Maybe I read it differently but I think the bar that one can hold and the performance against that bar("high"/"low") can be two separate things. Sometimes they

Maybe I read it differently but I think the bar that one can hold and the performance against that bar("high"/"low") can be two separate things. Sometimes they correlate but not always. My read on the article was more on a mis-alignment of values and what is considered success. High bar / low "performance"(which is a subjective thing and can vary based on external factors) are those who want to learn because they know they aren't at that bar now but they want to be. "Low bar" / high or low performance means that you have different goals and different measures of "success". If you don't resolve those first then that leads to the friction and the pattern the author outlines. This can be in a bunch of different areas(security, performance, maintainability) and sometimes if you have two people who hold velocity and architecture separately as their highest bar it can appear that they don't value each other's bar since they are in direct conflict. It's been my experience that if you can ground it in why people hold certain bars and that the goals are actually aligned then the sum of the team that hold a high bar in different areas is greater than the parts.