"It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission." This quote, often attributed to Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, a pioneering computer scientist and U.S. Navy officer, captures a bold approach to decision-making and problem-solving. Hopper, renowned for her contributions to the development of computer programming languages, emphasised the need for innovation and action over bureaucratic inertia. The original intent behind this phrase was to encourage taking initiative, especially in environments where rigid rules and slow approval processes could stifle creativity and progress.
Misuse of the Quote
Misinterpretation of Hopper’s quote can lead to reckless behaviour. For example, a manager who bypasses essential safety protocols to speed up a project might endanger employees and incur regulatory penalties. This misuse is evident in cases where individuals take actions that contravene core organisational values or legal requirements, justifying their behaviour by claiming it is easier to ask for forgiveness later.
Even on smaller, seemingly inconsequential matters, this too can cause an ethical dilemma. Reputations can be at risk. Take for example, a company off-site training program where the company has booked, in addition to room hire, the audio-visual equipment. Imagine that throughout the day the cord connecting the presentation laptop to the screen is faulty, it cuts out and then shuts the system down repeatedly. Very frustrating. A team member says, "let's just swap out their cord for mine". This seems reasonable and it fixes the tech issue. However what if the team decides to stay an extra day to do some extra team planning while they are off-site. The group wants to use the screen again but that wasn't re-booked, only the room was re-booked. The team shows up on day two and the team member says, "let's just use my cord, their's doesn't work anyway. If the venue says something we can deal with it then. Besides, isn't it easier to ask for forgiveness than ask permission?"
What do you think of this situation?
- What do you think the venue would think of the company if they discover the use of the AV via a personal use of the connecting cord?
- What do you think the team members around the room think of the attitude of the person who suggests this?
- And, what about the leader who lets this happen?
Yes, it's only a bit of cord. Yes, it's only a bit of AV usage. Who's it hurting, really?
This post is being written because now I'm at the fourth time hearing this quote in the last few weeks and it has been used in ways that have left me wondering the trustworthiness and ethics of the person who said it.
The Cons and Dangers
1. Risk of Misjudgment: Acting without permission can lead to decisions that are poorly thought out or misaligned with organisational goals, causing more harm than good.
2. Erosion of Trust: Consistently bypassing established procedures can erode trust between employees and management, leading to a breakdown in communication and cooperation.
3. Legal and Ethical Issues: Actions taken without appropriate approval can result in legal and ethical violations, exposing the organisation to significant risks and liabilities.
There are however some positives for the philosophy of the quote, when used properly. The quote is used appropriately in situations where immediate action is necessary to seize an opportunity or solve a problem, and where the potential benefits outweigh the risks. For example, in a rapidly changing market, a middle manager might implement a new marketing strategy without prior approval to capture a fleeting market trend, later justifying the decision with demonstrated success.
Three positive impacts of the quote's philosophy:
1. Encourages Initiative: One significant advantage is that it fosters a culture of initiative. Employees are empowered to make decisions and take actions without the fear of red tape, promoting innovation and agility. This needs to be within the scope of delegated authority!
2. Speeds Up Processes: In fast-paced industries, waiting for permission can slow down progress. This approach allows for quicker responses to opportunities and challenges. This happens properly when senior leadership empowers their mid-level managers openly, genuinely, fully to 'get on with it'. This is often assumed and is rarely discussed explicitly and often!
3. Fosters Innovation: By removing the fear of immediate disapproval, individuals are more likely to experiment and try new ideas, which can lead to breakthroughs and advancements.
Impact on Middle Managers and Leadership Brand
Middle managers, in particular, must balance the empowerment of their teams with adherence to organisational norms. When used judiciously, Hopper’s philosophy can enhance a manager's leadership brand by showcasing decisiveness and a willingness to take calculated risks. However, overreliance on this approach can damage their reputation, making them appear reckless or untrustworthy.
"It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission" is a powerful principle when understood and applied correctly. It promotes innovation and swift action but must be tempered with a thorough understanding of the potential consequences. Middle managers who navigate this balance effectively can enhance their leadership impact, fostering a culture of trust and agility within their teams.
By Sally Foley-Lewis
Keywords: Leadership, Management
The Ghosting Phenomenon: An Urgent Plea for Humanity in Education
Thought Leadership Strategy for Protecting the Vulnerable
3 Helpful Videos For Thought Leadership Content Creation
Friday’s Change Reflection Quote - Leadership of Change - Change Leaders Use Crises as a Catalyst
The Corix Partners Friday Reading List - September 6 2024
