3 ms·
This a nice checklist indeed! This point stood out to me as interestingly debatable: > conflicts are resolved in a fair and respectful way Over time, I think
by seabass-labrax 3y ago
This a nice checklist indeed! This point stood out to me as interestingly debatable:
> conflicts are resolved in a fair and respectful way
Over time, I think I've become less enamoured with the concept of 'fair' for specific engineering disputes, whereas 'respectful' seems like it would actually benefit from the decision being less fair. Here's how:
- In the context of an engineering decision, the informed opinion of just one engineer is usually preferable to a attempt at compromising within a group that doesn't have consensus. Of course, unanimous consensus would be even better, but that rarely happens in groups larger than about ten people (in my experience). With architectural decisions, you need a clear and cohesive vision, and with smaller decisions like style guides it's often down to personal preference.
- When a specific engineer is explicitly given authority for a certain topic (eg. "Bob gets the final say on anything related to user authentication"), the manager can follow that without being disrespectful to those who hold contrary views. Attempting to form a compromise usually ends up devaluing both opinions, as neither is completely satisfied.
- If there are serious concerns about the nominated individual's motives or qualification to make a certain decision (in my earlier example, for instance, maybe someone realises that Bob doesn't really understand important concepts in the field), that concern can be elevated privately to the manager, who can reshuffle the team without having to confront the issue in front of the team, which would be embarrassing and disrespectful for all involved.
In conclusion, I'd say that if you have a semi-hierarchical structure within an engineering team that is itself fair (not merely based on traditional seniority, that is, perhaps more like a meritocratic government cabinet rather than a strictly promotion-based military), you can omit fairness in detailed discussions for a more productive and respectful decision-making process.
Interested to hear what others think here!
- riwsky 3y agoI think most people simply would not describe what you propose as unfair, and that the property you are arguing against is not actually “fairness”, but more like “compromise”.
- pnewman002 3y agoI'm the author of this list, thank you for reading and sharing your feedback. I deliberately left this type of guideline open for interpretation. I don't think anything you said is incompatible with fairness or respect. Fair can mean that the people with the greatest expertise get the deciding votes.
- seabass-labrax 3y agoPerhaps it is telling about my preconceptions that with 'fair' I jumped to the conclusion that it meant 'equal say' within a team. As you and riwsky rightly point out, fairness can mean a system that consistently prioritises specific expertise in discussions.