Comment by saghm
4 days ago
> These two statements are at odds. You first assuming that lack of trust would be the only reason he needs to know what happens next, then go on to outline another reason he and the larger organization would both benefit from knowing more.
But doesn't that same logic apply to whether they need to know the details?
> whether they need to know the details
No. Leaderships job in this context is to set expectations of what happens next and to drive the team towards a solution that meets those expectations. No amount of trust magically makes that expectation materialize or for it to be met.
Leadership doesn't need to know what happened to set this expectation and then trust their team - who already know the details - to figure out how to meet what's expected.
Perhaps my favorite quote ever about leadership is that it's about holding a vision long enough for others to realize it for themselves, but you can't do that if you dictate and micromanage.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying there's literally no reason for a leader to need to know the details ever unless they don't trust the people implementing the plan. I don't agree with that at all.
That is not at all what was said.
Leaders have the option of trusting subordinates, then operating at a higher level. However part of the job of a leader is to decide who to trust, with what. And why.
Sometimes that means, "Trust, but verify." The leader will spot check randomly to see that the whole is good.
Often, as here, that means, "Trust in some things, but not others." The leader in this case trusted the technical person to produce an accurate description of what happened. But didn't trust that same person to arrive at a solution that met the business of having a similar disaster not happen the next time.
But rather than undermine the tech person with, "I don't trust you to meet the business need," the leader communicated it with, "I trust you on the technical details, but here is the expectation for what you need to produce."
1 reply →
What do you think knowing the details will do for the person in the leadership position? It doesn't change what needs to be done, it doesn't change what has been done, all it usually does it put a monkey on the leaders back that's best kept with the team that created it.
Worse it invites bike shedding most of the time, where folks sit in a room nitpicking pointless details that's cathartic for the people in charge, but once again, doesn't actually do anything productive.
Leaders should not need to know every single detail (ie how this incident happens, or all the tiny process changes that are happening toward their visions). That is different than knowing nothing in detailed.
The baseline expectation in the original post also applies to the SVP: he knew enough to know that things aren't unreasonable to start with, this expectation might not apply to all companies.
4 replies →
Now that's a textbook strawman
1 reply →
Given your difficulty in groking this concept further down thread, I think it's worth asking you to explain what logic you're trying to apply here.
Per my reply below:
> The statement I initially responded to was "You first assuming that lack of trust would be the only reason he needs to know what happens next, then go on to outline another reason he and the larger organization would both benefit from knowing more". I pointed out that the same logic seems like it would apply to the idea that there might be other reasons why a leader might need to know the details.
I'm genuinely confused why this is apparently not clear. Someone said that it's flawed logic to assume there aren't good reasons beyond a lack of trust to want to know next steps. I'm saying it seems reasonable there could be good reasons beyond a lack of trust to want to know the details of the current step. You're saying that I'm finding it difficult to "grok this concept", but I don't even know what concept you're talking about, because none of the responses seem to have been related to this, and I don't understand what anyone else could think I've been saying.