undefined | Better HN

0 pointsquotemstr28d ago0 comments

The point is that if you unite authority and responsibility in the same individual, you can move fast and confidently because you don't drain people's time and energy by making them "influence people". In a healthy organization, responsible people act and are held to account by their results. Democracy is a choice, not an obligation.

You're right that organizations do often become consensus-driven. It's a failure mode, not something to which we should aspire. And we certainly shouldn't tell people to deal with a shortfall of authority in an organization by becoming social slime balls that get their way through manipulating emotions and not atoms. People who advise doing this ruin good technologists by turning them into middling politicians.

"Disagree and commit" is a good thing. Escalating disagreement to a "single threaded owner" for a quick decision is a good thing. It avoids endless argumentation and aligns incentives the right way. Committees (formal or not) diffuse responsibility. Maturity is understanding that hierarchy is normal and desirable.

0 comments

sgarland28d ago

Nailed it. I often cite Admiral Rickover (USN), who among many other things, said this:

"Responsibility is a unique concept... You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you... If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else. Unless you can point your finger at the man who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible."

He was seen as an asshole who was difficult to work with, and while that's true, it's also true that without his leadership, it's doubtful the Navy would have launched their nuclear power program, nor would it have been as successful. He ran a dictatorship, with an absurd amount of direct reports, very little middle management, and it was wildly successful.

> "Disagree and commit" is a good thing.

> In a healthy organization, responsible people act and are held to account by their results.

The first is only true if the second is also true, but I'm sure you know that.

watwut28d ago

If you unify authority and responsibility into a single person, that one person can both both move fast and super slow. They can prevent any change at all or cause unreasonable amount of change.

Literally everyone else who wants to change something or keep it the same has to play politics as they try to influence this one person. But also, practically speaking, this one person still have to do a lot of politics. A single team leads with great power still struggle to enact the change. They encounter both open and hidden opposition. Their opposition is even frequently right. They also encounter misunderstanding, passive aggression, seeming compliance, passivity. Or simply people fully agreeing, being onboard and still doing things the old way out of intertie or organization pressures.

> You're right that organizations do often become consensus-driven.

I did not said that at all. I did not even said that it is bad when it happens. I said that the usual advice OP was given makes people feel good, but it is a bad advice for achieving the change.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse