Ask HN: Are there better alternatives to disagree and commit?
14 comments
That's why we have leaders. A leader evaluates arguments on all sides and picks a solution. Everyone focuses on that solution, because half-assed commitment from any party has higher risks.
If you disagree, voice it. If you don't voice it, nobody will hear it. Sometimes you were wrong or incomplete in your concern and it gets dismissed. And sometimes what you brought up just wasn't considered during the plans.
For example, you're assaulting a terrorist building. The plan is to kick down the door and storm in. What if the door is booby trapped? A bad leader will ignore this and get everyone killed by the trap or claim credit when there is no trap. A bad follower will go in the window solo and get shot because of insufficient backup. A good leader will consider all options, like using a detector, another entry, or blowing the door up with explosives. Or manage risk - maybe there are no options and no time, and they have to kick the door in anyway. If the leader is truly bad, it's the group's responsibility to replace them, otherwise they too have everyone's blood on their hands.
If you disagree, voice it. If you don't voice it, nobody will hear it. Sometimes you were wrong or incomplete in your concern and it gets dismissed. And sometimes what you brought up just wasn't considered during the plans.
For example, you're assaulting a terrorist building. The plan is to kick down the door and storm in. What if the door is booby trapped? A bad leader will ignore this and get everyone killed by the trap or claim credit when there is no trap. A bad follower will go in the window solo and get shot because of insufficient backup. A good leader will consider all options, like using a detector, another entry, or blowing the door up with explosives. Or manage risk - maybe there are no options and no time, and they have to kick the door in anyway. If the leader is truly bad, it's the group's responsibility to replace them, otherwise they too have everyone's blood on their hands.
> they have to kick the door in anyway
Go right ahead sir, I'll be just outside the blast radius.
Go right ahead sir, I'll be just outside the blast radius.
And this is how everyone gets shot if there is no blast. It's lose lose
[deleted]
Perhaps tangential, but my team and I have been able to avoid a lot of disagreement by asking ourselves if we truly need to make a decision in that moment. We found that we'd often debate/disagree about issues that were not pressing. Even more specifically, we noticed that many debates were over issues where we were nearly guaranteed to have better information in one week, one month, etc, when we'd truly need to make a decision.
So why debate now, only to have to debate again with new info?
We still practice disagree & commit among the three founders, which is simply a majority vote game, but now the number of heated debates has decreased.
So why debate now, only to have to debate again with new info?
We still practice disagree & commit among the three founders, which is simply a majority vote game, but now the number of heated debates has decreased.
wouldn't that lead to analysis paralysis? it seems you're avoiding the decision which many people consider the worst decision
I think agreement / disagreement is not rooted in rationality, but rather whether we like the other person. Whether we identify with them or not.
The most obvious example here is politics, where people jump through all kinds of irrational hoops to justify their position. Or in sports, where the referee is always biased against our team!
So maybe one thing to do is just try to build a better relationship with the person you "disagree" with. You may just feel motivated to support them not because you rationally agree, just maybe because you want to help a friend / someone you like.
The most obvious example here is politics, where people jump through all kinds of irrational hoops to justify their position. Or in sports, where the referee is always biased against our team!
So maybe one thing to do is just try to build a better relationship with the person you "disagree" with. You may just feel motivated to support them not because you rationally agree, just maybe because you want to help a friend / someone you like.
One alternative is fostering open dialogue to reach a consensus that satisfies everyone's concerns. Additionally, considering compromise or seeking a third-party mediator can lead to better solutions. It's important to promote collaboration and find the best way forward.
To a certain degree I don't care. If we build feature A instead of my preferred feature B I'll still get paid the same. I'm professional enough to put the same effort into decisions I disagree with. Everyone will experience this at various points in their career.
One thing to try is disagree, put down "I told you so" collateral, and commit. If the party you disagreed with doesn't produce the expected result then they should lose something. Cost is a forcing function; without it there are no consequences.
"Disagree and commit" is just a euphemism for "shut up and code". The only opinion that matters is whoever the highest paid person in the room happens to be.
Just gotta pick your battles and figure out if the time is right or not for them. Then, who to say things to, and how. But never voice things out in public or some middle-manager is likely to take a dislike to you.
Just gotta pick your battles and figure out if the time is right or not for them. Then, who to say things to, and how. But never voice things out in public or some middle-manager is likely to take a dislike to you.
> how do you agree with something you don't agree with?
This is your real question, I think. And there are different answers here based on who you are and the role you have at within the company.
First off, I strongly recommend a policy of "never lie". I don't care what the situation is. People are natural lie/bullshit detectors, the truth always reveals itself. Once you lose trust getting it back can be near impossible to do. And most industries are "small" in that word gets around quickly. Just don't do it.
Next, we'll ignore decisions you disagree with that can be considered insider information. Those are as simple as the equivalent to "no comment" or just blatantly ignoring the question and removing yourself from the environment.
Finally, there are three situations remaining:
1. You disagree and are a decision maker (others will be looking to you for answers and leadership)
2. You disagree, are a decision maker, but are letting the team under you make the call.
3. You disagree but are in a simple IC role, perhaps lending thoughts or ideas into the discussion, but play no role in the decision making itself.
If you're a decision maker just be honest. If necessary, outline the problems, the proposals, where (your desired) proposal fell short or why it was rejected. Outline what was liked about the accepted decision, etc. Also take the time to state where the accepted decision may fall short and plan for those contingencies. It's not a zero-sum game. If the decision is from on high, never have the attitude of of "we're taking one for the team" as opposed to "leadership recognizes that we can manage the difficulties that may ensue, but <other teams> will benefit exponentially more because of this choice". If the decision is from those under you, be supportive. Have regular check-ins to make sure your concerns are being addressed and be a cheerleader for them. Understand why they made their choice. What problems did they see that you didn't? etc.
If you're just an IC (or even a decision maker accepting a decision from on-high), you have to ask yourself "is this the hill I want to die on?" Does it really matter if we use Ruby instead of Haskell? If the company doesn't allow hybrid or remote work? Only you can answer these questions for yourself. If you really care and have made that known, then start looking for other employment. If not, then when someone asks, tell the truth: you disagree, this is why, but there's things at every job that will be problematic and this - in the grand scheme of things - is minor, not worth fussing over, and then note (also for yourself) the positive aspects of the decision for the greater good of the company.
Also, I'd like to bring up one other thing you didn't ask about, but can be important. It's possible that you don't care too much about the decision made, but very much care about the reason(s) why as they may be a fundamental indicator of future decisions you will care about. When those happen, bring them up appropriately and early. If they aren't addressed, start looking elsewhere or - in my experience - your life will end up miserable. But a great boss will address them and may even be happy/surprised.
This is your real question, I think. And there are different answers here based on who you are and the role you have at within the company.
First off, I strongly recommend a policy of "never lie". I don't care what the situation is. People are natural lie/bullshit detectors, the truth always reveals itself. Once you lose trust getting it back can be near impossible to do. And most industries are "small" in that word gets around quickly. Just don't do it.
Next, we'll ignore decisions you disagree with that can be considered insider information. Those are as simple as the equivalent to "no comment" or just blatantly ignoring the question and removing yourself from the environment.
Finally, there are three situations remaining:
1. You disagree and are a decision maker (others will be looking to you for answers and leadership)
2. You disagree, are a decision maker, but are letting the team under you make the call.
3. You disagree but are in a simple IC role, perhaps lending thoughts or ideas into the discussion, but play no role in the decision making itself.
If you're a decision maker just be honest. If necessary, outline the problems, the proposals, where (your desired) proposal fell short or why it was rejected. Outline what was liked about the accepted decision, etc. Also take the time to state where the accepted decision may fall short and plan for those contingencies. It's not a zero-sum game. If the decision is from on high, never have the attitude of of "we're taking one for the team" as opposed to "leadership recognizes that we can manage the difficulties that may ensue, but <other teams> will benefit exponentially more because of this choice". If the decision is from those under you, be supportive. Have regular check-ins to make sure your concerns are being addressed and be a cheerleader for them. Understand why they made their choice. What problems did they see that you didn't? etc.
If you're just an IC (or even a decision maker accepting a decision from on-high), you have to ask yourself "is this the hill I want to die on?" Does it really matter if we use Ruby instead of Haskell? If the company doesn't allow hybrid or remote work? Only you can answer these questions for yourself. If you really care and have made that known, then start looking for other employment. If not, then when someone asks, tell the truth: you disagree, this is why, but there's things at every job that will be problematic and this - in the grand scheme of things - is minor, not worth fussing over, and then note (also for yourself) the positive aspects of the decision for the greater good of the company.
Also, I'd like to bring up one other thing you didn't ask about, but can be important. It's possible that you don't care too much about the decision made, but very much care about the reason(s) why as they may be a fundamental indicator of future decisions you will care about. When those happen, bring them up appropriately and early. If they aren't addressed, start looking elsewhere or - in my experience - your life will end up miserable. But a great boss will address them and may even be happy/surprised.
conflict resolution topic is fascinating and I'd like to learn from your experiences, thanks!