8 Comments
User's avatar
Alexander's avatar

> In the rare organizations where this dilemma has been resolved, it has been through superiors specifying WHAT it is to be achieved, but not HOW it is to be achieved. Subordinates are given a free hand in choosing the means, while superiors must place trust in their efforts and accept that failures may occur along the way.

You mean, like in the military, that follows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics ? Like special forces? Like the SAS dudes?

Looks like a sort of a pattern... 😏

Expand full comment
Martin Sustrik's avatar

Yes. I even have a half-written blog post on Auftragstaktik. But I've also seen it when working as an SRE for gmail. WHAT: "Keep gmail running." HOW: "Do whatever it takes."

Expand full comment
Alexander's avatar

Funny enough, I personally learned about the Auftragstaktik from a (series of) blog posts on _Software_ Project Management. :)

Expand full comment
Martin Sustrik's avatar

Say more. Where was that?

Expand full comment
Alexander's avatar

For instance, here: https://gaperton.livejournal.com/60129.html

But there's more: https://gaperton.livejournal.com/tag/auftragstaktik/

There was a lot of practical project management and software architecture wisdom on that blog — unfortunately, all in Russian. I'm not sure how well automatic translation does these days, though.

Expand full comment
Martin Sustrik's avatar

Np, I do speak Russian. Thanks!

Expand full comment
Handle's avatar

Bureaucrats will take initiative in furtherance of outcomes when they are given credible assurance of top cover and legal safe haven. Few are actually willing to do that.

Expand full comment
Martin Sustrik's avatar

Yes, that, and even "if they are not actively held back". Anyone with any experience with bureaucracies is aware that there are such people in the system. Those with low pain tolerance may leave for private enterprise, but some remain despite everything.

Expand full comment