Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

terriblesoftware.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#31

Post by cycomanic »

tekla wrote: post #22
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely don't know how to respond to that. The idea of connecting anger to the relevancy of one's work seems so strange to me.

Ok, lets go with this, because empathy is hard, and it seems that most here have not experienced working on complex projects. I've personally experienced this. We have a project to develop a new engine, its teklaover budget, very late, and requires a ton more work and excuses are running thin. My team is running barebones with 60-70 hour weeks trying to get the ratings done, the test team is waiting on us for the rat…

As the other poster said, this sounds more like a toxic work environment than like an environment were constructive (those are rarely heated) discussions take place that will actually improve a project. I mean maybe everyone was so busy shouting at each other that they forgot to actually properly plan and risk manage the project?

It sounds to me like lots of discussions should have been had before getting to this point? So sure at the point where you ended up, things get heated because everyone is overworked and frustrated and being pressured from all sides, but that's not really a function of a complex project, but more of a poorly managed/executed one?

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#32

Post by darkwater »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #11
ArinaS wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this article confuses an absence of "heated arguments" with a lack of constructive, critical discussions. Doesn't the article refute exactly this point of view? In " The hidden cost of “nice” teams " section: " Those teams weren’t actually harmonious—they were conflict-avoidant. The disagreements still existed; they just went underground. "

>Those teams weren’t actually harmonious—they were conflict-avoidant. In my experience, this is not true because, in high-trust teams, there is "harmonious conflict." People offer criticism without getting heated. Getting heated often results from a strong opinion combined with a lack of faith that other people are genuinely considering your opinion. People who get heated feel they have to be forceful to convince oth…

Interesting take, and most probably you are right. But this requires at least two people with a above-the-average emotional intelligence. And in our trade, in my opinion and experience, it's not easy to find people that excel in both emotional and practical problem solving intelligences. So, having a profound technical discussion in a team without heating it up at least a bit, it's difficult. Now, it can heat up and then it can be like nothing really happened, because as time passes and people can reflect on it, they soon realize it was just a technical discussion; but in the heat of the moment if you have the ego strong enough to defend your position, most persons will heat up as well.

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#33

Post by franktankbank »

makeitdouble wrote: post #13

> Ideas get challenged based on what they are, not who said them Is anyone here deeply moved by how this argument is insightful and bring an angle to team building that wouldn't have been obvious otherwise ? It's not just that single quote, the whole article felt like a Don Quixote battling the windmills that keep silencing the wise engineers bearing their valid criticism as a spear. Or perhaps it was aimed at dictat…

Its useful to identify what sort of team you are on. I've definitely been on teams that valued what I'd call "silent consensus" which really meant a small group had already met and made whatever self serving decision and when they met with the whole team to have a "first discussion" they expected zero extra inputs.

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#34

Post by franktankbank »

bob1029 wrote: post #26
wood_spirit wrote: post #16

How do people cope in teams where some or even most members are vocal but actually always completely wrong and you’re the only one seeing it?

Sometimes the fastest way to win is to completely disengage. If these people are actually wrong all of the time, they will spiral even faster without your intervention. Alternatively, use your opponent's momentum against them. Reorient your thinking and accelerate the destruction of their bad ideas by encouraging them.

Sometimes it blossoms into a shitstorm which can be used to justify excessive hiring where you get diluted even further. Never underestimate the dysfunction of Fortune500

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#35

Post by fidotron »

The truth on this is even simpler: the absence of a clear decision making hierarchy in big A "Agile" processes dooms every non operational task to at best mediocre outcomes. *

One of the key benefits of hierarchical decision making is that people have the opportunity to privately challenge opinions, which can lead to radical levelling up of everyone involved. Since the introduction of infantile nonsense like "sprint planning poker" everything descends to being an argument, facepalming defeatism, or fake niceness while everyone hopes everyone else does the bare minimum to keep things going while we all smile about it.

* My more managerial friends and colleagues claim this is a feature, not a bug, in that they prefer predictable mediocrity over unpredictable success.

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#37

Post by lioeters »

tekla wrote: post #22
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely don't know how to respond to that. The idea of connecting anger to the relevancy of one's work seems so strange to me.

Ok, lets go with this, because empathy is hard, and it seems that most here have not experienced working on complex projects. I've personally experienced this. We have a project to develop a new engine, its teklaover budget, very late, and requires a ton more work and excuses are running thin. My team is running barebones with 60-70 hour weeks trying to get the ratings done, the test team is waiting on us for the rat…

> it seems that most here have not experienced working on complex projects

The hubris in this sentence is chef's kiss. You have no idea.

> When stuff does matter, anger happens

No, anger is completely unnecessary. It's a poor way to act and communicate, often counter-productive and terrible for morale.

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#38

Post by sally_glance »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #21
sally_glance wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

25 years is a long time, I'm intrigued. Looking back, can you single out any specific rules, workflows or cultural reasons which made this possible? Also, how much fluctuation in team members did you experience? I'm currently managing multiple teams, some of which are experiencing challenges with clashes between top talent. I'm sure there is no magical bullet, but still very interested in anecdotal data on this.

Well, the biggest “secret,” was keeping people on board, for a long time. It was almost impossible to hire folks that could “hit the ground running,” as the tech was very proprietary, so investment in training was a big deal. When they finally wrapped up our team, the person with the least tenure, had been there a decade. Keeping people for a long time, is a big topic, on its own. Also, everyone believed in The Missi…

Thanks, that was insightful. Vision and mission can be a hard sell, depending on the company. Having some decades of engineering tradition certainly helps with that.

Focusing on retention somehow went out of fashion these days, it pains me how often I have to reiterate short vs long term costs. It's not all on the employer side though, loyalty seems a rare attribute today as well... I get many CVs of people who barely ever stayed a year at any one company. Doesn't mean they won't stay with us, but takes some convincing arguments on their side.

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#39

Post by fuzzy_biscuit »

sally_glance wrote: post #38
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the biggest “secret,” was keeping people on board, for a long time. It was almost impossible to hire folks that could “hit the ground running,” as the tech was very proprietary, so investment in training was a big deal. When they finally wrapped up our team, the person with the least tenure, had been there a decade. Keeping people for a long time, is a big topic, on its own. Also, everyone believed in The Missi…

Thanks, that was insightful. Vision and mission can be a hard sell, depending on the company. Having some decades of engineering tradition certainly helps with that. Focusing on retention somehow went out of fashion these days, it pains me how often I have to reiterate short vs long term costs. It's not all on the employer side though, loyalty seems a rare attribute today as well... I get many CVs of people who barel…

Companies that show little loyalty should expect little loyalty. It seems to be a general business culture truth right now that loyalty is something that will be exploited rather than lauded. That's just my experience as someone who has been in 3 consecutive layoffs over the last few years and became a bit jaded/bitter before my current gig.

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#40

Post by sunray2 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #21
sally_glance wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

25 years is a long time, I'm intrigued. Looking back, can you single out any specific rules, workflows or cultural reasons which made this possible? Also, how much fluctuation in team members did you experience? I'm currently managing multiple teams, some of which are experiencing challenges with clashes between top talent. I'm sure there is no magical bullet, but still very interested in anecdotal data on this.

Well, the biggest “secret,” was keeping people on board, for a long time. It was almost impossible to hire folks that could “hit the ground running,” as the tech was very proprietary, so investment in training was a big deal. When they finally wrapped up our team, the person with the least tenure, had been there a decade. Keeping people for a long time, is a big topic, on its own. Also, everyone believed in The Missi…

Do you think that craftmanship and longevity, in terms of keeping these people on board, go hand-in-hand?

As an example, Hamamatsu Photonics has been in the optics field a long time, and is going hard on developing for quantum physics applications. It's refreshing, since pretty much every company in quantum computing is very young, so hasn't had the time to build that craftsman vibe yet. Of course, there are people who've been working on quantum information technologies for a few decades now.

I look forward to seeing this ethos developing in quantum, for sure.

Post reply on HN