What Career Professionals Can Learn from Would You Do That to Your Mother?
A mid-career analyst is asked to implement a new expense reporting process where the portal times out after ninety seconds, discarding unsaved entries with no warning. Her manager wants it rolled out by Friday because it will cut processing costs. She imagines her own mother, who has little patience for glitchy software, losing an hour of submitted receipts and simply giving up on being reimbursed. Since not everyone feels warmly toward a mother, she also pictures a person you care about hitting the same wall. She flags the timeout issue before launch, delaying the rollout by a week to fix it.
The whole book, compressed
This edition works through 4 core lessons — take them one at a time, not all at once.
What's different for your conditions
Tap whichever ones sound like you. Nothing here is sent or saved — it's just for your own noticing.
0 of 5 selected
The core lessons, applied to you
Testing your own work against a basic decency standard
Professionals routinely build processes, write policies, or design workflows that other people must live inside. Before finalizing one, it helps to ask plainly whether it would be acceptable if someone you deeply respect had to use it under normal, imperfect conditions, not the ideal scenario from the demo. This catches a category of professional blind spot: work that looks efficient on a slide but creates real frustration once actual people, with limited time and patience, try to use it as intended.
Professionals under deadline pressure test their work only under ideal conditions, never simulating a distracted or rushed user.
Before shipping a process or policy, have someone unfamiliar with it try to complete the task and watch where they struggle.
Distinguishing genuine safeguards from institutional convenience
Many workplace policies, from expense approval chains to escalation scripts, exist because they were fastest to implement, not because they serve the people using them. A safeguard that prevents real fraud is different from a hurdle that mainly protects a department from extra work. Professionals who want work they can be proud of need to interrogate their own processes honestly, asking which rules would survive being explained directly to someone affected by them.
Professionals defend convenience-driven processes using the language of risk management, making convenience sound unavoidable.
Once a quarter, review one process you own and ask a colleague outside your department whether it feels reasonable or just easier for you.
Redesigning workflows without losing accountability
Once a process is flagged as convenient rather than genuinely necessary, the work is redesigning it so real accountability survives while unnecessary friction disappears. This might mean autosave for a timing-sensitive form, or replacing a rigid approval chain with a faster path for low-risk requests. Good redesign proves that respecting the system's users and maintaining organizational rigor are not competing goals, just goals that require more thought to satisfy together.
Professionals redesign the interface or language of a process without fixing the underlying mechanism causing the actual frustration.
Pilot any redesigned process with a small group first and ask them directly whether it now feels respectful of their time.
Making the standard part of how you work, not a one-time fix
A single well-designed process fades in value if the habit of questioning new ones does not carry forward. Professionals who sustain this practice build the question into their default workflow, asking it during design reviews and post-launch retrospectives, not only when something visibly breaks. Over a career, this habit becomes a quiet reputation, the person whose work others trust because it was clearly built with them in mind rather than around them.
Efficiency and dignity compete directly under deadline pressure. A professional asked to ship something quickly may have to choose between hitting a date and building in the extra step that protects the people who will use it. There is no clean resolution; the professional must judge, case by case, whether the deadline pressure is real and immovable or has simply become an excuse for skipping the harder, more careful version of the work.
Name one thing, honestly
Which process you have built would you hesitate to explain to someone you deeply respect? Where has deadline pressure become a stand-in excuse for not doing the more careful version of your work?
Good. Now look back at the "Try this" line under whichever lesson feels most connected to what you just wrote, and treat that as this week's actual assignment — not all 4 at once.
The practices from this edition
0 of 3 selected
Run this for seven days
Pilot any redesigned process with a small group first and ask them directly whether it now feels respectful of their time.