think the whole idea of "don't use Grace Hopper's advice as an excuse to be an asshole" falls flat, because nobody thinks they are doing that. In my opinion, of course.
And those who think otherwise are not really innovators, but rather more or less traitors who wish to destroy the public good? Like that pesky Grace Hopper. And Uber (and every other startup in the last 10 years).
Got it! Thx.
Thank you for the challenge to clarify my thoughts.
Especially when we live in a world that is over-regulated and ungovernable and is led by record-settingly amoral and unethical "leaders". And this is true at local, state, federal government levels. But is also true of many large corporations which control more and more of our daily life.
Asking permission is not an effective strategy in these cases. Do what is right. And be brazzen. Show people how to take back their freedom. Screw the DCMA and hack your roomba, etc.!
Sadly to assume that morality and legality or ethics are tightly linked is becoming less and less often true. If the system wasn't broken they would be.
So you delay asking as long as possible so that you can present whatever it is as already successful, at which point the bureaucratic tendency to stasis is more on your side than against.
I'm sorry what was the question?
There must be some echo chamber that I am not familiar with. What is an example of this? Are people buying the Brooklyn bridge again?
I have wondered if tire pressure limits would be more effective at preserving the roads. Cars put about 35psi on the roads and trucks put 80-100psi.
Damage also occurs due to dynamic loading, which depends upon suspension, tire weight, weight shifts between axles, and braking action (frictional horizontal loads).
It means if you're going to do something risky, partner with someone at a higher level than you. If your idea is solid enough, they won't be too hard to find.
You have to read it with a knowledge of the context and history.
> ...whose primary business model is to take public goods and to turn them into private profits
First, those two statements are not at all the same.
Second, what constitutes "extrinsic cost" is subjective. If you go out and feed the homeless for a day, there is an extrinsic cost (to someone, somewhere) of the net sum of your activities. Judging whether or not the extrinsic cost is outweighed by the extrinsic is... Dangerous.
Third, ALL corporations, (private corporations, nonprofits and governments), and all humans (miners, manufacturers, writers, artists) take public goods and turn them into private goods, of course, not all of them profit, either by design or by execution. Taking public goods and turning them into private goods is what it means to transact in society.