Hacker News Reader

Comment by jstanley | Hacker News Reader

> Lead: This is not a choice. I am telling you to do this.

> Teammate: You need to convince me.

I think the teammate's at least half right on this one. Nobody does anything without wanting to do it. If you want somebody to do something, you do need to convince them. If they'll do it just because you say they have to, they're still probably harbouring some resentment about it, which won't work out well in the long term anyway.

At least this guy was big enough to stand up for what he believed in.

> Just write the less than 80 characters line to add the variable and move on.

If it's so easy, why didn't the lead just do it himself instead of making a problem out of it?

View on HN

>> If it's so easy, why didn't the lead just do it himself instead of making a problem out of it?

I was thinking the exact same thing. It's old school thinking that the leader should be respected just because there are the leader. Back then the most aggressive person would get to be the leader...

You can't make someone else do something just for the sake of reminding them who's the boss - That's sick and it's psychologically damaging to the other person.

If the leader cannot convince team members to do things then that person should not be a leader. There is always a way to make someone do what you want them to do but if you're the kind of leader who never yields and never compromises then others will behave the same towards you and they will probably be right.

> If you want somebody to do something, you do need to convince them. If they'll do it just because you say they have to, they're still probably harbouring some resentment about it, which won't work out well in the long term anyway.

Pushing back on such a small thing feels so rigid and short-sighted. You can always change the code in another sprint, but if your resistance over a single line change is holding up everyone else’s reviews/pull requests and deliverables it’s pretty selfish to be so inflexible. Sometimes you just need to trust that you’re being asked to do something by someone with more experience (technical or otherwise) for a good reason and let it go, especially if it’s something relatively minor.

> If it’s so easy, why didn’t the lead just do it himself instead of making a problem out of it?

Because that’s not his job? Do you think he should set a precedent of just doing the teammate’s work every time he pushes back? If that’s the case, why have the teammate around in the first place?

> Do you think he should set a precedent of just doing the teammate’s work every time he pushes back?

When the lead start to think in terms of precedents, it is a red sign, you'd better find another job. When maintaining authority becomes more important to the lead than the work done, it means that hierarchy psychological mechanisms took over his rational thinking, and it is really bad.

For me it’s not so much about maintaining authority as it is about not letting the people who you’re trying to lead walk all over you anytime they disagree or push back.

How does just doing someone’s work for them indicate any kind of effective leadership? What lesson or mentoring does that provide?

> For me it’s not so much about maintaining authority as it is about not letting the people who you’re trying to lead walk all over you anytime they disagree or push back.

How not letting the people to walk over you is not maintaining authority? It is pure hierarchy game. "Who is more dominant male here?" Even if you are Buddha and can control your mind perfectly, separating lower instincts from rationality, then dude you are speaking to is not Buddha (most probably), and he would interpret situation as pure hierarchy game.

> How does just doing someone’s work for them indicate any kind of effective leadership?

When we see disobedient teammate we already know that leadership is ineffective. The only question remains: can the leadership become effective in the future.

> What lesson or mentoring does that provide?

It is generally good idea to reach several goals by one move. But not every time. If you cannot simultaneously reach work goals and education ones, then you can split goals and reach them in more then one move.

There is not much sense in trying to push while conflict is at its peak. Emotions get over mind on both sides. Possibly time is pressing and it is not the good idea to start discussion right now.

Later the lead can find time to speak about incident, with all its aftermaths, including him doing work for other (It gives the lead real power on conversations, like "Unprecedented! Due to your stubborness I has to do your job. Should I take your salary also?"). It should be time when the cause of conflict is in the past, when there are plenty of time to talk the past conflict through, when emotions not the present reality but tool in hands of the lead. And one more: when no one around except disobedient team member and the lead to exclude influence of social group effects on both.

At that moment the lead can calmly and purposefully explore his disobedient teammate motives and let teammate to understand the lead. Ether they will find mutual understanding, or not. In the latter case the lead would have all the reasons to fire employee who does not understand what team work is. In the former case conflict would be solved once and for ever, and there would be no need to repeat it again and again, which is real threat to authority of the team leader.

In contrast pushing conflict at its peak just to settle authority of the lead is not constructive. Disobedient teammate will learn nothing except his leader is a authoritarian headstrong dominant male, even if it is not so. The only consequence will be increased chance of successive conflicts with this teammate. It is simplier to fire him right now, than to wait for sequel.

Alternatively he will learn that his opinion is not needed, and will become silent obedient and non-creative worker. A kind of dump machine to type on keyboard. But if this is the goal of the lead, he'd better find another employee. Breaking human by force can be loud and unpleasant for the whole team.

There are no possible happy endings if the lead values authority above all and does not use his creativity to work with people.

I disagree. Team leads are chosen for a reason and when they clearly ask for a task, it needs to be done without the wasted effort of having to convince them.

> If it's so easy, why didn't the lead just do it himself instead of making a problem out of it?

It's called delegation. If there are 15 easy tasks, a team lead can delegate them out using his or her judgement and have them completed quicker than doing it themselves. If each of those easy tasks has to go through a "convincing phase" it's no longer worth it.

A lead that squanders an opportunity to mentor isn't much of a lead.

I didn't say that one shouldn't mentor or receive feedback. I actually think if you disagree with the team lead you should let them know and then let them make the decision.

If they hear your opinion and still go a different way, that's fine - roll with it. It shouldn't require every individual on the team to be convinced, that's a massive waste of time.

But delegation involves handing over some subset of your responsibility to someone and trusting them to do it. That includes letting them decide what the best way to get it done is.

Once you're telling people what to do in terms of single lines of code, that's not delegation anymore, there is no trust.

Convincing a colleague of why a particular direction is a good thing to do is never a waste of time.

Telling others what to do is not delegation. Delegation means to give others the freedom to make their own decisions.

> If they'll do it just because you say they have to, they're still probably harbouring some resentment about it, which won't work out well in the long term anyway.

Right, because in that case, you've convinced them they have to do it or they'll be fired. Either way they'll be convinced of something!

The TL is ultimately responsible for delivering the product. With the accountability comes the right to not have to go through hours long discussions to convince an engineer.

if i could convince people to do things, i would be selling amway, not leading a software team.

> If it's so easy, why didn't the lead just do it himself instead of making a problem out of it?

Interestingly, I had a similarly simplistic solution in the other direction: if the schedule is so tight, why is this person who adds time needed? Take them off the team and, if there isn't anything else for them to do, let them go. They're insubordinate, and egalitarian as I am, this person is obviously not a good fit for a tight schedule.

(I expect if the team lead added it the other person might well try to remove it.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com