In defense of AI mandates

When you need to execute a coordinated change on a tight timeline, a mandate might be the best and most honest way to fund it.

I’ve been writing a series of pieces on lessons learned from our AI journey at Honeycomb. I’ve written about the tension between enthusiasts and skeptics, the need for engineering rigor, and the ethics of using tools with externalities and a seedy backstory.

Today I want to send you off to a long July 4th weekend with a short but passionate defense of that most despised of management tools, the technology mandate.

Nobody likes mandates

I have read many a tweet or post from engineers exploding with rage over the pointless, counterproductive AI mandates they have endured at work.

I have also read many a post from CEOs and execs bragging about their mandates, how decisively they upskilled, how fast they are moving now, and — lest we forget — how many people they laid off as a result of their new, AI-juiced incredibleness.

(Boy, I wonder why people aren’t excited?)

Sometimes mandates are stupid and punitive and shortsighted and dumb. But not always.

A mandate is a way to fund the change

The mandate is one way of putting organizational muscle behind a decision. It's a funding mechanism. It works by acknowledging that “hey, we are all going to be a little slower for a bit while we figure this out, and it will be annoying and expensive and we accept that.”

It’s a way of letting managers know that we know some deadlines and standards will slip, and that's ok. We are all going to go through this hard thing together and have each other’s back, because this is important. We accept the tradeoffs.

Any time you devote resources to a goal, you need to account for where those resources are coming from. What can people put down or let slip? What work are you choosing not to do? How will you know if it was worth the time and effort?

A mandate is a forcing function for identifying a timeline and figuring out what kind of enablement is needed. It forces you to have hard conversations about what tradeoffs to expect and what success will look like.

If you don’t fund the change, it’s not important

Without funding and a mandate, you're effectively telling your employees to build these skills in their spare time, if they can and if they feel like it. Which is the same as telling them “this is NOT a priority, we are NOT willing to fund it.”

You are telling managers there is no cover from above. No grace and understanding that deadlines may slip, quality may degrade, work may take longer. No resources to try and make the learning fun and social. No shared sense of we are all in this together, yes this is hard, but we will get through it.

You are just larding on more pressure and uncertainty and stress — the opposite of clarity and call to action.

If you have the luxury of time, you might not need a mandate. Maybe you have time and space to win hearts and minds, create opportunities for learning, cultivate intrinsic motivation and manage to outcomes. This can be an easier and less disruptive way of driving change through an engineering org.

But you don’t always have that luxury. And not every change is fun. Most big transformation projects end up needing hearts and minds and mandates.

Make a decision, but follow through

So figure it out. Is AI existential for you, or is it a nice-to-have? Either way, for the love of god, be consistent. Don’t claim it’s existential but refuse to fund the change. Don’t claim it’s a nice-to-have, then change your mind later and blame your employees for not working hard enough to build AI expertise.

As I wrote in my skeptics and enthusiasts piece:

As management, sometimes you have to ask people to do things they disagree with or go in a direction they don’t love. That’s part of the job…But forcing something through should always be the last resort.

And if you do end up laying down the law, you better be right. Reality had better back you up, and fast. Because if you forced them into doing something they knew was wrong and wouldn’t work, they are going to resent you for the rest of their life.

If you’re reorienting your strategy, roadmap and job ladder around an AI-first agenda, but you aren’t willing to be straight with your employees that these are required skills now — and allocate time and space to develop those skills — that’s not respecting their agency, it’s dishonesty and cowardice in leadership.

A declaration of independence

Happy fourth, everyone, and happy 250th birthday to this battered, beautiful country of ours. We hold these words to be self-evident,

All people are entitled to inherent rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Governments exist only to protect these rights and derive their authority from the people they govern.

Still revolutionary words. To our republic, if we can keep it. 🥂

~charity