I agree with the author's point here. I've long considered it a red flag if I've been contacted by someone to do something for them, but then get pawned off on someone else to work out the details.

That tells me either that the person who contacted me is just being used for their name -- in which case I'm being manipulated -- or that the organization is so large and bureaucratic that I'm going to have further complications dealing with them.

> Would he still write the same if the ceo used a bot to perfectly impersonate the ceo?

I don't know about the author, but I would consider this to be even worse.

I will agree with you 1000% that I really hate getting pawned off. But I don’t think you can draw a particular conclusion from it. A lot of times ceos just want their team to get their arms around things quickly. There’s no reason you can’t Come back to the ceo and maintain a direct line of contact. I find that often if there’s a particular process for accessing the ceo, it’s much better to learn it and leverage it. I just don’t think there’s much to be gained by getting offended by how someone chooses to organize themselves. Better that than the person who over commits and flakes half the time.

What about people like me who literally just don’t know our own calendar? I mean I know that it’s near full and I know there are still open slots, but it’s just too inefficient to start trying to plan a date with someone else when I don’t know either of the two calendars I’m trying to find a common hole in. Why not just pass that off to the person who actually knows my calendar?

Efficiency and human relationships don't necessarily go together. I agree with the author that delegating the contact for a meeting where you are asking for help comes off like you're not invested. It's just a perception; it might not reflect the reality of the situation. But that's how it strikes me.

I'd argue that you could probably just look up your calendar in whatever system your assistant uses.

Or just not get po’d by it.

I know some people have busy lives and back-to-back meetings. I'm not one of them. I'm having trouble understanding why they need someone to do their scheduling for them.

Shared electronic calendar software has been around for a while now, and there's only so many hours in the day...

What am I missing that means you can't personally schedule your own time with a customer or supplier ?

Isn't it just a case of opening your calendar app and finding a mutually agreeable half hour in there somewhere ?

That falls under the "too bureaucratic" item I listed. I'm not saying that your practice is wrong and shouldn't be used, I'm saying that it is a sign that I'm more likely to have further difficulties with your company and makes it less likely that I'll take part.

EDIT: There is a way to accomplish the same end result without triggering my spidey-sense, though... it's for the too-busy executive (such as yourself) to not be the one to contact me. Have a more-available subordinate be my primary contact from the get-go. They can then arrange a meeting with the executive as a sort of side benefit. That way, the person that I have the relationship with is the one who has time for that interaction, and I won't be getting "pawned off".

If you don't know your own calendar, then I do not want to talk to you.

I would rather talk to the person who knows and controls your calendar. They are the true source of power and they are the one who can actually get things accomplished.