5 ms·

Love the "disagree and commit" part. Perfectly encapsulates the situation where "I'm convinced this is a bad idea, but I'm going to trust you and support you."

by seibelj 10y ago

ardit33 10y ago
As I worked in amazon previously and know this first hand, you can translate it to: "Shut up, and do as be told". It is a very top down hierarchal type of company, and engineers usually have little influence in general, and often are kept in dark on key decisions. Disagreeing in general is seen as a nuisance. A lot of it would disappear if managers gave concrete details on why a decision was made, but it usually takes a skilled manager to do that, and Amazon, as a large company, has a combination of good managers and plenty of not-so good ones.
- zippergz 10y ago
  I think you worked in a crappy team, because I was there for nearly a decade, and I didn't find that to be the case.
- eclipxe 10y ago
  You were on a bad team, sorry!
ams6110 10y ago
he [Bezos] notes, when you disagree and commit, it's not about holding an "I-told-you-so" over other people's heads. It's a chance for people to hear an opposing point of view but to move ahead with action I actually can't see it as anything other than a (potential) "I-told-you-so." Why are you specifically highlighting that you disagree, if you are then giving the go-ahead? You are the boss. If you approve something, ultimately it's your responsibility. If you really trusted the person you would give them full authority on the decision without dropping your own agreement or disagreement into the mix.
- leblancfg 10y ago
  I agree 100% with this. The 'disagree' part should at least come with some form of strings attached. Something like 'we need to be able to pull the plug early with this', 'you start with a limited budget', or similar. Otherwise it's useless to mention the fact that you disagree.
- msg 10y ago
  The example he gave was about consensus, and when you want to stop fighting. No one else can actually force you to stop fighting and move on to commit. You don't have to win or draw out every argument, and you don't have to be convinced of everything. Sometimes you just put a pin in it and go.
- slededit 10y ago
  I've been in a situation where the manager two levels above me vehemently disagreed. He allowed me to continue anyway. It was never a situation where he wanted to hold it over me, rather it was something that should give you pause and cause you to consider if you are really correct. It also gave me a lot of respect for the manager - that he would trust me even though he was convinced it wouldn't work. In the end it was a success - but had it failed I don't think it would have been held over me. If you don't ever experiment you'll die as an organization.
- donavanm 10y ago
  No, it works both ways. Ive personally been in the room where my VP and ~2 others favor product/feature A. The other ~6 people favor product/feature B. Everyone reports in to the VPs org. A round of discussion and it ends with "Ok, I dont understand/agree with points B.1 B.2 & B.3 but the room is clear. Lets move ahead with B, and make sure to follow up on answering those points early." Much more commonly it's applied in the context of group decision making. Imagine Alice presents design Alpha for implementing a sprint story. Bob asks some pertinent questions, outlines an alternative, Bravo, and explains his reasoning. A round of discussion with Carol and Dan commences. Whether the group decides on Alph or Bravo doesnt really matter. Everyone has had the opportunity to ask, and answer, relevant questions. Everyone (hopefully) has greater context and understanding of the context, risks, and intended outcome. Everyone, including both Alice and Bob, is expected to stick with the decision and move forward with that single implementation. When IC's play "I told you so" theyre poisoning team morale and disincentivizing others from speaking up. When managers resort to "just do it" they're fundamentally failing to communicate context the team lacks, or failing to understand the knowledge they're missing. Neither is an acceptable pattern. PS: six years at amazon as an IC

Love the "disagree and commit" part. Perfectly encapsulates the situation where "I'm convinced this is a bad idea, but I'm going to trust you and support you."

by seibelj 10y ago

Love the "disagree and commit" part. Perfectly encapsulates the situation where "I'm convinced this is a bad idea, but I'm going to trust you and support you."

ardit33 10y ago

As I worked in amazon previously and know this first hand, you can translate it to: "Shut up, and do as be told". It is a very top down hierarchal type of company, and engineers usually have little influence in general, and often are kept in dark on key decisions. Disagreeing in general is seen as a nuisance. A lot of it would disappear if managers gave concrete details on why a decision was made, but it usually takes a skilled manager to do that, and Amazon, as a large company, has a combination of good managers and plenty of not-so good ones.

zippergz 10y ago
I think you worked in a crappy team, because I was there for nearly a decade, and I didn't find that to be the case.
eclipxe 10y ago
You were on a bad team, sorry!

ams6110 10y ago

he [Bezos] notes, when you disagree and commit, it's not about holding an "I-told-you-so" over other people's heads. It's a chance for people to hear an opposing point of view but to move ahead with action I actually can't see it as anything other than a (potential) "I-told-you-so." Why are you specifically highlighting that you disagree, if you are then giving the go-ahead? You are the boss. If you approve something, ultimately it's your responsibility. If you really trusted the person you would give them full authority on the decision without dropping your own agreement or disagreement into the mix.

leblancfg 10y ago
I agree 100% with this. The 'disagree' part should at least come with some form of strings attached. Something like 'we need to be able to pull the plug early with this', 'you start with a limited budget', or similar. Otherwise it's useless to mention the fact that you disagree.
msg 10y ago
The example he gave was about consensus, and when you want to stop fighting. No one else can actually force you to stop fighting and move on to commit. You don't have to win or draw out every argument, and you don't have to be convinced of everything. Sometimes you just put a pin in it and go.
slededit 10y ago
I've been in a situation where the manager two levels above me vehemently disagreed. He allowed me to continue anyway. It was never a situation where he wanted to hold it over me, rather it was something that should give you pause and cause you to consider if you are really correct. It also gave me a lot of respect for the manager - that he would trust me even though he was convinced it wouldn't work. In the end it was a success - but had it failed I don't think it would have been held over me. If you don't ever experiment you'll die as an organization.
donavanm 10y ago
No, it works both ways. Ive personally been in the room where my VP and ~2 others favor product/feature A. The other ~6 people favor product/feature B. Everyone reports in to the VPs org. A round of discussion and it ends with "Ok, I dont understand/agree with points B.1 B.2 & B.3 but the room is clear. Lets move ahead with B, and make sure to follow up on answering those points early." Much more commonly it's applied in the context of group decision making. Imagine Alice presents design Alpha for implementing a sprint story. Bob asks some pertinent questions, outlines an alternative, Bravo, and explains his reasoning. A round of discussion with Carol and Dan commences. Whether the group decides on Alph or Bravo doesnt really matter. Everyone has had the opportunity to ask, and answer, relevant questions. Everyone (hopefully) has greater context and understanding of the context, risks, and intended outcome. Everyone, including both Alice and Bob, is expected to stick with the decision and move forward with that single implementation. When IC's play "I told you so" theyre poisoning team morale and disincentivizing others from speaking up. When managers resort to "just do it" they're fundamentally failing to communicate context the team lacks, or failing to understand the knowledge they're missing. Neither is an acceptable pattern. PS: six years at amazon as an IC