4 ms·

There's nothing necessarily toxic about being unequivocal. In some situations, people have experience and know better. It's toxic to be unequivocal in situatio

There's nothing necessarily toxic about being unequivocal. In some situations, people have experience and know better. It's toxic to be unequivocal in situations that are inherently ambiguous and require input. Also, there's something powerful about orienting towards action; often, what matters is less architecture but simply moving forward at a reasonable pace. A mediocre decision is usually better than no decision.

BeetleB 7y ago
>It's toxic to be unequivocal in situations that are inherently ambiguous and require input. The catch is that people will not agree with what is ambiguous and what isn't. Don't assume that something that seems unambiguous is. The other thing not mentioned in the article: The likelihood of misunderstandings and miscommunications. The issue could be as black and white as "This functions gives the wrong answer with this input." It's simple, right? We both agree on the answer it should give. Just run the function and see. How much more unambiguous can you get? What I've found is that a significant percentage of these discussions aren't about what I think they are. Yes, I can insist that the function gives the wrong value. And no, that's not what the other person is even discussing, and neither of us has realized that we're both talking about different things. Stating it unequivocally is a barrier to the discovery process for realizing we're not on the same page. Some people are good at verbal debate. But many don't revel in it, and it's always a pain point for them. They don't want to work with a constant debater. I know in a lot of tech culture, we set the expectation on them to speak up, but that culture is working against human nature - and often results in losing talent that doesn't fit in.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  "Don't assume that something that seems unambiguous is." Don't make assumptions about what we assume :). There are innumerable situations wherein there is legitimate experience and authority for people to make fairly clear and unambiguous decisions. It's patently wrong to suggest that unequivocal positions are inherently toxic.
  - dmix 7y ago
    This is important too, I've seen (and been a part of) so many team discussions and planning where it constantly goes back and forth and is mired in indecision. These conversations also often deteriorate in every parties 'nice to haves' or some less informed opinions taking equal weight as the people who are far more authoritative on the subject. This is why small multidisciplinary teams work well. Where multiple diverse opinions come from different domains but there's clear leader in each domain. From there it can get reviewed by other teams or layers so ideas get challenged and prodded until it gets made better. Rather having one big group of people talking and having the loudest people the most time. Proper delegation to smaller teams, ownership, feedback loops, and being deferential to domain experts can all help resolve this problem. Which also means hiring good people you can trust.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    >It's patently wrong to suggest that unequivocal positions are inherently toxic. I'm reading your comment and kinda wondering what it has to do with my comment that you're replying to. I never suggested such a thing. >There are innumerable situations wherein there is legitimate experience and authority for people to make fairly clear and unambiguous decisions. I'm not disputing that. The context of my comment is the discussion around it. My question is: If that is the case, does there need to be any discussion around it at all? Just make the decision. It kind of gets to the point of the article. If it's unambiguous and you're sure about the decision, you can present it that way and close any room for disagreement. If you actually want people to express disagreement, then it means you are willing to consider your analysis of ambiguity would be wrong. My counter would be: There are innumerable situations where people's belief that the situation allows for clear and unambiguous decisions is wrong. I'm not saying your scenarios don't exist. I'm arguing about Type I vs Type II errors.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> There's nothing necessarily toxic about being unequivocal. In terms of logical necessity, no. In practical terms, that's less clear. > In some situations, people have experience and know better. The problem is that the people you deal with aren't robots; being unequivocal even then can both make it harder to get people to accept your conclusions and be toxic to relationships. Projecting your own certainty that you know better than everyone else is often counterproductive in convincing people that you do, in fact, know better on the issue at hand.

BeetleB 7y ago

>It's toxic to be unequivocal in situations that are inherently ambiguous and require input. The catch is that people will not agree with what is ambiguous and what isn't. Don't assume that something that seems unambiguous is. The other thing not mentioned in the article: The likelihood of misunderstandings and miscommunications. The issue could be as black and white as "This functions gives the wrong answer with this input." It's simple, right? We both agree on the answer it should give. Just run the function and see. How much more unambiguous can you get? What I've found is that a significant percentage of these discussions aren't about what I think they are. Yes, I can insist that the function gives the wrong value. And no, that's not what the other person is even discussing, and neither of us has realized that we're both talking about different things. Stating it unequivocally is a barrier to the discovery process for realizing we're not on the same page. Some people are good at verbal debate. But many don't revel in it, and it's always a pain point for them. They don't want to work with a constant debater. I know in a lot of tech culture, we set the expectation on them to speak up, but that culture is working against human nature - and often results in losing talent that doesn't fit in.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
"Don't assume that something that seems unambiguous is." Don't make assumptions about what we assume :). There are innumerable situations wherein there is legitimate experience and authority for people to make fairly clear and unambiguous decisions. It's patently wrong to suggest that unequivocal positions are inherently toxic.
- dmix 7y ago
  This is important too, I've seen (and been a part of) so many team discussions and planning where it constantly goes back and forth and is mired in indecision. These conversations also often deteriorate in every parties 'nice to haves' or some less informed opinions taking equal weight as the people who are far more authoritative on the subject. This is why small multidisciplinary teams work well. Where multiple diverse opinions come from different domains but there's clear leader in each domain. From there it can get reviewed by other teams or layers so ideas get challenged and prodded until it gets made better. Rather having one big group of people talking and having the loudest people the most time. Proper delegation to smaller teams, ownership, feedback loops, and being deferential to domain experts can all help resolve this problem. Which also means hiring good people you can trust.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  >It's patently wrong to suggest that unequivocal positions are inherently toxic. I'm reading your comment and kinda wondering what it has to do with my comment that you're replying to. I never suggested such a thing. >There are innumerable situations wherein there is legitimate experience and authority for people to make fairly clear and unambiguous decisions. I'm not disputing that. The context of my comment is the discussion around it. My question is: If that is the case, does there need to be any discussion around it at all? Just make the decision. It kind of gets to the point of the article. If it's unambiguous and you're sure about the decision, you can present it that way and close any room for disagreement. If you actually want people to express disagreement, then it means you are willing to consider your analysis of ambiguity would be wrong. My counter would be: There are innumerable situations where people's belief that the situation allows for clear and unambiguous decisions is wrong. I'm not saying your scenarios don't exist. I'm arguing about Type I vs Type II errors.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> There's nothing necessarily toxic about being unequivocal. In terms of logical necessity, no. In practical terms, that's less clear. > In some situations, people have experience and know better. The problem is that the people you deal with aren't robots; being unequivocal even then can both make it harder to get people to accept your conclusions and be toxic to relationships. Projecting your own certainty that you know better than everyone else is often counterproductive in convincing people that you do, in fact, know better on the issue at hand.