// HACKER NEWS — CYBERSECURITY
I Don't Want the Details
A few months ago I was dragged into a call with my engineering counterpart and their boss (who happens to be our SVP of engineering). Something had gone wrong that shouldn't have. Nothing catastrophic, but important enough that I was now on a call with an SVP.
I started to explain how it happened when they cut me off with "Michael, I don't want the details".
I know that if we get into the details, the reasons will be perfectly reasonable. You'll explain what happened, I'll understand why everyone made the decisions they made, and I'll empathise with you.
So I don't want the details. I want to know what we're changing.
At first I thought "I don't want the details" sounded dismissive. How can they make informed decisions without understanding the details?
Then I realised that "I don't want the details" wasn't being dismissive. The executive assumed that we were competent, and was saying "I already believe you. Now let's talk about what happens next".
After something goes wrong, most organizations ask "Why did this happen?" This is a question we're all familiar with answering.
We write up timelines. We reconstruct decisions. We explain dependencies. At the end of it, we hand over a document that contains the specific combination of events that led to the incident.
Everyone nods their head, says "that makes sense", and we all move on with our day.
Understanding an issue is not the same as fixing it. A good explanation can make things worse. Once everyone agrees that the behaviour was reasonable, the urgency to change anything disappears.