4 ms·
This article does give me a little more insight into working with divergent thinkers. However, this one part gave me pause: "Plus, "giving in" does not preserv
by protonbob 4y ago
This article does give me a little more insight into working with divergent thinkers. However, this one part gave me pause:
"Plus, "giving in" does not preserve peace—it simply appeases bullies and makes the workplace toxic."
I would have to disagree here. Authority structure is useful and sometimes there are multiple good options. Not "giving in" every now and then can lead to analysis paralysis.
- larve 4y agoThanks for reading. I did indeed think a lot about leaving this sentence in / writing it like this. What I think you mean is that compromising is necessary to move forward in a team. That is 100% true, in fact most (if not all?) technical decisions are just not based in fact, as much as I would like them to. What matters is that everybody understands why a compromise has been made, and what the pros and cons were that led to that decisions. I am fine shipping the most horrible code if we all agree that we discussed the pros and cons. This also makes it easy to avoid the “I told you so”-trap which further degrades work climate. Instead, we can go back to the original design document, see that a con we expected has happened, and pick the discussion up from there.
- larve 4y agoI realize I forgot the second half. “giving in” without forming a compromise and making sure everybody agrees on what the compromise is however is just appeasing a bully (say “we do it this way because I’m the manager and you’re not” or “we do it this way because I have 10 years of experience and you don’t”). I should probably have given it a bit more context.
- protonbob 4y agoI see. This makes a lot of sense when you phrase it that way.