
“It’s Easier To Ask Forgiveness Than To Get Permission” - objections
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/19/forgive/
======
majos
It's also easier to _give_ forgiveness than permission, especially in an
institutional context. Forgiveness after the fact doesn't imply approval of
the act the way permission beforehand does.

~~~
mieseratte
That's a very good point, and for a Western (American) culture in which the
ends frequently justify the means (success vs. failure) this rings true.

Which makes me wonder, are there cultures wherein permission is easy, but
forgiveness is not?

~~~
azernik
One of the criticisms I've often heard of Arab managerial and military-command
culture (at least in conventional organizations) is that it strongly
disapproves of individual initiative; in such a case, asking permission might
satiate the cultural drive for top-down micromanagement while still allowing
subordinates to contribute their local knowledge to the decision-making
process.

~~~
flukus
Hasn't initiative been a hallmark of a successful military for much of
history? I've heard it put forth as a chief reason for the success of Romans
(phyric wars), French (Napoleonic wars), Prussians (Franco Prussian war) and
Germans (WW2) to win engagements against their extremely rigid enemies.

~~~
dingaling
Yes, but they have _permission_ to use initiative. Scope for initiative is
expressly granted by superiors, with explicit bounds. And that freedom is
_expected_ to be used. It is part of the development of junior leaders in the
military; they are given tests which can only be solved by lateral thinking.

That's not how I've seen "ask forgiveness" used in industry. Usually it's a
self-confident maverick who goes off and does something that breaks the rules
of organisation or process. I did it once; I thought I was doing the company a
favour. Information Security came down on me like a ton of bricks, with good
reason, and I nearly lost my job. There was no forgiveness. The Director
ensured that it was well publicised and a lot of people learned from my
hubris.

The phrase is a crock and should never enter your mind. If you're sure Your
Way is best, ask for permission or get consensus. If you get neither, lodge
your protest with your superiors and get on with something else. Then in a
year's time perhaps people will look back and consider you a visionary, or a
hot-headed fool...

~~~
brazzledazzle
Your experience serves as a valuable lesson that everyone should keep in mind.
If you aren’t completely aware of the risks you’re taking you should be wary.
Information security is something lot of folks are oblivious to in even the
basic sense. So I completely understand how your situation happened and why
you have an aversion to it. However, I still think there’s value in the phrase
but it should be used judiciously. There are plenty of low/non-risk situations
where the obstacles are entirely bureaucratic.

That said I think your cautionary tale is really valuable and your
uncompromising view toward the phrase actually serves to emphasize how serious
everyone should take it. If I were you I wouldn’t change a thing. Actions can
have real and sometimes dangerous consequences.

We should always try to understand what we’re putting at risk (as much as we
can) so at the very least we can weigh the unknown risks even when asking
permission. If you can’t even list the risks off mentally that’s probably a
good sign that you should stick to asking permission.

------
rdtsc
You have to dig deeper and ask what makes asking for permission difficult.

In an institutional context when we ask for permission from higher ups,
especially publicly, we put them on the spot to clarify some rule or make a
pronouncement which rules will be enforced and which won't. Sometimes you have
to break rules, or perversely are even expected to, just to get things done.
Asking permission means the boss has to tell you that you cannot break the
rule officially, even though they know the rule has to be broken for the task
to be accomplished. So not only do they deny the permission, they also resent
you for forcing them to make the pronouncement and preventing anyone in the
near future from accomplishing the task at hand efficiently. In other words
even as they respond with "No, Peter, you cannot bypass filling out 10 TPS
reports just to fix this bug" in their head they are thinking "Why the fuck
didn't you just do it. Why did you have to ask me about it in front of
everyone..."

Large power structures usually have rules you cannot break, you can break if
you want to, and perversely enough, you should or are expected to break.
Winning or losing the politics game often comes down to simply understanding
which rules belong to each set.

~~~
chii
The description you gave is of a dysfunctional organization.

If it's expected that a rule is to be broken to get a task done, the risk of
the backfiring will be borne by the rule breaker. If i am am employee, i will
not risk breaking any rule that i have not gotten in writing from somebody
higher up that they're OK'ing.

Or, i will have to be paid more for taking on the risk.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
> The description you gave is of a dysfunctional organization.

True but irrelevant. In my experience organizations are just like people in
that every single one of them is dysfunctional in some capacity. You find ways
to work around the dysfunction when it can't be fixed and life goes on.

------
tj-teej
At risk of using management lingo, there's a big difference between one-way-
door (decisions which are hard to undo) and two-way-door decisions (decisions
which can be easily undone).

Asking for permission (or asking anything), in a complex domain is difficult
and always carries a cost.

In two-way-door decisions, forgiveness IS easier. But an incorrect, one-way-
door decision is hard to "forgive" ("accountability" and the like).

Well-run companies (e.g. Amazon) understand this very well and have processes
to only require permission only in one-way-door decisions.

~~~
pseudoramble
I had never heard the phrases "one-way door" and "two-way door" in decision
making until yesterday, and now this is the 2nd time I've seen it. The person
who mentioned it to me yesterday works at Amazon. Funny coincidence...

I'm curious about how one decides whether a decision even is one-way or two-
way? I can think of some contrived examples (demolishing a building is one-
way, deciding where to get lunch today is two-way) but what about more complex
and realistic examples? Is it that the cost to reverse that decision is so
high that it's effectively a one-way choice? And can you make a one-way idea
into a two-way idea in some scenarios?

~~~
pwaivers
I think it's more of a guiding principle rather than a steadfast rule. Like I
would think "releasing code to production" is a one-way door. Even though it
can be undone, it can have pretty bad consequences and breaks existing
protocols. On the other hand "researching a new topic" cannot be technically
undone, but it is a two-way door because there is not any harm if it goes
wrong and you're working in the best interest of your team.

------
kartan
I have seen this abused. A team member does whatever she thinks is best, and
the rest now have to tag along because to communicate to all stakeholders that
it was not a team decision and needs to be revisited is too costly.

That can be seen by some management as "getting things done". And quite often
that person feels vindicated when her solution works.

But that person is not able to realize the cost of the mistrust of the team
and detachment of the job nor to think about the possibility that the other
solution not only have worked, but it will have been way better.

At my job, I have to arbitrate between team members and teams. I will flag
anyone that decides to "ask for forgiveness instead of permission" and notify
their manager. I don't like to work with people that think that they are so
good that don't need to present their arguments like the rest.

So when going for forgiveness instead of permission, it is wise to think:

a) If your way is so good, you should be able to get what you want with
arguments.

b) If you force everyone else to follow your way without their consent, you
are not a leader you are just abusing the system.

c) That it works does not mean that was the best option.

d) That other people can also have done the same does not mean that they are
worse than you, it may be that they see a bigger picture that you can't see.

It is still possible to go for it. But you need to be accountable for the
consequences.

~~~
js8
I quite strongly disagree. Just like picture is worth a thousand words,
working code (prototype) is worth a thousand words too.

If I decide to go out and code a prototype without asking anyone anything,
where is the harm in that? You can criticize it after it is done. You could
have done the same thing. And you can always throw it out.

And in my view, this precisely is "leading by doing". Linus Torvalds didn't
seek consensus before he wrote Git.

In another response, you write, arrogant people are the biggest problem. I
don't think doing something on your own is arrogant at all.

And I think, "being accountable for consequences" is exactly the "forgiveness"
part. Although I am not a fan of hierarchical decision making systems.

~~~
weavie
Wouldn't coding up a prototype be more in line with asking for permission? You
code up the prototype to demonstrate your idea then ask your team if you can
proceed with it. I would say that's a solid, proactive way to get your ideas
across.

~~~
organsnyder
Depends on your working environment. At my current position, if I code up a
prototype during work hours, I'm subverting our EPMO, since it's not an
approved project. I've had great success doing various prototypes like this,
but I am not waiting for permission to do them.

Bringing those prototypes to production is another matter. In any
organization, there are processes that need to be followed to onboard a new
application, platform, pattern, etc. If those aren't followed, the
implementation won't be nearly as effective—especially long-term.

~~~
weavie
What is an EMPO?

Indeed production is another matter.. "I'll just slip in this new crypto
routine I wrote and ask for forgiveness later..."

~~~
organsnyder
Oops—should have been EPMO (enterprise project management office).

~~~
weavie
Hmmm... What is an enterprise project management office?

~~~
0xfeba
It sounds like a normal project manager/owner but with with the bureaucracy
turned up to 11.

~~~
organsnyder
Pretty much. They're responsible for managing the project pipeline,
prioritizing, sequencing... Basically, they're meta-PMs.

This is at a 25,000 employee healthcare system. Bureaucracy is inevitable, but
agility is still essential.

------
DoreenMichele
As far as work goes, I think one reason for this saying is that getting
permission requires a higher degree of good communication. Once the deed is
done, you can show it to explain it's value. Getting permission involves
conveying your vision to people you may not know well who may not have time or
inclination to really understand it.

For some of the other examples, such as marrying someone, if you go ahead and
get married without asking, it signals a higher mutual commitment. In some
sense, it more strongly suggests you love each other and are not merely social
climbing.

I think an article about the logic and practicalities behind this could be
fascinating.

~~~
coralreef
With regards to an organizational/hierarchical environment:

Asking for permission puts the responsibility of the decision on the person
being asked, which makes everything slower and more conservative.

Just doing it and rationalizing it afterward tends to be more efficient, and
helps to captures upside sooner rather than wasting time worrying about the
downsides.

~~~
njarboe
It also allows your boss to capture the upside but have little exposure to the
downside.

~~~
darkerside
Your boss always has exposure to the downside. They may take it out on you
emotionally (if they're a jerk), and throw you under the bus socially (again,
a jerk), but they deal with the consequences in reality because the worst they
can do to you is fire you. That's how hierarchies work.

~~~
sixstringtheory
I’d consider being fired a poor outcome, so I’m not sure I’m getting your
point. After a manager fires a “bad performer” to look good, what further
consequences are they exposed to?

~~~
darkerside
You think the manager's problems are over if they fire the bad performer?
First of all, it's usually pretty difficult and expensive to fire anybody
(which also involves onboarding and training a replacement). It reflects very
poorly on the manager, so it's not done lightly.

Moreover, after the report has been fired, there's probably still a mess to
clean up. Obviously it's not the report who needs to take care of it. It's
whoever is responsible for that area, meaning the manager or whoever they can
assign to that task.

I'm not saying there are no consequences for an individual contributor who
makes a mistake. I'm just pointing out that, at the end of the day, a manager
is responsible for the actions of their reports. That's the whole point of
their job.

------
croo
Reminds me of a quote of a comedian:

“I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a
bike and asked for forgiveness.”

-Emo Philips-

------
dijit
Can say in $dayjob, if I need permission for something it will take 6 months
and a lot of red-tape which ties up multiple man months itself ( 99% of it on
my team :( ).

If I can get by without permission and instead ask forgiveness, the total time
spend on meta-work is significantly less, and ironically we do a better job
because we don't want to do something unsanctioned that goes wrong.

I can see why this phrase caught on, I'm surprised there's no reference from
before 1842, since this feels like one of those pre-industrial slogans..
Something you'd find more related to police or a parent than an institution of
work.

------
rmshea
While this quote rings true most of the time, it's important to discern
whether this mindset is merely enabling mischief or allowing for an acceptable
level of disobedience.

Many monumental breakthroughs were accomplished by disregarding permission,
and rebellious attributes are attributed to people like Stephen Wolfram[0] and
Albert Einstein. The MIT Media Lab even has an award for disobedience [1].

This mindset, though, can manifest into an unhealthy obsession with breaking
the rules. An uncontrolled expectation to "ask forgiveness" can lead to murky
moral territories. Where do you draw the line between accepting rebelliousness
and enforcing the law?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram#Education_and_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram#Education_and_early_career)

[1] [https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/disobedience-
award/](https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/disobedience-award/)

~~~
notabee
I feel like the Dunning-Kruger effect plays a big part in the problem. Many
people feel an illusory confidence in their capacity to understand a problem
domain, whether they are in the role of the rebellious person or the law
enforcer. Consensus with group wisdom outside of that hierarchical dynamic
seems like one of the best protections against foolish rebellions or foolish
rigidity, but that still leaves the problem case of what to do when the larger
group wisdom is not correct. That's going to be the rarer case by definition
considering how badly people tend to be at rating their own knowledge, but we
also depend on those rare, capable individuals to overturn established wisdom.
Or as put more succinctly by George Bernard Shaw,

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man."

------
kalonis
Many of the comments relate this adage to situations where the rules
explicitly prohibit some behaviour. I always assumed it is meant for
situations where the rules are not settled yet or unclear. If I ask in such a
situation for permission someone may forbid it. If I do it anyway I brake not
only a rule but show that I do not accept my superiors authority. It would
have been better to act in uncertainty about the rules. The result of my
actions could vindicate my behaviour and help clarify the rules for the
future. In the few situations were I offend someone I could still plead to
ignorance.

------
officemonkey
If you're going to gamble this way, you better be right, because if you're
wrong, you're fired.

Forgiveness will always be given for a "great success."

------
alfredallan1
Probably a really bad idea in the age of GDPR.

~~~
paulie_a
What if you don't care about GDPR? It's not relevant to me, personally or
professionally.

------
bendixso
I have found myself saying this in my mobile apps business.

Oftentimes, I will contact someone associated with the community for a product
I am building and ask them if they want to help promote the product once it's
out. They take this as some sort of partnership where I have to get their
permission to publish my products or go in the direction they want to go, just
because they might help me out.

And usually these companies are slower moving than I am, so doing the back-
and-forth and getting feedback would take forever. With mobile apps, you have
no idea if the thing will ever take off, and I have found it is best to just
launch the thing and see what happens.

I'm not sure what some of these people think. I'm an independent businessman.
I have the right to do whatever I want with my own products, and yes, I can
choose to launch something whenever I damn well please. If you like it, go
ahead and promote it. If you don't, don't. I honestly don't care.

So I take this saying more as "Doing anything at all will always be perceived
as offensive to someone. You might as well do it and let them get offended."

And I know that soundbite lacks nuance and could easily be taken to mean
something else, but then it wouldn't be a cool soundbite either. Obviously
don't murder, rape, etc, and do take others into consideration when you are
working on a team and you need their help longterm.

But I think the essence of the saying is that nobody is purely innocent and
anything worth doing will probably ruffle some feathers. If you're overly
cautious, you won't ever accomplish anything significant.

------
afraca
I was convinced this statement was also in the "Zen of Python" (PEP 20 [0]),
but it's "only" in the official glossary [1]

> EAFP > Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. This common Python
> coding style assumes the existence of valid keys or attributes and catches
> exceptions if the assumption proves false. This clean and fast style is
> characterized by the presence of many try and except statements. The
> technique contrasts with the LBYL style common to many other languages such
> as C.

edit: Sorry to bring programming to the table again, the 'philosophical' side
is also interesting of course!

[0]:
[https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/)
[1]:
[https://docs.python.org/3/glossary.html](https://docs.python.org/3/glossary.html)

------
user5454
On a related note I've found it's easier to get your way with e.g. your
manager if you say "I will do this!" rather than "Can I do this?"

This probably have to do with that in the second case you ask your manager to
make a decision, causing them cognitive load. In the first case you already
made that decision for them.

------
whisk
The first time I read this quote is in Peter Hessler's Country Driving: A
Journey Through China from Farm to Factory.

He use it to summarize Chinese reform and opening. You cannot get any
permission from goverment, but you can try it first. If something bad happens,
ask forgiveness. It maybe the core reason of Chinese speed.

------
snarfy
Sometimes your methods ask for permission. Every parameter is validated at the
top of the function and errors are thrown if any parameter is wrong, e.g. null
parameter checks. Generally this happens inversely to the amount of trust in
the caller. A public web service call would have everything strictly
validated.

Sometimes your methods ask for forgiveness. For sake of argument, they accept
a bunch of pointers as parameters and blindly start dereferencing them without
any null checks. This is done because it is a small implementation and the
caller is completely trusted and is known as fact they would never be null.
Those checks are redundant and a performance cost.

It's really a judgement call to known when to get permission and when to ask
forgiveness.

------
antonkm
I live my life by this quote. The Swedish version even rhymes and sound
charming. It's a great mindset for trying new things and exploring new ideas,
which would have been blocked by bureaucracy if approval were needed.

~~~
maligree
What's the Swedish version?

~~~
user5454
Det är lättare att be om förlåtelse än om tillåtelse.

~~~
maligree
Thanks!

------
nixpulvis
Not related to the article's content but, this link just flashes between black
and white once it's loaded for me (iOS Firefox). This might be one of the
strangest broken websites I've seen.

------
smogcutter
Robert Moses, the man responsible for the shape of a lot of modern NYC, is a
hell of an example of this in action. For good or ill.

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1111.The_Power_Broker](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1111.The_Power_Broker)

Moses was a genius and accumulating and wielding power. His playbook wasn't
"take initiative then hope for the best", it was "take initiative then destroy
lives and careers until you get your way."

------
icndccent
Sometimes. Not all the time. As a way to avoid decision making paralysis in a
public safety or military context I agree. In business we're not saving lives
or taking them.

------
saranshk
Not always though. The context is important as well.

------
kaybe
Ah, but also not all permission asking is the same.

Sometimes it's best to ask someone local and knowledgeable for unofficial
permission and just do it than to run up and down the full command chain and
paperwork. (a paper trail makes this impossible so do not leave one - if you
need forgiveness later this option is still open then)

------
krzrak
When I was young and inexperienced team leader, my boss at the time told me
this. It may sound silly now, but then it was an eye opener and it empowered
me to make decisions (including financial ones) more freely and with
confidence - within some limit (of cost, potential damage, etc.) dictated by
my common sense.

------
Ensorceled
The developers that live by this motto are the hardest to manage and I’ve had
to fire a couple.

If you’re lying in stand ups about what you are working on, I won’t forgive
that.

If you expose us to liability by incorporating OSS with egregious terms after
I said no, I won’t forgive that.

If you break contract terms with our partners because you think you know
better than I do what the contract says, I won’t forgive that.

If you implement an awful solution because you were fighting with the
architect or UX, I might forgive that, once.

------
PDoyle
People forget that the proverb says it's _easier_ , not _better_ , to ask
forgiveness.

------
mirimir
I suspect that this strategy has been around for thousands of years.

------
kdamken
I realize I’m missing the point here, but this quote has always struck me as
something a rapist would say.

~~~
mirimir
Well of course it is! But it's what anyone breaking any rule would say. So
that doesn't have much significance.

------
lihaciudaniel
It's really important to research your quotes before using them.

~~~
hcs
\- Oscar Wilde

~~~
mickronome
I didn't laugh our loud, I'm on the subway after all, and that's serious
matters here in Sweden.

But it sure made me grin, a most fitting and clever response!

------
draw_down
Of course, the easier thing is not always the better thing.

~~~
mixmastamyk
FYI, almost all of your comments are dead.

------
FearOfReprisal
Perfect description of AirBNB, Uber, and Facebooks's operations.

------
jlebrech
Getting forgiveness after permission was denied is difficult too.

------
hallman76
You folks trying to tweak the wording are missing the point. This phrase has
traditionally been attributed to Grace Hopper, a pioneer in our field.

Write a compiler, then feel free to come up with your own idioms.

~~~
bsder
Please do remember that she was _Rear Admiral_ Grace T Hopper and her
grandfather was an Admiral as well--I suspect that she gained this phrase from
the military mindset. Catch 22 comes awfully close sometimes, and Weller was
writing that about World War II.

I wish she were more remembered for her backward clocks and the fact that she
would let you have it if your answer was "Because that's the way we've always
done it."

And, while she may not have originated the word "bug" for a computer problem,
she was probably the first to document an actual insect causing a problem in a
computer:

[https://www.wired.com/2013/12/googles-doodle-honors-grace-
ho...](https://www.wired.com/2013/12/googles-doodle-honors-grace-hopper-and-
entomology/)

I'm not necessarily a big fan of the "Ask forgiveness rather than permission"
route as it only really works when the result either direction doesn't really
impact anybody further than the person carrying out the action.

I currently have to step over a half-dozen bicycles every morning because some
venture capital funded companies decided permission was just too difficult,
and I hope they don't get forgiven and have to pay really expensive fines for
not obtaining permission.

~~~
Noumenon72
I think the outcome where the bicycles exist and the company pays a fine is
way better than the outcome where they ask permission and no one gets to use
the bicycles.

I'm pretty confident that social pressure or technology can solve the
littering issue, too, leaving forgiveness approach with no drawbacks at all. I
would be happy to step over the bicycles, seeing it as a sign of an actual
innovation in society that people are really using and benefiting from.

------
senectus1
needs to be modified to "It's easier to ask forgiveness or pay a carefully
lobbied or carelessly low set fine, than to get permission".

Capitalist Democracy means that the weak get used as a resource by the
powerful by the permission of the weak.

having said that. I have no idea how to do it better, so pass me the yoke so i
can have my turn.

~~~
simonh
Paraphrasing Churchil a bit, it may be going too far to call it the best
system we’ve found so far, but it is the least worst.

~~~
schoen
After looking at the Quote Investigator post, I was idly wondering if this
quote that you mentioned might have been misattributed to Churchill, but
apparently it's correctly attributed to him.

[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Post-
war_yea...](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Post-
war_years_\(1945%E2%80%931955\))

