Carl Braun on communicating like a grown-up (2016)
fs.blog
fs.blog
The military requires that orders show "commander's intent". This matters when circumstances change and some subordinate has to adapt the plan. "The enemy gets a vote." Officers and noncoms are then expected to change plans to achieve the commander's intent by other means. It's not about blind obedience.
USMC doctrine:
Mission tactics are just as the name implies: the tactic of assigning a subordinate mission without specifying how the mission must be accomplished. We leave the manner of accomplishing the mission to the subordinate, thereby allowing him the freedom and establishing the duty to take whatever steps he deems necessary based on the situation.
The senior prescribes the method of execution only to the degree that is essential for coordination. It is this freedom for initiative that permits the high tempo of operations that we desire. Uninhibited by restrictions from above, the subordinate can adapt his actions to the changing situation. He informs his commander what he has done, but he does not wait for permission.
It is obvious that we cannot allow decentralized initiative with- out some means of providing unity, or focus, to the various efforts. To do so would be to dissipate our strength. We seek unity, not through imposed control, but through harmonious initiative and lateral coordination.
We achieve this harmonious initiative in large part through the use of the commander’s intent. There are two parts to a mission: the task to be accomplished and the reason, or intent. The task describes the action to be taken while the intent describes the desired result of the action. Of the two, the intent is predominant. While a situation may change, making the task obsolete, the intent is more permanent and continues to guide our actions. Under- standing our commander’s intent allows us to exercise initiative in harmony with the commander’s desires.[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_paragraph_order
[2] https://theusmarines.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/FMFM_1-1.pd...
The military definitely standardizes the details. Anybody who's been in the military knows this. Here's the US Navy/USMC guide to formatting correspondence and memos.[1] They use Times New Roman. (Upgraded in 2018 from Courier New.)
Consistency in the details means that the failure modes are known. This is a big help when you have to bring everything you need.
[1] https://www.marines.mil/portals/1/Publications/SECNAV%20M%20...
James Beniger and JoAnne Yates are amongst two scholars who've studied and written on this in detail. Beniger's book, The Control Revolution (1986) particularly.
I've had jobs where my mission parameters were outlined (we gotta achieve X by Y date) and I've had jobs that were vague opportunity areas (here's a team of X people, we think there's an opportunity in Y, see what you can do). The "worst" is I've had managers that asked me a ton of annoying questions to make sure I've done my due diligence, which in retrospect I appreciate.
So I guess that's to say, at least some "civilian jobs" offer that indeed so don't be discouraged - hopefully you will eventually be in one that gives you more latitude.
Edward Deci's Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation is a great book on this.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder
If you don't know their motives, assume good motives or good faith. But if they explicitly tell you they have hostile motives or the preponderance of the evidence suggests such, continuing to assume good faith amounts to cutting your own throat.
Some people would like to see themselves as good people with good intentions but all too often their actions are actively counterproductive, a la The Shirky Principle that organizations tend to keep alive the problem they were created to address.
Some people just have broken mental models and then fail to update them when their efforts consistently prove "this does not actually work." We all make mistakes, but if you keep making the same mistake without any improvement, at some point others should stop making excuses for you.
Put Error to Work
> But let’s never, never, cover up error with the misguided thought that we must protect someone — either our brother, or our department, or our own pet ego. The recognition of error and its examination, if openly talked of, is a sure way to avoid its being repeated, either by the same man or by others. Everyone errs at one time or another. The Company pays for it. Okay. But the Company should not have to pay twice. Nor should other men be denied the benefit of warning-signs.
I think most people have good motives based on their world view and this will work.
Assuming good motives can help you uncover them.
For example the “asshole” at work who seems to be blocking you - they might have good reasons you can explore.
Of course their are liars, scammers, psychopaths. If possible cut ties otherwise you have to consider dealing with them tactically.
None if this is easy though!
But "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time" is also true.
... you don't have to assume, right? So I see no reason it is overly contradicting and would render that rule void.
Over here, to assume good faith is required by law to be the standard mode, you have to expect it otherwise society would crumble. IMHO you can't take and stress this far enough, and I can't imagine where it can be taken too far. But yes, please don't ignore your intellect.
It's a stock phrase, but it gained popularity online because of its use in Wikipedia. HN hadn't existed yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Assume_...
Good advice for job applications. “I’m grateful for this opportunity” is common-place but so much less appealing than “I’m confident we’re going to get great results”.
> A somewhat more subtle form of negation, is refinement of measurement. One man says that a tank weights ninety tons. And for that particular discussion, accuracy is of no consequence. Yet someone’s ego speaks up and says, Ninety-two tons. Maybe he’s right at that. But he’s wrong just the same. […] This is a favorite husband-and-wife game. Let’s be on guard against it.
> The worst trick our ego can play on us, is to demand that we know everything. Let’s discipline ourselves until it’s easy to say, I don’t know. And let’s keep out of discussions when they’re on subjects outside of our recognized sphere. Our lack of real knowledge and experience is bound to display itself, and bring resentment from those who are really qualified to speak. Let’s slap our ego down whenever it starts laying claim to knowledge that’s too various.
> If we want our opinions or beliefs to be accepted, the worst thing that we can do is to press too hard for them, or to make a personal issue of them. Better not crowd for acceptance, but rather invite it. Better tender our advice with a softening It seems to me. Or an It appears. Or a Perhaps. Or with some similar concession to the ideas of our listener. True, there are times when we must speak as authorities in no uncertain terms. Even then, reasonable humility is seldom amiss.
> With our eye on our brother’s ego, we’ll see that concession is the very cornerstone of good human relations. We cannot reach human agreements without mutual concession. The self-respect that every man feels impelled to maintain, demands that he appear at least partly right. Therefore, let’s not ever try to prove anyone wholly wrong. Let’s find something herein we can feel that he’s right. Then let’s say so. We simply must not build up our own ego at any unnecessary expense of our brother’s ego. Let’s keep an eye on concession.
Growing up, all my self worth was tied to knowing everything. Several years ago I decided to work on that by publicly admitting to not knowing something every day for a month.
It turned out to be one of the best personal growth exercises I've done and led to a lot of professional success. It's actually quite emotionally freeing.
It also turns out that many of the people whose feathers get ruffled if they think their spot in the intellectual pecking order is being threatened will bend over backwards to help you if approached as a mentor. They don't think you're an idiot for asking, they generally love helping (assuming you are actually competent and not asking about basic shit every day).
Talking about our limitations is extremely important. Ignoring them can lead to very bad outcomes.
I think we should do this more.
The following is the opening quote from Ray Dalio's book and it's what sold me on working for him:
“Before I begin telling you what I think, I want to establish that I’m a “dumb shit” who doesn’t know much relative to what I need to know. Whatever success I’ve had in life has had more to do with my knowing how to deal with my not knowing than anything I know.”
When others do not do it and "overshout" in meetings, I often cringe. So I am trying to be extremely conscious of when that person is me.
But honestly I think all those things are just one half of the story. He favours a quieter approach, which I could image lead to being overseen.
With a new axis for communication (phones with constant internet access) all these rules have been discarded forever.