Do NOT do this with your manager. The key part of this article is:

> When you have something you want to do and that you feel is in scope for your position, but you want a bit of reassurance or to let the boss know what you are up to, it’s common to reach out and ask them for permission. Don’t. Don’t ask for a yes. Instead, offer a chance to say no, but with a deadline.

If something is not in scope for your responsibility, obviously you must ask for permission.

If something is in scope for your responsibility, then just do the thing.

If it's in some weird edge case where you "feel" it is "in scope for your position" but you "want a bit of reassurance", then pick a lane. Either do the thing or ask for permission. Probably default to asking for permission unless a knowledgeable colleague tells you it's your call.

But setting some kind of deadline for your manager to opt-out is extremely disrespectful. If I ever had a report try to pull a stunt like that, it would be the first thing we'd talk about in our next 1-1.

Because if you have a manager who usually responds promptly, then you can ask for permission and get a quick reply. "Asking for no" is not making it more convenient for your manager, it comes across as trying to usurp their authority. "Hey, I'm going to tell HR you gave approval for a raise unless I hear from you by noon." That's... just not how anything works.

And if you have a manager who often misses e-mails or takes forever to respond, then it comes across as trying to take advantage of that to do stuff they wouldn't approve, in a sneaky way.

This is a bad look in every possible situation. Do not do this.

Like, if you're a journalist telling a source you'll print the story unless you get a correction by a deadline, OK fine. If you're looping in a peer as a courtesy (NOT a manager), then OK. But with your manager? That's crazy.

I think missing from these conversations is the work environments involved. At a large company, a lot of what you said is true. At a startup, almost everything is in scope for everyone. I mean, someone has to do the thing. Part of the ask-telling is broadly communicating "I'm doing this unless someone else has already started on it or strongly wishes to do it themselves."

> And if you have a manager who often misses e-mails or takes forever to respond, then it comes across as trying to take advantage of that to do stuff they wouldn't approve, in a sneaky way.

I strongly disagree with that. Such a person is not a good manager. Their job is to be on top of things and keep their reports unblocked. If their reports are stuck waiting on them, or they claim ignorance of things they've been told about but neglected, they're not doing their job and have to be routed around.

> If something is not in scope for your responsibility, obviously you must ask for permission.

Agree, but this can often be blurry.

> If it's in some weird edge case where you "feel" it is "in scope for your position" but you "want a bit of reassurance", then pick a lane.

I disagree here. I think there are often cases where this really functions as an "FYI" and is helpful. You are not shifting responsibility to the other party, but do...

* CYA if they say they weren't informed

* Get an opportunity for feedback without stalling progress in the case that they don't respond

[dead]