Indulgence - how to get rid of debts on tasks
Any employee has debts. As a rule, the higher the position, the more this baggage. This, of course, is not about debts on loans, but about outstanding tasks, commitments, projects, promises, etc.
Some even believe that the higher the debts, the better. Once I met such a phrase in the Artemy Lebedev Studio vacancy (not literally) - you shouldn’t come to us if you can transfer cases at the old place in less than six months. It seems like big debts are a cause for pride.
Unfortunately, this does not suit me. I do not like debts. And for a long time he noticed several methods that allow them to either get rid of or postpone payments without interest accumulation.
')
For several years he tried the methods himself, and observed how others practice this practice, consciously or unconsciously. The common name is Indulgence.
First of all - unsolved problems. Not those that have been delivered recently, but every kind of rotten delay, “the wish has been written down,” etc. In the second - goals and indicators to which I, for various reasons, suddenly have to strive. In the third one there are projects that are slipping into which they once got involved, or they got involved, but for various reasons they can never end.
Debts are official and unofficial. The difference is sometimes in the details, but the attitude of managers and lenders to the status of debt is very different.
Official - this is acquired, so to speak, through official channels. The memo, the task entered in the system, the appeal, the assignment, inscribing your name in the project charter, an autograph under a sheet of familiarization with the motivation system, etc.
Unofficial - received through informal channels. Although, sometimes these channels are stronger and more significant than the official ones - it depends on the lender. A colleague asked for help, or the user, or the boss, or the project team - anyone. But the debt is not recorded anywhere, there is no receipt.
That hang over the soul. Well, at me so, at least. Especially annoying informal.
As a rule, everything is simpler with formal ones - there is a process, stages, deadlines, control, penalties, and a change of priorities. For example, the head, seeing that I have a rotten task, can raise its priority to the maximum, in order not to get a debt. Or maybe a dog like that, keep this task in stock to poke my nose at it.
Informal worse because they have no framework and rules. Here I promised to the person that I would make some kind of refinement, or look at his code, and, of course, did not name the term. But he did not ask - after all, he asked for them in a human way, and he did not deliver the assignment. And I, besides his informal task, are full of formal, for which I can completely grab. His task will always hang out at the end, until my conscience tortures me.
Debts have such an oddity - the longer it hangs, the harder it is to begin to implement it. The task just posed is to take and make it much easier. A delay ... I do not know ... It seems like a dumb little, or something. As a mug office wash from black tea and coffee soot, accumulated six months. After all, I experienced difficulties, including mental ones, when this task became overdue. I survived these difficulties, suffered some emotional losses, learned to live with this debt, and what, suddenly, would I take it and get rid of it? And all the suffering was in vain?
Summarizing, the main problem of debt, in my opinion, is the emotional experience of their presence. As if there is some potential, a stone is hanging, which delays some of the energy and does not allow to work effectively.
It happens, even with people uncomfortable talking. Here I need something from Vasya, the head of procurement - I have a project, and I need his advice, support or real help. And I need Vasya the task, and - informally. I, most likely, will not go to Vasya. Maximum I will write an email, because it is embarrassing to look into the eyes.
I will mention briefly, because an article about something else - yes, debts can be simply taken and done. But this is another topic, I will not interfere with everything in a heap. My task is to write off or postpone.
This is my favorite method, I applied it several times, even within the framework of one enterprise. Favorite because I, as a programmer or programmer, could implement it completely independently, without even asking anyone for permission.
So, we have, for example, tasks in a non-formalized form - letters, calls, papers, memos, etc. Not only is it inconvenient to work with this pile, it also accumulates debts, as the Tower of Babel is impossible to manage tasks.
I make a knight's move - I develop a task management system. A simple, for a couple of days, "for themselves." After some time, there are people who put forward demands on how to make this system at least a little “for people” - I resist a little, but I make improvements. And so, little by little, little by little, people start to get used to the system.
Another pedestrian came, or "dialer" - send to the system. It seems I will not solve the problem until you write it down. And what about the old tasks? Forgotten, almost all. People cannot bring in new tasks, and here they are still old. Moreover, it is difficult to find non-formalized tasks - in the mess of the mess, in the table - all the more. Naturally, I will not introduce old tasks myself - my new ones are already in the queue.
Debts are written off completely, and under a specious excuse. The same development, as in any way.
But in the new system, debts have accumulated again. After waiting a little while it becomes unbearably shameful for them, I begin to develop a new system. More precisely, the system remains old - this is an enterprise KIS, but I am writing new logic, on new metadata, with new processes.
Justify no problem. I read a book here, I listened to a seminar here, I looked at the practice of effective teams, I thought here, I figured it, I noticed here that you can start developing a new system with any of these phrases. She, of course, will be better than before.
It is not difficult for a programmer to justify why the old system cannot be modified - of course, if it is necessary to justify not programmers, but ordinary users, even those with the power. Trite - money. Developing a task management system from scratch is cheaper than modifying an existing one. Indeed, in the old there are already a lot of tasks, all kinds of auxiliary fields there, tables designed for the old process. It will be necessary to fence a difficult garden on transfer, data conversion, which in the process can also be lost.
Much easier, again, a couple of days to make a new system. And again, do not transfer the data there, because the metadata does not match, and you need to spend a lot of time on the conversion. And again, no one is reluctant to transfer old tasks. And me - even more so.
Once, in this way, I brought the entire IT department from under the penalty system, I told about it - it covered the entire enterprise, obliged me to execute orders on time, otherwise they would take a piece of the salary. Although I developed it, but not for myself, and it was not me who invented the fines. And programmers were afraid of fines.
Then I created within the framework of the same KIS another task management system, specifically for the IT department. Even the metadata called categorically - "Bid Application", so that no one was teased to join in. He justified it easily - orders with fines are suitable for accountants and managers, but very bad for programmers. And it is impossible to alter, are you - we have the whole company cooked in this porridge, we suddenly break. Rolled. Even almost all the debts were written off - all orders in the old system were closed with the wording “Move the task to a new place”.
Subsequently, I observed a strange effect - even when the system of tasks is completely “for myself”, and only I write there, and suddenly I decide to move to another one - I don’t want to transfer the tasks. So it remains to rot in the old.
The difference in restructuring is that it is almost always outside the limits of influence — it just comes from above. It is important to be able to use it.
For example, I worked at an enterprise that changed the staff structure about once a year. Changes were almost always large-scale, and most importantly. Changed not only the names and compositions of the departments, but also functions. Now they were enlarged, then crushed, then the divisions turned into divisions, then divisions into business units, and so on.
The main thing before such a transformation is to impersonate the tasks, to make them not our own, but the tasks of the unit. Yesterday I had to do something for a person, today he owes a department, tomorrow - pf ... No one should. No department anymore. There is a business unit, and it is not a department, it contains several different functions, it has other goals, it is generally worthwhile, and not a cost center.
What is interesting is that the lender will also fall under the restructuring. And, most likely, he will forget about the issued tasks. It turns out mutual indulgence.
If tasks cannot be depersonalized, then it is necessary to choose the right moment to write them off - those very few days of confusion, when no one cares about old debts, if only the new environment has somehow settled down. Come, humanly talk, and forgive each other all this delay.
I myself did not use this method, because, unfortunately, the restructuring of the IT department only touched once - the admin was taken into submission to the security men. True, not for long, then returned, when they learned that the admin also need to manage.
But how others use it - he has seen many times, and even helped to write off debts in technical terms. Some supplier resorts, and says that he is no longer a supplier. Although everyone knows that he is still a supplier. He used to simply be in the supply department, and now in the business unit of five people, including one salesman, one designer, one supplier, one manager and one engineer. We will do the same, only the customer is another - not the whole company, but one seller.
Interesting wording, which resorted to - "take off my task." I explain - you can not just take off, you need to rearrange someone. And a person, naturally, doesn’t care - well, who will bother with the question “who will my debts be?” I say - go, agree with creditors, they have the opportunity to rearrange or withdraw the task. No, in no way - would be quick to remove. There is nothing to do - I delete the task under the admin rights. If a creditor comes to swear - I redirect to the former debtor.
Cross-functional - this is when the project is executed by people from different departments. What a sin to conceal, usually it is - some kind of crap, like a musical, in-house training and other amateur performances. Just as people from the school and the institute are accustomed to, that speaking for the faculty gives indulgence during the session, so they drag this template to work.
Here I have a programmer, he has a debt. In front of me, in front of customers, in front of the team. The New Year is on the nose, and it is being dragged into preparation for the corporate party - it will sing and dance. I, like, have no right to refuse, and reluctantly agree - of course, with the proviso that all this will not distract from work. Yeah, right now.
One or two rehearsals are held after work, but they face low attendance - who wants to stay? Transferred to working hours. The closer the corporate, the more often and longer rehearsals. The programmer does not have time to work, debts are piling up - in addition to those previously available.
What to do? From the "project" is no longer pull out - he has one of the main roles. We have to write off debts from it, and transfer them to the “co-borrowers” ​​- programmers, or to the “guarantor” - themselves. I hate fucking corporate parties.
Oh, this is just a great reason for indulgence. New bosses, as a rule, do not like to incur the debts of their predecessors, especially if there was not castling, but dismissal and reception from outside. Formally, the new boss, it seems, should reconsider all the old tasks, determine their importance and priority, but does he need it?
As a rule, it comes easier - or throws out the old task, or assigns it a new deadline, which automatically translates a long time from the category of overdue to quite fresh ones. It is worth using it, pushing the chief to the correct decision. To say, for example, that the predecessor was a terpile, a poor manager, that is why he started everything.
In the same way as debtors are moved during restructuring. Only I need to run away already - they say, you are now in a new division, with a new position, goals, duties. What do you and I do with the old tasks? They were created in an already non-existent context.
As a rule, they agree, because for a long time - a two-way thing. I have to do, he has to check, accept, implement. Does he need it?
The main thing is to be in time. As soon as I learned that a person is already at work, choose the right moment. There are two of them - the beginning and the end. At the beginning of a person, as a rule, euphoria, because he "leaves this swamp." Under a good mood, he will gladly write off debts, because, in his opinion, he makes worse than the company he leaves - this is his joy.
Then, almost always, there is a period of strange activity. The excess potential of responsibility was removed from the person, and he, the dog, finally begins to work effectively. He is no longer tormented by terms, consequences, intrigues and interconnections — he simply does, and that’s all. At this moment it is better not to meddle.
And in the last couple of days, a person is getting depressed. He begins to think that he did wrong. The euphoria is leaving, he learns a lot of facts about the new place of work, which he did not pay attention to when he spoke. And here, in the old place, everything seemed to be working out - although, we understand that it was adjusted just because he was already at work. Here you can come for debt relief - a person just does not care.
I used this method often. The essence is simple - you do not accept new tasks from the lender until you close the old ones. You can justify in different ways. For example, to say "damn, I owe you so, I can no longer increase the obligations." And you can come up with a certain rule, like “not to take more than 10 tasks from one department at a time”. The logic is clear - any fool can make a DDoS attack on the IT department, flooding it with tasks, but at the same time depriving all other departments of automation. And so it is impossible.
The message is the same - remove the old task, then take a new one. As a rule, they agree, because the new task is right now, it is on fire, it needs to be done. And the old - once managed to become old - is not really needed. It can be attributed to what lenders do.
Too cool method. True, he basically gives a reprieve, and does not write off debts. But, with due diligence, you can delay for several years.
So, you need contact with the Big Boss. It is better, of course, if it is the owner, or, at worst, the director. He can set the task himself, but this is a so-so option, because such a task will have a time limit, and waving it like a flag will not work for a long time.
It is much better to offer the Big Boss a solution to a problem. Perhaps it will even be a project. It is desirable that it be vague, incomprehensible, with fuzzy boundaries and without evaluation criteria. It seems like "I will try to improve this."
It is important to select the wording. Big Boss says - "I will try, I will try, but I do not guarantee the result." It seems like you want to help him. The task, in fact, is yours, not his - he only approved and supported.
And to all the rest we say - "I have a task from the Big Boss, important and urgent." They are unlikely to check - if the boss is really big. This is the main feature. Such tasks are almost always informal, they are not registered in any system, they are not controlled at meetings. But everyone understands that these tasks exist. And do not dare to once again pester their nonsense.
This is a method for getting rid of protracted, bedridden projects. On the internal automation rolled.
The essence is simple - it is necessary to substantiate that the old project was at a deadlock, the wrong architecture was laid there, the design of the curve, went the wrong way, did not outline the boundaries, and in general did everything wrong. It must be different.
This phrase - “in a different way” - often acts magically on people. To verify this, look at the history of any reforms and changes in Russia. Everyone has long known that "they wanted the best, but it turned out, as always," but they still believe that it will be "different."
The recumbent projects have an advantage - they got everyone, both debtors and creditors. Obligations, albeit informal ones, are with the contractor and the customer of the project. And everyone is happy to get rid of them. But no one dares to take the initiative.
Here you can express yourself. Only not from the bay-floundering, out of the blue, but with justification. A new version of the platform has been released, or software, or technologies have appeared, which solve the key tasks of the project more beautifully. We may have spent a thousand people / hours, but we will spend more on completion than on implementing from scratch on a new platform. You can always tangle. And it is not necessary to convince - we need not arguments, but excuse. And not for you, but for everyone - in front of the authorities.
And your hands are still clean. If anything, colleagues will point a finger at you - he decided to stop the project. And you - I just suggested them, but they supported, agreed and happily abandoned the project. And I just suggested how the idea.
This is perhaps the most natural and frequently used method of producing indulgences. Often - forced, i.e. Dismissal happens because of too much debt, which literally does not allow to breathe.
But, as for me, dismissal is still a spare, extreme option. It is better to work proactively, by the methods that I suggested - plus to those that you already know. Applying an indulgence, for example, I comfortably worked for 6 years in a company where the average life of a manager was one year. Moreover, I left myself, for no reason at all internal to the company.
Although, everyone decides for himself, of course.
Some even believe that the higher the debts, the better. Once I met such a phrase in the Artemy Lebedev Studio vacancy (not literally) - you shouldn’t come to us if you can transfer cases at the old place in less than six months. It seems like big debts are a cause for pride.
Unfortunately, this does not suit me. I do not like debts. And for a long time he noticed several methods that allow them to either get rid of or postpone payments without interest accumulation.
')
For several years he tried the methods himself, and observed how others practice this practice, consciously or unconsciously. The common name is Indulgence.
What are the debts
First of all - unsolved problems. Not those that have been delivered recently, but every kind of rotten delay, “the wish has been written down,” etc. In the second - goals and indicators to which I, for various reasons, suddenly have to strive. In the third one there are projects that are slipping into which they once got involved, or they got involved, but for various reasons they can never end.
Debts are official and unofficial. The difference is sometimes in the details, but the attitude of managers and lenders to the status of debt is very different.
Official - this is acquired, so to speak, through official channels. The memo, the task entered in the system, the appeal, the assignment, inscribing your name in the project charter, an autograph under a sheet of familiarization with the motivation system, etc.
Unofficial - received through informal channels. Although, sometimes these channels are stronger and more significant than the official ones - it depends on the lender. A colleague asked for help, or the user, or the boss, or the project team - anyone. But the debt is not recorded anywhere, there is no receipt.
What are bad debts?
That hang over the soul. Well, at me so, at least. Especially annoying informal.
As a rule, everything is simpler with formal ones - there is a process, stages, deadlines, control, penalties, and a change of priorities. For example, the head, seeing that I have a rotten task, can raise its priority to the maximum, in order not to get a debt. Or maybe a dog like that, keep this task in stock to poke my nose at it.
Informal worse because they have no framework and rules. Here I promised to the person that I would make some kind of refinement, or look at his code, and, of course, did not name the term. But he did not ask - after all, he asked for them in a human way, and he did not deliver the assignment. And I, besides his informal task, are full of formal, for which I can completely grab. His task will always hang out at the end, until my conscience tortures me.
Debts have such an oddity - the longer it hangs, the harder it is to begin to implement it. The task just posed is to take and make it much easier. A delay ... I do not know ... It seems like a dumb little, or something. As a mug office wash from black tea and coffee soot, accumulated six months. After all, I experienced difficulties, including mental ones, when this task became overdue. I survived these difficulties, suffered some emotional losses, learned to live with this debt, and what, suddenly, would I take it and get rid of it? And all the suffering was in vain?
Summarizing, the main problem of debt, in my opinion, is the emotional experience of their presence. As if there is some potential, a stone is hanging, which delays some of the energy and does not allow to work effectively.
It happens, even with people uncomfortable talking. Here I need something from Vasya, the head of procurement - I have a project, and I need his advice, support or real help. And I need Vasya the task, and - informally. I, most likely, will not go to Vasya. Maximum I will write an email, because it is embarrassing to look into the eyes.
NonIndulgence
I will mention briefly, because an article about something else - yes, debts can be simply taken and done. But this is another topic, I will not interfere with everything in a heap. My task is to write off or postpone.
Change of task accounting system
This is my favorite method, I applied it several times, even within the framework of one enterprise. Favorite because I, as a programmer or programmer, could implement it completely independently, without even asking anyone for permission.
So, we have, for example, tasks in a non-formalized form - letters, calls, papers, memos, etc. Not only is it inconvenient to work with this pile, it also accumulates debts, as the Tower of Babel is impossible to manage tasks.
I make a knight's move - I develop a task management system. A simple, for a couple of days, "for themselves." After some time, there are people who put forward demands on how to make this system at least a little “for people” - I resist a little, but I make improvements. And so, little by little, little by little, people start to get used to the system.
Another pedestrian came, or "dialer" - send to the system. It seems I will not solve the problem until you write it down. And what about the old tasks? Forgotten, almost all. People cannot bring in new tasks, and here they are still old. Moreover, it is difficult to find non-formalized tasks - in the mess of the mess, in the table - all the more. Naturally, I will not introduce old tasks myself - my new ones are already in the queue.
Debts are written off completely, and under a specious excuse. The same development, as in any way.
But in the new system, debts have accumulated again. After waiting a little while it becomes unbearably shameful for them, I begin to develop a new system. More precisely, the system remains old - this is an enterprise KIS, but I am writing new logic, on new metadata, with new processes.
Justify no problem. I read a book here, I listened to a seminar here, I looked at the practice of effective teams, I thought here, I figured it, I noticed here that you can start developing a new system with any of these phrases. She, of course, will be better than before.
It is not difficult for a programmer to justify why the old system cannot be modified - of course, if it is necessary to justify not programmers, but ordinary users, even those with the power. Trite - money. Developing a task management system from scratch is cheaper than modifying an existing one. Indeed, in the old there are already a lot of tasks, all kinds of auxiliary fields there, tables designed for the old process. It will be necessary to fence a difficult garden on transfer, data conversion, which in the process can also be lost.
Much easier, again, a couple of days to make a new system. And again, do not transfer the data there, because the metadata does not match, and you need to spend a lot of time on the conversion. And again, no one is reluctant to transfer old tasks. And me - even more so.
Once, in this way, I brought the entire IT department from under the penalty system, I told about it - it covered the entire enterprise, obliged me to execute orders on time, otherwise they would take a piece of the salary. Although I developed it, but not for myself, and it was not me who invented the fines. And programmers were afraid of fines.
Then I created within the framework of the same KIS another task management system, specifically for the IT department. Even the metadata called categorically - "Bid Application", so that no one was teased to join in. He justified it easily - orders with fines are suitable for accountants and managers, but very bad for programmers. And it is impossible to alter, are you - we have the whole company cooked in this porridge, we suddenly break. Rolled. Even almost all the debts were written off - all orders in the old system were closed with the wording “Move the task to a new place”.
Subsequently, I observed a strange effect - even when the system of tasks is completely “for myself”, and only I write there, and suddenly I decide to move to another one - I don’t want to transfer the tasks. So it remains to rot in the old.
Restructuring
The difference in restructuring is that it is almost always outside the limits of influence — it just comes from above. It is important to be able to use it.
For example, I worked at an enterprise that changed the staff structure about once a year. Changes were almost always large-scale, and most importantly. Changed not only the names and compositions of the departments, but also functions. Now they were enlarged, then crushed, then the divisions turned into divisions, then divisions into business units, and so on.
The main thing before such a transformation is to impersonate the tasks, to make them not our own, but the tasks of the unit. Yesterday I had to do something for a person, today he owes a department, tomorrow - pf ... No one should. No department anymore. There is a business unit, and it is not a department, it contains several different functions, it has other goals, it is generally worthwhile, and not a cost center.
What is interesting is that the lender will also fall under the restructuring. And, most likely, he will forget about the issued tasks. It turns out mutual indulgence.
If tasks cannot be depersonalized, then it is necessary to choose the right moment to write them off - those very few days of confusion, when no one cares about old debts, if only the new environment has somehow settled down. Come, humanly talk, and forgive each other all this delay.
I myself did not use this method, because, unfortunately, the restructuring of the IT department only touched once - the admin was taken into submission to the security men. True, not for long, then returned, when they learned that the admin also need to manage.
But how others use it - he has seen many times, and even helped to write off debts in technical terms. Some supplier resorts, and says that he is no longer a supplier. Although everyone knows that he is still a supplier. He used to simply be in the supply department, and now in the business unit of five people, including one salesman, one designer, one supplier, one manager and one engineer. We will do the same, only the customer is another - not the whole company, but one seller.
Interesting wording, which resorted to - "take off my task." I explain - you can not just take off, you need to rearrange someone. And a person, naturally, doesn’t care - well, who will bother with the question “who will my debts be?” I say - go, agree with creditors, they have the opportunity to rearrange or withdraw the task. No, in no way - would be quick to remove. There is nothing to do - I delete the task under the admin rights. If a creditor comes to swear - I redirect to the former debtor.
Cross-functional projects
Cross-functional - this is when the project is executed by people from different departments. What a sin to conceal, usually it is - some kind of crap, like a musical, in-house training and other amateur performances. Just as people from the school and the institute are accustomed to, that speaking for the faculty gives indulgence during the session, so they drag this template to work.
Here I have a programmer, he has a debt. In front of me, in front of customers, in front of the team. The New Year is on the nose, and it is being dragged into preparation for the corporate party - it will sing and dance. I, like, have no right to refuse, and reluctantly agree - of course, with the proviso that all this will not distract from work. Yeah, right now.
One or two rehearsals are held after work, but they face low attendance - who wants to stay? Transferred to working hours. The closer the corporate, the more often and longer rehearsals. The programmer does not have time to work, debts are piling up - in addition to those previously available.
What to do? From the "project" is no longer pull out - he has one of the main roles. We have to write off debts from it, and transfer them to the “co-borrowers” ​​- programmers, or to the “guarantor” - themselves. I hate fucking corporate parties.
Change of head
Oh, this is just a great reason for indulgence. New bosses, as a rule, do not like to incur the debts of their predecessors, especially if there was not castling, but dismissal and reception from outside. Formally, the new boss, it seems, should reconsider all the old tasks, determine their importance and priority, but does he need it?
As a rule, it comes easier - or throws out the old task, or assigns it a new deadline, which automatically translates a long time from the category of overdue to quite fresh ones. It is worth using it, pushing the chief to the correct decision. To say, for example, that the predecessor was a terpile, a poor manager, that is why he started everything.
Moving lender
In the same way as debtors are moved during restructuring. Only I need to run away already - they say, you are now in a new division, with a new position, goals, duties. What do you and I do with the old tasks? They were created in an already non-existent context.
As a rule, they agree, because for a long time - a two-way thing. I have to do, he has to check, accept, implement. Does he need it?
Dismissal of a lender
The main thing is to be in time. As soon as I learned that a person is already at work, choose the right moment. There are two of them - the beginning and the end. At the beginning of a person, as a rule, euphoria, because he "leaves this swamp." Under a good mood, he will gladly write off debts, because, in his opinion, he makes worse than the company he leaves - this is his joy.
Then, almost always, there is a period of strange activity. The excess potential of responsibility was removed from the person, and he, the dog, finally begins to work effectively. He is no longer tormented by terms, consequences, intrigues and interconnections — he simply does, and that’s all. At this moment it is better not to meddle.
And in the last couple of days, a person is getting depressed. He begins to think that he did wrong. The euphoria is leaving, he learns a lot of facts about the new place of work, which he did not pay attention to when he spoke. And here, in the old place, everything seemed to be working out - although, we understand that it was adjusted just because he was already at work. Here you can come for debt relief - a person just does not care.
Debt Exchange
I used this method often. The essence is simple - you do not accept new tasks from the lender until you close the old ones. You can justify in different ways. For example, to say "damn, I owe you so, I can no longer increase the obligations." And you can come up with a certain rule, like “not to take more than 10 tasks from one department at a time”. The logic is clear - any fool can make a DDoS attack on the IT department, flooding it with tasks, but at the same time depriving all other departments of automation. And so it is impossible.
The message is the same - remove the old task, then take a new one. As a rule, they agree, because the new task is right now, it is on fire, it needs to be done. And the old - once managed to become old - is not really needed. It can be attributed to what lenders do.
Commission from the Big Boss
Too cool method. True, he basically gives a reprieve, and does not write off debts. But, with due diligence, you can delay for several years.
So, you need contact with the Big Boss. It is better, of course, if it is the owner, or, at worst, the director. He can set the task himself, but this is a so-so option, because such a task will have a time limit, and waving it like a flag will not work for a long time.
It is much better to offer the Big Boss a solution to a problem. Perhaps it will even be a project. It is desirable that it be vague, incomprehensible, with fuzzy boundaries and without evaluation criteria. It seems like "I will try to improve this."
It is important to select the wording. Big Boss says - "I will try, I will try, but I do not guarantee the result." It seems like you want to help him. The task, in fact, is yours, not his - he only approved and supported.
And to all the rest we say - "I have a task from the Big Boss, important and urgent." They are unlikely to check - if the boss is really big. This is the main feature. Such tasks are almost always informal, they are not registered in any system, they are not controlled at meetings. But everyone understands that these tasks exist. And do not dare to once again pester their nonsense.
New project on the old topic
This is a method for getting rid of protracted, bedridden projects. On the internal automation rolled.
The essence is simple - it is necessary to substantiate that the old project was at a deadlock, the wrong architecture was laid there, the design of the curve, went the wrong way, did not outline the boundaries, and in general did everything wrong. It must be different.
This phrase - “in a different way” - often acts magically on people. To verify this, look at the history of any reforms and changes in Russia. Everyone has long known that "they wanted the best, but it turned out, as always," but they still believe that it will be "different."
The recumbent projects have an advantage - they got everyone, both debtors and creditors. Obligations, albeit informal ones, are with the contractor and the customer of the project. And everyone is happy to get rid of them. But no one dares to take the initiative.
Here you can express yourself. Only not from the bay-floundering, out of the blue, but with justification. A new version of the platform has been released, or software, or technologies have appeared, which solve the key tasks of the project more beautifully. We may have spent a thousand people / hours, but we will spend more on completion than on implementing from scratch on a new platform. You can always tangle. And it is not necessary to convince - we need not arguments, but excuse. And not for you, but for everyone - in front of the authorities.
And your hands are still clean. If anything, colleagues will point a finger at you - he decided to stop the project. And you - I just suggested them, but they supported, agreed and happily abandoned the project. And I just suggested how the idea.
Dismissal
This is perhaps the most natural and frequently used method of producing indulgences. Often - forced, i.e. Dismissal happens because of too much debt, which literally does not allow to breathe.
But, as for me, dismissal is still a spare, extreme option. It is better to work proactively, by the methods that I suggested - plus to those that you already know. Applying an indulgence, for example, I comfortably worked for 6 years in a company where the average life of a manager was one year. Moreover, I left myself, for no reason at all internal to the company.
Although, everyone decides for himself, of course.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/456646/
All Articles