lol ive seen the pathological variant of this pattern and it is... something the hell else.
some situations are just fundamentally broken.
Technical Excellence Is Not Enough
101–105 of 105 posts
Re: Technical Excellence Is Not Enough
#102> Nobody disagrees with the technical argument That's a very strong foundational claim right at the start. And in my experience, a completely false one. Which makes the whole argument that follows it completely unsound. Also, the author seems to treat the terms "consensus" and "buy-in" as synonymous. They're not, and this distinction can make a huge difference in terms of healthy teams can operate. Patrick Lencioni c…
> Also, the author seems to treat the terms "consensus" and "buy-in" as synonymous. Can you explain more? I'm not familiar with that distinction, nor that book. EDIT: I asked ChatGPT, and it came up with this [0]. Please let me know if it's accurate (I don't necessarily dislike LLMs, I just think they're wildly oversold, and also value human input). 0: https://chatgpt.com/share/69a05ce2-95e4-8006-ae56-bd51472894...
Mr Chat more or less covers it correctly.
If my memory serves correctly, in the book there's a bit more emphasis and nuance on the point that, for buy-in to exist in the first place, all team members who have a strong opinion prior to a decision, need to feel that they've been given an opportunity to give their opinion, their opinion has been heard, and its merits and demerits weighed earnestly against all other options on the table, before a decision has been made by the team (or in the case of a 'stalemate', by the ultimate decision-maker), and that there is a clear rationale for going with the final decision and rejecting all others. The rationale may well acknowledge the risk from not following other opinions, but cite other operational reasons for the decision.
A healthy team then should proceed as if this was a team decision that they all commit to. But consensus isn't required, only buy-in. In a healthy team, all members should trust each other (in that, they are all working towards a common purpose), and not fear "creative conflict". This enables them to share their opinions in the first place, and the buy-in discussion helps everyone in the team to feel accountable for the joint decision, as well as hold each other accountable in a healthy way. If this doesn't happen, the usual outcome is that decisions are made, but people feel "I didn't agree with this decision and nobody asked me, so I won't really engage with it".
I really do recommend the book. It's a very light read, presented as a story (with a final chapter examining the concepts a bit more theoretically), with excellent insights. You can probably find it online for free if you must, but it's a good book to have on any bookshelf.
Re: Technical Excellence Is Not Enough
#103I find OP's communication style abrasive and off-putting, which tracks with them saying they've been coached on this, and found that advice lacking. Maybe it's still insufficient advice, but it hasn't worked for them at least in part because they haven't figured out how to apply it. From the post, I see low empathy and an air of superiority, (perhaps earned by genuinely being smarter than their peers-- doesn't make i…
> I find OP's communication style abrasive and off-putting Your comment is hilarious on a meta-level: it's an example of exactly the sort of socially-mediated gatekeeping the author of the article (machine or human, I don't care) criticizes. It is, in fact, essential to match authority and responsibility to achieve excellence in any endeavor, and it's a truth universally acknowledged that vague consensus requirements…
Ah so not at the whims of lone men egos?
Re: Technical Excellence Is Not Enough
#104[dead]
Re: Technical Excellence Is Not Enough
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, the author seems to treat the terms "consensus" and "buy-in" as synonymous. Can you explain more? I'm not familiar with that distinction, nor that book. EDIT: I asked ChatGPT, and it came up with this [0]. Please let me know if it's accurate (I don't necessarily dislike LLMs, I just think they're wildly oversold, and also value human input). 0: https://chatgpt.com/share/69a05ce2-95e4-8006-ae56-bd51472894...
Mr Chat more or less covers it correctly. If my memory serves correctly, in the book there's a bit more emphasis and nuance on the point that, for buy-in to exist in the first place, all team members who have a strong opinion prior to a decision, need to feel that they've been given an opportunity to give their opinion, their opinion has been heard, and its merits and demerits weighed earnestly against all other opti…
Thanks! I’ve ordered a copy.