2 ms·

"Don't assume that something that seems unambiguous is." Don't make assumptions about what we assume :). There are innumerable situations wherein there is leg

"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.

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.