3 ms·

If Kara's emotions and defensiveness can't handle a clearly articulated, rational, objective argument against design decisions, then for the sake of the product

If Kara's emotions and defensiveness can't handle a clearly articulated, rational, objective argument against design decisions, then for the sake of the product and the company, she probably needs to find another job. Avoiding discussions doesn't work for me. I'm happy Steve Jobs didn't read this post.

dpark 8y ago
Of course. The obvious answer is always to just fire people. Improving your own communication skills couldn’t possibly be the solution.
- mbostleman 8y ago
  It's a two way street. Improving one's listening skills and not reacting emotionally is just as important. The general tone of the article sounds to me as if it does not give much priority to the latter. This strikes me as an expression of an over protective approach to people's emotions that limits rational discussion. I see this often and in my experience I find that it has negative effects on organizations and relationships and, in cases like the one in the article, quality and business success.
  - dpark 8y ago
    Sure but you can’t change anyone except yourself. Pressing on Kara and telling her to stop being defensive probably doesn’t accomplish anything except destroying that relationship and making yourself look like the office bully. Kara’s manager can encourage her to work on this, but colleagues cannot realistically. And even the manager’s ability here is extremely limited.
alleyshack 8y ago
The thing is, Kara almost certainly has clearly articulated, rational, objective arguments for the design decision in question. If she didn't, she wouldn't be making the decision in the first place. (If she's prone to making decisions willy-nilly with no idea why they're being made, that's a different issue.) So from Kara's point of view, you're getting just as emotional and defensive about, and ignoring clearly articulated, rational, objective arguments for, the decision as you claim she is. Which is the point of the article - if someone goes into a discussion assuming they are the only one who is "objectively correct", they've already failed. I've used the method outlined in the article very often in my career and it almost always works. Often it turns out I was right and we shouldn't have done X - but sometimes it turns out that Kara knew something I didn't, and X worked out way better than I expected.
- thekingofh 8y ago
  The takeaway from this is that management defines reality. Opinions and objectivity goes out the door if management doesn't like the decision. This is why a clear chain of command is vital. Humans need it to function in groups if the group is to stay together as one unit.
  - jschwartzi 8y ago
    No, management does not define reality. Validation and verification define reality. In a rational engineering organization, you and Kara would agree to test her change and see how well it works instead of having an argument from first principles.

dpark 8y ago

Of course. The obvious answer is always to just fire people. Improving your own communication skills couldn’t possibly be the solution.

mbostleman 8y ago
It's a two way street. Improving one's listening skills and not reacting emotionally is just as important. The general tone of the article sounds to me as if it does not give much priority to the latter. This strikes me as an expression of an over protective approach to people's emotions that limits rational discussion. I see this often and in my experience I find that it has negative effects on organizations and relationships and, in cases like the one in the article, quality and business success.
- dpark 8y ago
  Sure but you can’t change anyone except yourself. Pressing on Kara and telling her to stop being defensive probably doesn’t accomplish anything except destroying that relationship and making yourself look like the office bully. Kara’s manager can encourage her to work on this, but colleagues cannot realistically. And even the manager’s ability here is extremely limited.

alleyshack 8y ago

The thing is, Kara almost certainly has clearly articulated, rational, objective arguments for the design decision in question. If she didn't, she wouldn't be making the decision in the first place. (If she's prone to making decisions willy-nilly with no idea why they're being made, that's a different issue.) So from Kara's point of view, you're getting just as emotional and defensive about, and ignoring clearly articulated, rational, objective arguments for, the decision as you claim she is. Which is the point of the article - if someone goes into a discussion assuming they are the only one who is "objectively correct", they've already failed. I've used the method outlined in the article very often in my career and it almost always works. Often it turns out I was right and we shouldn't have done X - but sometimes it turns out that Kara knew something I didn't, and X worked out way better than I expected.

thekingofh 8y ago
The takeaway from this is that management defines reality. Opinions and objectivity goes out the door if management doesn't like the decision. This is why a clear chain of command is vital. Humans need it to function in groups if the group is to stay together as one unit.
- jschwartzi 8y ago
  No, management does not define reality. Validation and verification define reality. In a rational engineering organization, you and Kara would agree to test her change and see how well it works instead of having an argument from first principles.