Comment on Wish I was her

• InputZero@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Example from my week, training. This week I was training some fresh employees, one of them asked a really good question which I didn’t have an answer to at the time. I told them as much and said I’ll come back to them after the session to find an answer to their question. They were unhappy with my answer but I had a class full of people who want to get back out to do their work. The best thing to do was move on, get everyone else going then follow-up. Which I did and I learned something. My point being, sometimes it’s better to be wrong and move on than to stop everything to answer a single question. Experience has informed me what questions I have to take immediately and what ones I can circle back to.

  source

  • Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    But you were not wrong and instead did the right thing? There is no need to confidently say nonsense.

    source
• frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  There’s lot of examples I can think of where it can be go both ways.

  In an sport for instance the optimal play can be worse if not everyone is on the same page, so sometimes the decent play where everyone is on the same same page is the one a leader would want to be pushing for.

  In an emergency, having a leader giving directions to keep people calm and organized can matter even if it’s not the optimal way of handling things. The opposite can be true too there though, for example if a leader is trying to have people put out a fire with a rag, water, or a broom when a fire extinguisher in present then the individual that thinks to grab and use the fire extinguisher could be demonstrating that there are times when it makes sense to override the leader.

  The leader above is still doing the right thing by tackling the problem the only way they know how in the moment, but as individuals we need to be able to know when we should go along with the plan the leader puts forward or when to break from that plan.

  source

  • Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Sports etc. seem super subjective, so it does not really apply there. I specially mean knowing better but still saying something wrong.

    source

    • frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I disagree that they don’t apply, since there is a subjective discussion, the issue is we’re talking about something very abstract like it’s always black and white when reality has a lot of grey.

      How are we defining knowing better here?

      If we’re saying the leader knows that that there is information they don’t know, but they act like they do know that information then that can lead to trust issues.

      If a leader doesn’t know that they don’t know something, then you would hope they have the capacity to learn and are willing to learn new pieces of information so that they can be more informed.

      In either case though, you expect them to act based on the information in front of them that they are familiar with. If you bring up new information, in a low stakes setting, they should be open to receiving that new information.

      If you bring up new information in a high stakes setting, that can catch some leaders off-guard since in theory they have had time to review all of the present information before a setting was high stakes. If for some reason the ‘facts table’ being used is wrong or outdated then I believe discreetly bringing this information up to the leader in these situations can be beneficial but I would leave the judgment call to them for what information to go off of.

      source

      • Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        It feels like you are talking about something else, not the issue from the TO. It is specifically saying something, intentionally, that is either wrong or unknown but in either case confidently, as if you know/are correct. And that is not the right thing to do. Perhaps there are rare edge cases where that would be okay.

        source