Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#51

Post by mistersquid » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 2:55 PM UTC

steveBK123 wrote: post #45

One counter to this over 20 years in this game is there are plenty of people who confuse "having heated discussions" with being high functioning. That is - I've been on lots of low functioning teams riven with conflict. Prima donna developers who publicly call managers/teammates stupid in meetings. Managers giving negative feedback in public instead of in private. Stubborn veteran team members telling newer team memb…

> One pattern I've seen in lower functioning teams with lots of conflict is some members being very well spoken, typically more classically trained like a philosophy background, probably a past debate club type kid. "Strong opinions, loosely held" type behavior where bad ideas were passionately argued by the more eloquent & aggressive team member until everyone else was exhausted and just let it run.

> The kind of guys that would steamroll the rest of the team as a bunch of idiots for not agreeing with him, but flip to a charismatic "ah good point" when incontrovertible proof of their idea not being correct was presented. The problem is you can't provide incontrovertible proof in real time in most cases, and lots of managers confuse their passion/certitude for correctness.

The problem is not that incontrovertible proof cannot be provided real time. Yielding evidence from complex, esoteric systems is always difficult and time-consuming.

The problem is the well-spoken people in the above example are not well-listening. Hearing a poorly-worded argument whose conceptual outlines might be worth considering is an important skill. Ignoring an argument because it is not eloquently delivered is hubris.

Because such people do not listen well, they cannot claim to have “Strong opinions, loosely held”. Requiring hard-to-yield evidence before changing one’s mind is “Strong opinions, tightly held”.

In the end, heated arguments are usually an indicator of dysfunction, even in high functioning teams. Teams are usually better off having honest, dispassionate debate.

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#52

Post by kijin » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 2:57 PM UTC

steveBK123 wrote: post #45

One counter to this over 20 years in this game is there are plenty of people who confuse "having heated discussions" with being high functioning. That is - I've been on lots of low functioning teams riven with conflict. Prima donna developers who publicly call managers/teammates stupid in meetings. Managers giving negative feedback in public instead of in private. Stubborn veteran team members telling newer team memb…

> Prima donna developers who publicly call managers/teammates stupid in meetings ... (snip) ... telling newer team members to get a new job if they don't like how things are done.

I think the author covers that point to some extent:

> The focus stays on the problem: “This approach might not scale” instead of “Your idea sucks.”

As soon as you deviate from that focus, the discussion becomes toxic.

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#53

Post by steveBK123 » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 3:19 PM UTC

mistersquid wrote: post #51

steveBK123 wrote: post #45

One counter to this over 20 years in this game is there are plenty of people who confuse "having heated discussions" with being high functioning. That is - I've been on lots of low functioning teams riven with conflict. Prima donna developers who publicly call managers/teammates stupid in meetings. Managers giving negative feedback in public instead of in private. Stubborn veteran team members telling newer team memb…

> One pattern I've seen in lower functioning teams with lots of conflict is some members being very well spoken, typically more classically trained like a philosophy background, probably a past debate club type kid. "Strong opinions, loosely held" type behavior where bad ideas were passionately argued by the more eloquent & aggressive team member until everyone else was exhausted and just let it run. > The kind of gu…

Agreed and in my experience most people claiming "strong opinions, loosely held" are actually "strong ideas, tightly held". Probably 9:1.

Dispassionate debate is a mark of grown ups, and we work with a lot of children in this industry.

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#54

Post by braza » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 3:23 PM UTC

mistersquid wrote: post #51

steveBK123 wrote: post #45

One counter to this over 20 years in this game is there are plenty of people who confuse "having heated discussions" with being high functioning. That is - I've been on lots of low functioning teams riven with conflict. Prima donna developers who publicly call managers/teammates stupid in meetings. Managers giving negative feedback in public instead of in private. Stubborn veteran team members telling newer team memb…

> One pattern I've seen in lower functioning teams with lots of conflict is some members being very well spoken, typically more classically trained like a philosophy background, probably a past debate club type kid. "Strong opinions, loosely held" type behavior where bad ideas were passionately argued by the more eloquent & aggressive team member until everyone else was exhausted and just let it run. > The kind of gu…

> The problem is not that incontrovertible proof cannot be provided real time. Yielding evidence from complex, esoteric systems is always difficult and time-consuming.

Most of the heated discussions that I saw in low performing teams was because of that specific aspect.

Being more specific: if we have 3 people with different levels of knowledge, most of the time if the person that has more in depth knowledge and sense of craft will take the heated position.

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#55

Post by codr7 » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 4:14 PM UTC

narag wrote: post #12

"Psychological safety" sounds awfully creepy.

I know, feel the same about codes of conduct. People who need those kinds of rules are the least likely to follow and most likely to weaponize them.

But I think we can agree it's a good thing to feel assured that having different opinions and occasionally being wrong is not going to be a problem, that this is something that could potentially affect the team in positive ways?

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#56

Post by makeitdouble » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 4:27 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #29

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…

> 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 ? You'd think it's basic. But then you can read up on the history of checklists and how lives were saved by empowering nurses to point out that surgeons forgot some step. Or Toyota empowering any worker to stop the production line if they suspect a defect. Or any number of "we…

› history of checklists and how lives were saved by empowering nurses to point out that surgeons forgot some step

It goes a lot beyond disagreeing at meetings though. There's a ton of research on the social dynamics leading to erroneous decisions, mostly steaming from too much power concentrated on one side.

On the nurse example, I assume we're talking about instruments left inside the patient's body for instance ? These kind of issues are not just solved with prep talking nurses into voicing their concerns, and include reworking procedures, building "rituals" and checklists as you mention. Nurses speaking up are part of a whole framework

Same way Toyota didn't just empower their employees, they famously setup a reporting system to give the employees an official path to offer their insights, paired with incentives and rewards.

›those idiots in (other team)"?

In my experience these people will still assert they are respectful, listen to constructive feedback and are open to any pertinent idea. And it might actually be true inside their team or towards a limited set of people.

The issues you point at are real and and sometimes widespread within an org, but it will usually be a lot more nuanced than how it's presented in the article, to the point where the advice doesn't really apply.

It's like asking people to not be racist. Most will balk at that characterization, and actually dealing with the issue will require a lot more workarounds but also properly identifying the exact problematic behavior, in a non cartoon villain way.

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#57

Post by heymijo » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 4:33 PM UTC

mistersquid wrote: post #51

steveBK123 wrote: post #45

One counter to this over 20 years in this game is there are plenty of people who confuse "having heated discussions" with being high functioning. That is - I've been on lots of low functioning teams riven with conflict. Prima donna developers who publicly call managers/teammates stupid in meetings. Managers giving negative feedback in public instead of in private. Stubborn veteran team members telling newer team memb…

> One pattern I've seen in lower functioning teams with lots of conflict is some members being very well spoken, typically more classically trained like a philosophy background, probably a past debate club type kid. "Strong opinions, loosely held" type behavior where bad ideas were passionately argued by the more eloquent & aggressive team member until everyone else was exhausted and just let it run. > The kind of gu…

Yes, someone who truly wants greatness should be able to hear a poorly thought our argument, cognitively question the counter party to help them articulate exactly what they are thinking, or even articulate it better themself. Then you can weigh and measure competing arguments.

A high-functioning team is going to have at least one person who does this. For a perpetually high functioning team this is going to be second nature.

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#58

Post by hinkley » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 4:34 PM UTC

ArinaS wrote: post #3

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #2

I think this article confuses an absence of "heated arguments" with a lack of constructive, critical discussions. I've found that in mature teams with high trust, people don't have heated arguments precisely because they are not afraid that their voices will be ignored. There is no need to become heated because you trust that the other people on the team will hear you out and consider your viewpoint. >code that nobod…

> I don't understand what that means. Probably "code that nobody critiques will fail in production". That's not always true I guess.

On the first team where we did code reviews, I found in RCAs for the bad bugs that snuck in that there was a dearth of comments on the CR that introduced it.

But usually the severity was more correlated with a lack of comments on the tests. Giant holes in test cases meant giant bugs. So don’t call a PR ready to land until you’ve gotten a few substantive critiques. Because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

For the bugs I introduced (I am highly bug-averse) it was either zero comments on tests, or bugs introduced by the CR process - changes I was coerced into making that I felt were wrong. And I can’t say which sort of subconscious resistance was at work there. Self sabotage for making changes I don’t want to, or my sixth sense for robust code telling me the suggestion is an antipattern. Probably both.

What I learned from that last, which I confirmed in subsequent years, was that as a team you should only tolerate major pushback on a CR/PR at the beginning of the review process. Anyone who jumps in late with Needs Work demands, especially after a round of feedback changes has already landed, has lost their right to participate in the review. Because as a PR drags on, everyone gets tired of looking at it and has a less critical eye for spotting bugs that have been introduced by committee. It quickly becomes better odds that the original bugs the early reviewers did not catch are less dangerous than the ones that will be introduced by work-hardening the PR.

It’s the same mechanic that makes pushing code or a deployment after 4pm a bad idea. Confirmation bias is greatly amplified by a desire to be somewhere else.

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#59

Post by tetha » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 4:35 PM UTC

mistersquid wrote: post #51

steveBK123 wrote: post #45

One counter to this over 20 years in this game is there are plenty of people who confuse "having heated discussions" with being high functioning. That is - I've been on lots of low functioning teams riven with conflict. Prima donna developers who publicly call managers/teammates stupid in meetings. Managers giving negative feedback in public instead of in private. Stubborn veteran team members telling newer team memb…

> One pattern I've seen in lower functioning teams with lots of conflict is some members being very well spoken, typically more classically trained like a philosophy background, probably a past debate club type kid. "Strong opinions, loosely held" type behavior where bad ideas were passionately argued by the more eloquent & aggressive team member until everyone else was exhausted and just let it run. > The kind of gu…

> The problem is not that incontrovertible proof cannot be provided real time. Yielding evidence from complex, esoteric systems is always difficult and time-consuming.

This is why we've started to write down larger decisions, the reasons and spots of uncertainty for these decisions in a central, public place. I'm jokingly referring to this as our growing constitution of tech.

I think this is right, because some of these decisions are not entirely comfortable, but a lot of bright people have thought about this over time and this compromise is what we figured is the most effective and workable one.

I'm entirely willing to up-end one of these decisions, but only if something strong comes up that hasn't been discussed in the past many times. But, our reasoning is here, and everyone can take all time they need to make a case why it's wrong, or some case needs further consideration and detail.

Re: Why Your 'Harmonious' Team Is Failing

#60

Post by steveBK123 » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 4:47 PM UTC

tetha wrote: post #59

mistersquid wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One pattern I've seen in lower functioning teams with lots of conflict is some members being very well spoken, typically more classically trained like a philosophy background, probably a past debate club type kid. "Strong opinions, loosely held" type behavior where bad ideas were passionately argued by the more eloquent & aggressive team member until everyone else was exhausted and just let it run. > The kind of gu…

> The problem is not that incontrovertible proof cannot be provided real time. Yielding evidence from complex, esoteric systems is always difficult and time-consuming. This is why we've started to write down larger decisions, the reasons and spots of uncertainty for these decisions in a central, public place. I'm jokingly referring to this as our growing constitution of tech. I think this is right, because some of th…

That's excellent - many organizations write down very little, and certainly not meeting minutes / decision details, which only makes this problem worse.