What about:

- If I don’t hear back from you in [N] days, I am not going to do XYZ, considering you don't deem it to be important.

>this cargo cult behavior of citing Amazon's leadership principles

Technical principles too: microservices. Firm size follow a Zipf distribution, thus in most case the decision was made it wasn't necessary and actually slowed down development.

That's also passive-aggrsssive.

"I have scheduled beginning $X on $Date. Documentation:... Please remit any feedback, please and thank you"

And in the second example, unrelated to the first scenario: "I had planned to begin $X on $Date, but priorities have shifted and $X is being tabled for now. Documentation:... Please remote any feedback, please and thank you."

Don't lie or whatever, or do. I don't, but none of this feels manipulative, you're just managing your time and workload.

I may have missed some nuance.

No matter how it’s formulated it looks exactly like the “opt-out” everyone on HN hates when it’s done to them. It’s effective so it’s great when it works for you not against you.

"opt-out" is just a tool and it can be used for both good and evil. Same as a for kitchen knife or a political appointment.

The key, as always, is in successfully answering the question (good or evil) "for whom". Everyone thinks they are on the right side of the story.

I think something like this to make sure they don't reject the idea:

Planning to move forward with X on $Date. Docs are here, but if you object, I totally understand and will respectfully accept your decision... though I'd hate for this to be one of those decisions that comes back to haunt you.

> though I'd hate for this to be one of those decisions that comes back to haunt you

I think this is guaranteed to set fire to any goodwill you have in your organisation

> - If I don’t hear back from you in [N] days, I am not going to do XYZ, considering you don't deem it to be important.

It's still needlessly confrontational. Why are you accusing someone of failing to understand the importance of something?

Ask yourself this: do you need someone else's input? If you do not need it, you do not need to ask questions. If you feel the need to request input then in the very least you need to reach out to them in a way you value their input.

I consider it an extension of, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission."

This can work for or against you. If your goal is movement, then waiting at every step for a pedantic discussion with back and forth can kill entropy.

> I consider it an extension of, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission."

It's not. The key difference is that you're needlessly throwing blanket accusations towards other stakeholders. Is there a way to ask for forgiveness without throwing people under the bus?

Maybe they should get their shit together and get the fuck out from under the bus.

It also kills motivation.

The problem is that, sometimes, "no input" looks very much like "I have input, but I haven't had the time to give it", so you end up waiting for nothing. This way you put the responsibility on the other person, to say "please don't do this yet, I'll explain soon why not" instead of just staying silent.

> If I don’t hear back from you in [N] days, I am not going to do XYZ, considering you don't deem it to be important.

Sounds even more confrontational.

Yeah, let's soften it up:

> I'm going to proceed with XYZ in N days. If any of you fucking idiots have a problem with that, then scrawl it down in crayon and flush it down the jacks, which is where you'll end up if you dare question my decisions in future.

That is much, much better, because you dropped the passive part from passive aggressive which people hate the most.

Additionally, the person is clearly signalling s/he is capable of getting shit done, without being afraid of making the occasional mistake.

Though I’d tone down the swearing

English is not my first language and I have communication issues. Having said that you may be onto something unironically. Respectful conversations often pack more tensions than downright disrespectful approaches, such as the way "cabron" can be used affectionately in a group of Spanish friends.

> English is not my first language

In that case, the most likely mismatch between the language you provided and the responses you're getting is your use of the word "considering".

If you're using it to describe the state of mind you'll be in after you fail to receive a reply, that was a mistake. It is a common connective in English that explains the reason for something:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/considering

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/considering#Preposition (the preposition)

What this means is that the sentence "I will go ahead with changing X, considering you don't think it's important" is equivalent to "I've noticed that you don't think X is important, so I'm not looking for your input on my proposed change".

Learning a language well is a double-edged sword - if you look like you know what you're saying, and you make a mistake, people will assume you meant what you said. You can get away with really outrageous things if you come off as someone who can barely talk. But long after that point, there will still always be things that you never quite learned.

The issue with `considering you don't deem it to be important` is that the statement presumes a particular attitude for the recipient which may or may not be true.

Maybe they were sick for a couple days. Or were recently on vacation (and you haven't been notified yet). Or dealing with some higher priority emergency. Or just genuinely missed the email for some reason (accidentally sent to spam folder?)

Also even if it is true that the recipient thinks it is unimportant, it doesn't follow that the thing should be done. If somebody sends me an email asking me whether they should swallow bubblegum (or something on that level of trivial stupidity), I'd think they shouldn't -- but probably wouldn't bother to respond, or at least I wouldn't write a lengthy email explaining why not.

I'm not even joking, these days I often scroll through social media with a mild kind of twisted amusement watching people do and believe in stupid things -- while I can reply to each of them explaining why they're wrong, it's a well-known fallacy due to xkcd386. Coworkers are admittedly "closer" and thus I probably should warn them about potential hazards, but if it's a large org and I was just among a long list of cc-ed people... I might decide not to bother.

Don't forget to accidentally make a typo in "regards" so you sign off just calling them retards.

you're making a value judgement about people pre-emptively; this feels like a big mistake. I'd suggest you 1. explain what you want to do and why, 2. include relevant context, 3. how others can contribute and provide feedback. YOU may want to do something, but should be motivated by the US.

Every time you send a message like this it's a chance to convert someone to your cause. Don't waste it!

'considering you don't find it important' feels a bit too judgemental.

In such case why not just ask: 'Since [reason x] I propose to do y. Please let me know if I should proceed.

If they don't find it important enough to answer, you can just follow your own good judgement, backed with a papertrail.

Still personally I find all above tactics a bit pedantic and not enough to the point... often I just communicate what I am doing and what my next intended steps are, in standups and followup meetings. Or in-between, I just send mails with stakeholders in copy. I will hear it soon enough if someone does not find it a good idea or has a better idea.

> You can very well state "I'm going to do XYZ because of [REASONS]. I'm going to do XYZ on [DAY N]. If anyone objects or has any reservations, please reach out to me."

Love this phrasing.

As other comments have mentioned, you probably don't want to go into the full depths of reasons in the email. Rather have a high level summary with a link to a long form doc or RFC. And of course, the appropriate level of detail depends on how big and wide reaching the action is.

IME you often get a response that seeks to turn it into s “conversation.” Keeping everything super vague but something that can be pointed to on s paper trail as “I expressed reservations”

Neither approval, nor disapproval just straight up quagmire.

There’s no silver bullet to getting things done successfully in any large organisation of humans.

> Neither approval, nor disapproval just straight up quagmire.

That's ok. Setup a meeting with said stakeholder, clarify your position, ask for input, and in the end ask straight up if they have any objection. Save the meeting minute and send it to everyone who attended the meeting.

They need to put up or shut up. Playing games does not work.

Objection? No. Concerns yes, as have been detailed at length. No good trying to ram it through without doing the work. We can't manage the project for you etc. etc.

There is no silver bullet. You have to treat each one in the way that works for them. Those who do it well, it's a talent.

Or have the compromising photos of the boss and copies of the bank statements so he's scared and backs you publically always and then just roll anyone who isn't effusively enthusiastic. That works too. Wouldn't recommend it.

I really dislike this approach as well. You basically light a fuse on a bomb and place the responsibility on others.

Saying "I will do things my way unless someone manages to convince me to do otherwise this within x days" is toxic and places a ton of pressure on your coworkers.

I have the exact opposite reaction. Asking people for permission puts pressure on them to think about what you are doing (your responsibility) and make the decision about whether it is the right or wrong course of action. When I am asked to make a decision, I switch into a different thinking mode than when I am simply told the implications of a decision someone else is making as an FYI.

The majority of decisions being made in a company are two-way doors - they can be reversed if needed without great consequence. Those decisions should be made quickly by whomever is close to the topic and everyone else should just be an inform (as a sanity check).

It really depends on the culture - it's pretty frequent, for example, that coworkers prefer the option that keeps their workload small and predictable even when that option is bad for the health of the business.

Tone is crucial to these conversations, yes.

Permission-based cultures are a real drag for everyone though. If no one feels empowered to do anything without the approval of their boss, it defeats the purpose of bringing them on in the first place - for their expertise and capacity to contribute meaningfully in a reasonable time frame.

There are appropriate times to slow down and sort out priorities, especially when other disparate teams are involved in the process (think Product vs. Engineering), but when there's a clear vision to execute on, it's almost always better to delegate to senior contributors to sort out the technical details and let their direct reports contribute to building on that vision.

Some gatekeeping is okay, but having a singular PoC to vet all efforts leads to bean-counting, which frustrates talented / capable team members and robs contributors of their autonomy.

I like your balanced & nuanced approach; unfortuntaley it's unlikely to make a viral blog entry or tweet :(

You have to use your best judgement. If you are confident in your approach, then I think it makes sense.

You are then also owning this decision, and would have to face more consequences for it going awry. So I don't think it "places a ton of pressure on your coworkers" as you say. It relieves them of pressure since they don't have to decide and won't be held accountable.

But if you think an action will be controversial or are unsure, then you need to make sure you are getting feedback and buy in from other stakeholders before proceeding.

This is not only to make sure you are making the right decision, but also spreading accountability for this potentially bad decision to other members of the team. This accountability will put more pressure on your coworkers, but it is needed to help make the right decision.

> “…place the responsibility on others.”

It’s a pattern for action, not for making decisions. I’ve been trained and my job is well understood by managers and decision makers in my organization. Many situations arise which are in scope of my job, but are new or appear different but are not.

I use this technique every week. I don’t need to provide deep reasons. If what I’m doing or why I’m doing it is not already apparent to managers, then they have this opportunity to check in.

If I already know what I’m working on is unusual and needs explanations, then this pattern isn’t appropriate, and a detailed email followed by heads up phone call is my go to.

This is absolutely the way to go.

> For example, the reason why "bias for action" works at Amazon is survivorship bias: those who unilaterally take action which results in a failure will ultimately be scapegoated and fired.

I think this is missing something. If everything works in exactly the way you just described, that can still be a strategy that Amazon intentionally implements and derives benefits from. We could rephrase it as "hire people who make good decisions, and then don't weigh them down".

It doesn't look obvious to me that this is a bad strategy, or that the success we see people achieve by using it is illusionary. It's a strategy that many people/companies might find difficult to implement, but that's most strategies and essentially all good ones.

Good point. But either way, you can’t decide much in a bigco because most decisions are bounded to money and therefore the CFO.

And so you can say what you will, but if the CFO does not approve, your stuff is not happening.

It depends on the context. My boss is so busy that he rarely answers to my emails, he is available to talk very rarely (once every few months) so I write him what I plan to do then I do it. He never answered "no". Even for vacations, I just let him know when I go and for how long, if it is up to a week. I am responsible of my own work and he is just around.

My former manager used to do the same. He is a 40 year veteran, retiring in the next few months and for the past 6 years since I met him he wrote many emails telling people what he plans to do and just did it. It works for us very well.