> Before making such a change, ask yourself this question: Is what I'm doing good for the company?
If you knew what the consequences were going to be then they wouldn't be unanticipated, but if you didn't know then you couldn't accurately answer the question.
Aren't you just asking people to 'know the unknown unknowns' and never make poor decisions?
Wouldn't it be a more realistic suggestion to ask them to ask "Was this good for the company and if not, should we revert to how it was before?"
Actually, I quoted that line because I believe that while resignations are an unintended consequence, they are easily forseen by any manager who stops trying to achieve local maxima and thinks of global maxima. While the quote is funny in the context of the movie, it's a perfectly sensible question to ask on a regular basis: It's a way of reminding yourself to step back and think big picture.
Which is what disturbs me about the story. A CFO is paid to think big picture, to confer with the CTO about morale, and so forth. In a well-run company I would expect a middle manager to suggest quashing free drinks and the CFO to demur after conferring with colleagues.
Given the story as told, I wonder if an Engineering-Business war was breaking out and if the CFO new exactly what was going to happen.
It is very rare for any individual to completely reverse their previous decision, especially when the results of that decision are subjective, delayed and hard to measure.
By the time management realises that soda should have been free, the opinions of the top engineers have irreversibly changed.
In the movie, the PHBs hold a meeting in which they solemnly instruct all their employees to ask "Is what I'm doing good for the company?" before they do anything.
The audience rolls its eyes in sympathy, for the reasons you've pointed out here.
You don't roll your eyes at Office Space because you think "oh no, how will the employees know about the unintended consequences?! What a silly request."
You sigh and roll your eyes because it's a patronising request which stamps the bosses authority and makes it clear that the boss thinks all the employees are a bit slow. (Or perhaps because you think it should be up to the boss to decide what's good for the company then organise the employees to do it, and by asking the employees to do that he's trying to avoid work by pushing his job onto the employees while still keeping his position and salary).
The parent post I was responding to was suggesting "try to see the unexpected consequences" and I was countering "that's like trying to find all the bugs - you'll never know when you've finished; more helpful would be managerial humility and willingness to notice negative results and revert the changes".
If you knew what the consequences were going to be then they wouldn't be unanticipated, but if you didn't know then you couldn't accurately answer the question.
Aren't you just asking people to 'know the unknown unknowns' and never make poor decisions?
Wouldn't it be a more realistic suggestion to ask them to ask "Was this good for the company and if not, should we revert to how it was before?"