Learning by Shipping

products, development, management…

Managing through disagreement

with 52 comments

In the course of figuring out what to do on a project (plan, code, collaborate, marketing, …) inevitably you will get to a point where two parties (two people, two teams, two disciplines) don’t agree.  Figuring out how to move forward is not only essential, but is something that can make or break a team or project.

Focusing a discussion on disagreement in the abstract is a good way to approach this, rather than using specific examples. This allows the dynamics to be discussed here without the distractions of picking sides.  When it comes to disagreements, even the specifics are usually much less important than the overall context in which the disagreement is taking place.  More often than not, a focus on specifics tends to hide what is really the root of a disagreement.

This post was suggested by a reader as a topic worth discussing.  Suggestions are welcome and I’m always on the lookout for comments and tweets with suggestions or email me at steven@learningbyshipping.com, perhaps with something going on at your organization right now that is a generally interesting topic (specifics always removed).

Organization

Organization plays a key role in the context of building consensus (more on organization in a follow up post).  Is your team managed step by step through a hierarchy, deferring to the management chain?  Is your team one where the most senior manager gets involved in many choices?  Is your team dominated by a strong de facto leader that leads from within the team?  Is your team a small group of peers that seem to usually agree on everything?  Is your team subject to swoop and poop from outside, bringing disagreement to you?  There are quite a few ways that disagreements can surface and/or get resolved and those are a few.

The first step in working through disagreement is to know how your team is structured to make choices, which might be different than the org chart.  You want to know not just how you want to decide things, but how do others in all 360 degrees expect to resolve things.

The 360 degree view has been something I have often worked through (and certainly not perfectly).  In a team with a plan and a strong organization, it is the organization working with a decision framework, the plan, that decides.  Those new to the team or even those on other teams often see a team operating this way and assume a hierarchical or top down model—otherwise how could things appear to work and stay on track with a large project.

In practice what that means is that there is a mismatch in how to handle disagreement.  Some assume that you have to go to the top and “get things changed”, while folks at the top are saying “did you talk to the people doing the work.”  This type of cultural mismatch is the first thing to overcome.  On a team of empowered creative folks, they have gone to great lengths to say what they will be doing and how they will decide what is yet to be discovered.  That’s always been enough for me.

Roles and responsibilities in an organization, not hierarchy, are also important.  Are disagreements between people within the same discipline or across disciplines?  Often agreements can be settled by recognition of where the responsibility rests.  For example, in projects with user interface many people can have opinions about the UI but the team should be operating with acknowledgement that the accountability rests with the discipline (design, program management) that is doing the work to design the UI.  Having a clear view of how specialties work in the organization is an important part of knowing how disagreements will be resolved.

Organization can cause disagreement to flourish in two main ways.  First, management can structure things such that goals and/or accountability are unclear.  This means things need to be integrated or reconciled “up” where there is always less information/data, thus driving meetings, debate, and campaigning for decisions.  Second, members of the team can fail to defer to the empowerment and decision making structure in place (plans, disciplines, accountability). This is a case where disagreement exists when individuals on the team could take time to step back and let the organization do the work.

These organizational elements are an important part of the context around disagreements.

Context

What is it that makes disagreement so pervasive and so difficult to work through?  Are there really so many arguments to be had while building a product or service once you decide what can and should be built?

I’ve always been fascinated by the dynamic of how something turns into a big decision to be made.  For me, work is progressing and sometimes things come up that are hard or unforeseen.  Then all of a sudden there is a crisis and something needs to be decided and that decision has expanded to involve a lot of people.

Knowing the context is always the most important first step.  The following are some examples of reasons or context behind disagreement:

Decision or an argument.  A first consideration is if there is truly a decision to be made or what is really going on is an argument.  What this means is to ask if someone questioning your general approach or is this a real challenge to the choices you are making.  It is only to your advantage to engage with members of the team who might have a different point of view.  You don’t have to accept it or escalate into a fight, but it is always good for everyone on the project to be heard.

Naysayers.  Sometimes a decision gets created that is not really all that important, but is being used to drive a wedge for any variety of reasons.  Often these look like “let’s take a step back and ask the following question.”  So you thought you were having a discussion about a schedule estimate and the next thing you know you are in the weeds debating agile v. waterfall.  You have to ask yourself if the real issue is the meta-issue, a lack of faith in everything going on, or if you really have something that is the source of a disagreement.

First of many.  There are times when points of difference get raised in a “death by 1000 cuts” sort of way.  In other words you might find yourself disagreeing over a specific topic but as you’re talking (constructively) it becomes clear that this is going to be the first of at least a few disagreements.  Folks might use this approach to test the waters or to probe for a weakness overall.  An approach here is to work to smoke out all the disagreements so you can have a discussion with the full context.

Symbolic or material.  Sometimes a disagreement is really an effort to raise a more symbolic disagreement with the broader context of the project.  Helping to work through and discuss how material a given disagreement is to the whole project is especially important here.  In this context, a disagreement can turn into a broader view of two parties not connecting.

Accountability.  Ultimately disagreement needs to factor in accountability.  If the first step of a disagreement is “who gets to decide” it is likely the answer will itself become a disagreement.  Almost all disagreements I have been part of scream out the person who should be deciding.  If it doesn’t the question is really more about accountability—not who should make a specific choice, but who is accountable for a broader set of issues.  Is that person not doing a great job incorporating lots of viewpoints and information?  Did that person not enroll everyone in a broader framework?

Context is everything.  In the heat of a disagreement people, especially for engineers who tend to distill things into concrete facts or algorithms, will often get very focused on the details of winning the argument.  It is a good idea to understand the context of the disagreement before trying to win on the merits.

What can go wrong?

As you’re working through a disagreement, there might be a few patterns you run across that are used to resolve the disagreement—patterns that might not be the most productive.

The key thing is to keep the dialog focused on the context of a choice.  In a sense, what I think everyone knows is that any disagreement free of context can have a different outcome than if considered in the context.  A classic is “add this feature.”  Absent the context of schedule, resources, and most importantly the holistic view of a plan/product, almost any feature sounds like a good one to add or any change seems reasonable.  The flip side is that just about everyone sounds like an idiot arguing against security, performance, quality absent the context that an engineer might have.  No one sounds smart arguing against a revenue opportunity, until you consider the cost, alternatives, and so on.

There are patterns that are bad ways to resolve disagreement because the technique removes the context:

Single choice.  Sometimes when there is a disagreement, something that seemed small starts to take on a life of its own.  You come to a meeting and you’re all of a sudden having a debate over the color of tooltips in a toolbar (true story) when that is not really the disagreement as all.  What has happened is a disagreement over a broad set of issues has morphed into what appears to be a single choice.  The context was lost and a complex, multi-dimensional problem space has been replaced by one, seemingly, trivial option.

Escalation.  Sometimes disagreements get created as a way to get in front of the boss or as a way to encourage the boss to get in front of the other party.  This type of disagreement is never good and my first reaction is to pull back and “de-escalate” like cops do on reality shows.  Something I have always tried to practice is the notion that to escalate is to fail. But the real challenge with escalating a disagreement is that the context and knowledge about a situation is reduced as you move up the management chain, so escalation is really a way of saying “decide with less information.”  There are subtleties and nuance to this (for example if you haven’t done your work to incorporate the context from outside your specialty in creating a plan).  New information can change things and the question is whether you are being too heads down to incorporate new information. The key is that once you escalate you lose the context of the choice.  Similarly, to pull a decision up (the organization) creates the same dynamic of deciding with less information than might be available.

Decision maker.  One way to remove the context from a disagreement is to introduce a debate over who gets to decide, as mentioned above.  I’ve been part of all sorts of “tools” that are supposed to help you decide—tables of who reviews choices, approves things, or “responsibility assignment matrices.”  As well-intentioned as these are they don’t really scale and they encourage all choices to get broken out into elaborate decision-making processes.   At some point you can rationally ask how to even decide what decisions go through a process like this or is this an attempt to circumvent accountability or an attempt to game the system.

Accountability shift. Accountability gets to the heart of most disagreements.  Those disagreeing feel on the hook, accountable, for some outcome and the choice being discussed impacts the potential for achieving the assigned goal. By shifting the dialog from the disagreement to accountability, things get emotional very quickly.  The discussion turns into talk of “failure” which is a lot to place on the shoulder of a single choice in a complex product.

Tools and approaches

In practice the tools to reconcile disagreements are rather personal—they rely on the skills, tone, and temperament of the individuals.  Most everyone can lose their temper or go silent (essentially the same thing).  Most everyone has sent a late night mail they regret (subject line, “thoughts”).  Most everyone has behaved the way they criticized someone for behaving.  I’m there with you and don’t have magic answers to resolving disagreements.  Here are a few tools I have used:

Expertise.  Where is the most expertise?  As a general rule, too often decisions are made in meetings where people are presenting cases and someone is in the middle trying to referee or decide.  At that moment, a decision is being made by a committee or by a group, yet the people that have the expertise might not even be in the room.  As a general practice, pushing decisions to those that know the most yields better decisions.  Many times teams convince themselves that there are implications that go beyond the expertise (“yes this might be a security problem but the business has different issues”).  The best thing then is to figure out how this type of context is not making it to the domain experts—what was missing from the day to day flow of information that got a team in a situation to begin with?

Plan.  Most disagreements are essentially disagreements with a broader view—at the highest level or at the level of what a feature or marketing message should accomplish at the core.  In other words, while the discussion might be about a specific, it is a disagreement about a broader theme.  I return back to the plan (the one you got buy-in about because you talked about it broadly).  I try to understand what has changed or what have we learned since the plan.  Plans are dynamic of course.  But one needs to be careful about changing direction without a real change in the business or product landscape.  If you do change plans, you need to think hard about the relationship of one change to the big picture.

Culture.  The best tool for resolving disagreements is one you have to put in place upstream, which is a culture that allows and respects the decisions being made by the right people.  Developers might not like the advertising, but marketing people decide that.  Marketing might not like the wording of a license, but that’s a decision for lawyers to make.  But because a team should be operating with a shared view of customers, the decisions should be ones made outside of silos of expertise or narrow views of success.  There’s definitely magic in there and in a big project achieving this uniformly is extremely difficult, at best. The tool everyone should ask for in a culture is a management chain that supports the culture.  It isn’t about being “backed” in a decision but about being consistent in the notion of delegation and accountability.

Accountability.  Related to culture is the notion of accountability.  Rather than saying “test is accountable for quality” the tool is really for management to reinforce that everyone is ultimately responsible for the overall result.  If something is successful you can bet that everyone on the team will feel they contributed to the success.  There’s nothing stopping the team from acting that way while the product is under development.

When to say when.  Finally, the best tool any individual can have in the course of a disagreement is knowing when to say when.  Projects are marathons (no matter how long a particular coding sprint might be).  If you choose to turn every decision into the most important and biggest one, you’ll run out of reserves long before the finish line.

One final consideration is if you agree to disagree then you have to mean it.  It means you can’t remind folks at every opportunity that you saw things differently.  It also means you’re tabling the disagreement for good and that you’re not inadvertently establishing a dreaded accountability dodge or told you so for later on.

There are innumerable decisions in any project—each person, then each team, then teams, and more each make choices dozens of times a day.  Every line of code, every word in a spec, every automated test, every part of a plan, every data sheet, PR script, and more are decisions.

People tend to forget this in the heat of the moment.  Time heals, and forgets, most every small decision in a project.  In fact, I would bet that any disagreement you are dealing with at this moment will be a distant memory and chances of it determining success and failure of your project are small when viewed in the context of all the work, and decisions, yet to be done.  Om.

–Steven

Reminder – please see the recently added disclosure page.

###

Written by Steven Sinofsky

January 21, 2013 at 10:00 am

Posted in posts

Tagged with ,

52 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It’s very effortless to find out any matter on web as compared to textbooks, as I found
    this piece of writing at this web page.

    Best Led TV Brand

    September 9, 2014 at 11:49 pm

  2. whoah this weblog is wonderful i like reading your articles.
    Keep up the good work! You understand, many persons are
    hunting around for this info, you can help them greatly.

    top vacuums 2014

    August 29, 2014 at 6:54 am

  3. Hi! Do you know if they make any plugins to help with Search
    Engine Optimization? I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good success.
    If you know of any please share. Thanks!

    Adolfo

    August 19, 2014 at 7:51 pm

  4. Stunning story there. What happened after?
    Thanks!

    Irvin

    August 11, 2014 at 6:24 am

  5. I read this paragraph completely concerning the difference of
    most recent and earlier technologies, it’s amazing article.

  6. An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a friend who was conducting a little research on this.
    And he actually ordered me dinner because I discovered it for him…
    lol. So let me reword this…. Thanks for the meal!!
    But yeah, thanks for spending the time to talk about this subject here on your site.

  7. I think this is one of the most important information for
    me. And i am glad reading your article. But should remark on some general things,
    The site style is great, the articles is really great : D.

    Good job, cheers

    best crib 2014

    May 8, 2014 at 11:18 pm

  8. I’ve been browsing online more than 3 hours these days, but I by
    no means discovered any attention-grabbing article like
    yours. It is pretty price sufficient for me. Personally,
    if all website owners and bloggers made just
    right content as you did, the net shall be much more useful than ever before.

    http://www.divshare.com

    March 3, 2014 at 9:21 am

  9. You will discover some interesting points in time in this write-up but I do not know if I see all of them center to heart. There is certainly some validity but I will take hold opinion until I appear into it further. Beneficial post , thanks and we want more! Added to FeedBurner too
    jordans free shipping http://jordansoutletjei.yolasite.com/

    gswahni@163.com

    December 20, 2013 at 2:27 am

  10. It is best to take component in a contest for among the best blogs on the internet. I will advise this web site!
    jordan sneakers http://adultchill.com/blogs/post/21

    nioeeiurr@gmail.com

    December 18, 2013 at 12:21 pm

  11. Aw, this was a seriously nice post. In concept I would like to put in writing like this additionally – taking time and actual effort to create a incredibly decent article?- but what can I say?- I procrastinate alot and by no indicates seem to get some thing carried out.
    cheap air jordans http://airjordansqqq.997428.n3.nabble.com/Burberry-Trend-Watches-Maintain-td2.html

    hfwyaquf@163.com

    December 13, 2013 at 12:35 pm

  12. The next time I read a weblog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as much as this 1. I mean, I know it was my selection to read, but I actually thought youd have some thing fascinating to say. All I hear is often a bunch of whining about something that you simply could fix for those who werent too busy looking for attention.
    jordans cheap http://jordansoutletjei.hazblog.com/Primer-blog-b1/Nike-Air-Jordan-fashionpowerfuluseful-b1-p1.htm

    mkjnqrdce@163.com

    December 9, 2013 at 9:34 am

  13. I discovered your weblog web site on google and check some of your early posts. Continue to keep up the really excellent operate. I just additional up your RSS feed to my MSN News Reader. Seeking forward to reading even more from you later on!

    fvfwohm@hotmail.com

    December 7, 2013 at 9:27 pm

  14. The two guys grew to become quickly close friends together with the more mature silversmith agreeing to apprentice the youthful alchemist. The alchemist labored well together with his hands. The monotonous perform was as fulfilling as the after hours ale was thirst-quenching.
    uggs norge salg http://www.stallmagasinet.se/uggboots-no.html

    uggs norge salg

    November 27, 2013 at 11:21 pm

  15. 電子アクセサリー

    tory burch düsseldorf

    November 22, 2013 at 7:06 am

  16. Deadly accurate answer. You’ve hit the bullseye!

    online casino

    November 8, 2013 at 6:27 pm

  17. Cheap Jordans Smear. This would come to become an excellent setback on her. christian louboutin sale,http://www.eefni.org.uk/news/christian-louboutin.html/ All outfits need to have the perfect heels, any female will agree with this, which is why we will shell out all day trailing the outlets for them. Kids and guys tend to go for more traditional Christian Louboutin , UGG Bottes Perron said.

    uohkcuxuj@gmail.com

    October 18, 2013 at 7:52 am

  18. ポートフィノ bvlgari サングラス http://www.hloai.com/

    bvlgari サングラス

    October 2, 2013 at 8:14 pm

  19. クロエ リリー 財布 韓国 バック http://www.1ngda.com/

    韓国 バック

    September 13, 2013 at 3:51 am

  20. JOIN TEAM JOEY NATION!BUFFALO WILD WINGS IN AUBURN, IN Wednesday NOV. 14th from 6-8(Come on out!) You may contact for couonps. 10% of all food purchases will be donated to help JOEY!**TEAM JOEY Christmas Extravaganza** Mark your Calendar!!Date: November 17th, 2012Time: 12:00pm 5:00pmLocation: Auburn First Christian Church,910 N. Indiana Ave. Auburn, IN (Just south of Rieke Park) SANTA will be there for a photo Opp, bring your camera, take all the pictures you need and make your Christmas Cards perfect, coloring table for kids to color pages for the Keller’s, Party lite candles, Premier Designs, a Certified Massage Therapist (for on the spot massage), home made Jams, bake sale, 31, Vault Denim, home made blankets, scarves and purses and many more things! SILENT AUCTION: Debrands chocolates gift baskets, American doll clothes, Cookie cottage gift baskets, Italian Grille gift cert, Albright’s Grocery gift Cert., movie baskets, longaberger baskets, Vera Bradley Bags and MUCH MUCH MORE! Please join us in making this a SUCCESS FOR JOEY!!!! Please share and mark your Calendar!

    Gabriel

    August 28, 2013 at 6:34 pm

  21. の新作

    セーラー万年筆

    August 21, 2013 at 5:07 pm

  22. セルロイド 万年筆

    浴衣 髪型 アレンジ

    August 20, 2013 at 5:15 pm

  23. Racial profiling is a cpmelox and controversial issue. Although in Gates’ case I don’t think race is relevant. The guy was just acting like an obnoxious and privileged jerk. If anything, I suspect it was he who displayed prejudice attitudes towards the working class cops and their “inferior education.”

    Claudia

    August 2, 2013 at 5:21 pm

  24. Hi, yeah this post is really good and I have learned
    lot of things from it on the topic of blogging. thanks.

    Fred

    July 14, 2013 at 9:37 am

  25. Paragraph writing is also a fun, if you be acquainted with after that you
    can write or else it is complex to write.

    codeine

    June 17, 2013 at 10:47 pm

  26. whoah this weblog is wonderful i like reading your articles.
    Stay up the great work! You know, a lot of individuals are hunting round for this information, you can help them greatly.

  27. Hi, i read your blog from time to time and i own a similar one
    and i was just wondering if you get a lot of spam feedback?
    If so how do you stop it, any plugin or anything you can advise?
    I get so much lately it’s driving me insane so any support is very much appreciated.

    Bridgett

    May 16, 2013 at 9:05 am

  28. I must thank you for the efforts you have put in penning this site.

    I’m hoping to check out the same high-grade blog posts by you later on as well. In fact, your creative writing abilities has motivated me to get my own, personal site now ;)

    Jana

    May 9, 2013 at 12:25 am

  29. I’m fairly certain We have check this out exact same kind of affirmation anywhere else, it ought to be gaining popularity with the masses

    electricians newcastle

    April 9, 2013 at 12:39 am

  30. Coincidentally in the company i work for there is a tense environment. We are in a financial jeopardy so it is a desperate time that needs desperate decisions to make. Reading this, well I think you should go deeper in decision making and disagreements solving in a hostile environment like those created when you know that the delivery should be delivered or the next month no body will have to come back to the office.

    Ricker Silva

    February 8, 2013 at 2:22 pm

  31. It is so perfect..this is the secret of understanding team dynamics. Pranam guruji ~

  32. This response doesn’t make any sense. I’ve reread a couple of times over the course of a few days and I’ve given up. It completely fails at communicating a lucid point of view.

    It’s one thing to agree or disagree with the conflict resolution techniques Steven posted in his blog. It’s another thing to throw out some half baked manifesto about technical advancements needing to be an environment where people argue with each other and then claim that it isn’t possible to work with Steven Sinofsky because he posted conflict resolution tips on his blog. Most logical people would point out that that is self-contradictory statement.

    Hopefully, you’ll respond with a more coherent articulation of the point you’re trying to make. I myself have some questions about what Steven and would be interested in well articulated counter points.

    Dare Obasanjo

    January 27, 2013 at 3:46 pm

  33. Somehow I can’t reply to your last comment in this loop. So doing it here…

    Well anyway, I am actually confused with what you are trying to say here as well. I think you got something wrong with Steve. I just disagreed with your argument, unlike how you show disagreement with Steve(the person)! I hope this is not hard to understand..

    DEV55

    January 24, 2013 at 8:38 pm

  34. Good point.

    Agreed.

    Onuora

    January 24, 2013 at 11:07 am

  35. I totally agree, maybe this blog is not for me. In fact, it’s definitely not for me, if I don’t like it. But it doesn’t mean that what I said is wrong (especially since it only describes my opinion). I left the feedback, because the author explicitly invited feedback in one of earlier posts. Most people I know who write public blogs are looking to attract audience and foment discussion, all else being equal, so maybe Steven will find this feedback data point useful.

    Dan

    January 24, 2013 at 10:52 am

  36. Dan,

    With all due respect, a blog is a personal thing. It is an expression of an author’s personal or professional thoughts or feelings.

    Saying a person should shorten or reformat those to make you feel better doesn’t really make sense to me. Maybe it just means that this isn’t a blog for you?

    Onuora

    January 24, 2013 at 10:30 am

  37. I was an avid reader of the internal blog, but I never finished reading at least half the entries because of their length. With Learning by Shipping, I couldn’t finish a single post.

    I image this blog could attract more audience with shorter, less abstract posts illustrated with real (if modified) examples.

    Dan

    January 24, 2013 at 10:18 am

  38. The PC sales are down 10% this years, when at the same time more and more people in the world can afford buying them! An entry in this blog arguing if Win8 precipitated the downfall, or softened it, would be very welcome.

    An alternative way to write it, more in line with the style of this column would be: “how do you handle a train wreck that could lead to the collapse of an industry”? Win8 being the support example for the PC industry.

    Anonymous

    January 24, 2013 at 6:46 am

  39. Fantastic insights as usual Mr. Sinofsky. I especially like the focus of the tools and approach. All to often people in the corporate world seem to have personal agendas that take precedence over the betterment of the projects. I for one cannot stand those sorts of actions, and I generally call them out on these issues even when not in a position of power.

    I personally believe that accountability should be a two way street from top down and back again. If a teammate lower on the totem pole feels that those above them aren’t doing their fair share, or even worse are sandbagging, they should have the right to hold those above them accountable, and vice-versa. I say humble pie is a dish an the entire team needs to eat from time to time.

    Brad Groux

    January 24, 2013 at 1:20 am

  40. You’re doing it wrong.

    Brad Groux

    January 24, 2013 at 1:15 am

  41. You are taking a (=your) disagreement with thoughts to a personal level with this.
    Which is what Steve does as well.
    The whole article is about personal attitudes.
    Amd I mean that a process of technological development should “extract the ‘personal’ out” of the discussion and decisionmaking.
    You may call this crazy, but Win8 “clearly shows” that such an attitude can indeed harm people. People influenced by it (users of Win8) _and_ the producer (Steve himself)…

    Mert Boytak

    January 23, 2013 at 11:13 pm

  42. WoW.. Catharsis… Going through each line reminded what i could have done better. “Most everyone has sent a late night mail they regret” There are many instances I can relate to. Thanks a lot Steven.

    Smaran

    January 23, 2013 at 9:16 am

  43. Hello sir, a very insightFul, extremely clearly written.

    thankYou for Sharing.!

    Jay

    January 23, 2013 at 5:12 am

  44. Steven, just out of pure curiosity, how long did it take you to write this particular blog entry?

    Murtaza

    January 22, 2013 at 11:49 pm

  45. Where does it “clearly show”? You are crazy!

    “One final consideration is if you agree to disagree then you have to mean it. It means you can’t remind folks at every opportunity that you saw things differently. It also means you’re tabling the disagreement for good and that you’re not inadvertently establishing a dreaded accountability dodge or told you so for late”.

    I think he is talking to people like you here!

    DEV55

    January 22, 2013 at 10:17 am

  46. I haven’t really read this post completely but, I am guessing what it was about. I have read this article this morning about life at MSFT w ith Mr. Ballmer. Do you have plans to expose what went wrong between you and Microsoft in simple words?

    DEV55

    January 22, 2013 at 10:03 am

  47. Steve’s remarks very clearly show why he is not someone “to work with”. In a process and envrironment of technical “advance”, it is mandatory that ideas ‘fight’ with each other and not persons. The ‘weapons’ for/during the fight are -> “arguments”. Argumentation is independent of personal choices or “dis/agreements’.

    Mert Boytak

    January 22, 2013 at 3:10 am

  48. Thanks Steve. This is very well articulated. I find it interesting that “to escalate is to fail” and “The key is that once you escalate you lose the context of the choice”. I can understand where this is coming from but at the same time I feel that sometimes we’re faced with so many choices and differing opinions that nothing gets decided at the end of the day, and escalation might be a way to solve it.

    Anonymous

    January 22, 2013 at 1:08 am

  49. Metro Sucks on Desktop !

    600p

    January 21, 2013 at 9:35 pm

  50. I enjoy your blogs, I have just recently started reading them as well as your book. It seems as though if given the chance you could use these principles to mold a new company from the start. I understand you cannot build a system around “stars” but must make a system that allows work to continue with anyone who works within the bounds of the program. I have always subscribed to the group discussion to solve problems and come up with a plan BUT do you not think at some point you need one person to finally make the decisions? I’ve always thought that eventually it helps everyone to listen to all sides and views but eventually to remove the burden by selecting a path and moving forward? Do you feel this is the case or can a group be efficient enough with good reasoning to keep moving forward with group consensus only?

    Dave

    January 21, 2013 at 1:58 pm

  51. Very well written. I’ve been on large ERP (PeopleSoft) projects where they could have used some of the tips in this article.

    I think the most important (and powerful) part of the article is:

    ***One final consideration is if you agree to disagree then you have to mean it. It means you can’t remind folks at every opportunity that you saw things differently. It also means you’re tabling the disagreement for good and that you’re not inadvertently establishing a dreaded accountability dodge or told you so for later on.***

    At work as well as in our personal lives, this is the hardest one.

    Takes tremendous discipline.

    Thanks

    Onuora

    Onuora Amobi

    January 21, 2013 at 10:23 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s