Ask for Advice, Not Permission (2015)
Managers and engineers debate the idea that employees should seek advice rather than permission, arguing over when autonomy is empowering versus when it becomes a way to dodge accountability or invite gatekeeping. Many emphasize the importance of clear design-review processes, “disagree and commit” norms, and culturally safe ways to voice dissent early, noting how late-stage criticism, political backstabbing, and over-enthusiastic juniors can all derail projects. Overall, contributors stress that whether advice-seeking works well depends heavily on organizational culture, seniority, and how responsibility for decisions is shared and enforced.
Advice vs Permission Framing
- Many see “ask for advice, not permission” as a useful psychological reframing: it encourages ownership while reducing gatekeeping and blame-shifting.
- Others argue the distinction is overblown; in practice “asking” is just collaboration, and people don’t micro-parse whether it was labeled advice or permission.
- Some prefer this framing to “ask forgiveness, not permission,” which is criticized as a license for rash or arrogant decisions.
Responsibility, Blame, and “Backstabbing”
- Large subthread on teammates who approve a design, then later—often in front of management—denounce it and distance themselves.
- One view: if you had a chance to review and said it was fine, you share responsibility and shouldn’t later act as if the flaws were obvious.
- Counterview: late discoveries, shifting priorities, or poor initial context can make issues visible only at implementation time; not all late criticism is malicious.
- There is strong concern about “sociopathic” behavior: setting peers up to fail, then using hindsight criticism to advance politically.
Experience Level and Autonomy
- Broad agreement that high autonomy works best with experienced, “sober” engineers; extending the same to juniors can be risky.
- Examples given of juniors pushing unsafe or sweeping changes (large PRs, risky tech choices) and seniors being painted as “gatekeepers” when they push back.
- Others argue enthusiastic juniors are preferable to obstructionist seniors, but concede that safety-critical or complex systems need tighter controls.
Feedback Culture and Process
- Many note people avoid giving critical feedback to adults; others say in some cultures unsolicited critique is common.
- Suggested mitigations: explicit design reviews, user stories tied to design, third‑party review, glossaries, office hours, and structured decision records.
- Complaints about Agile practices that bury design decisions across sprints, enabling 11th‑hour re-litigation by senior engineers who skipped earlier discussions.
Management Practices and “Disagree and Commit”
- “Disagree and commit” is cited as a counter to backstabbing: argue hard during design, then support the agreed plan and own its outcomes.
- Some managers describe inviting broad participation (design sessions, triage, postmortems), then enforcing team decisions and forbidding unilateral sniping.
Limitations and Edge Cases
- Commenters stress exceptions: legal exposure, actions that harm others, or areas with strict accountability still require explicit permission.
- Several caution against treating any of these slogans as universal rules; context, power dynamics, and company culture are decisive.