Comment by rsp1984 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rsp1984 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Given the support for this answer I will likely get downvoted for this, but I disagree with this advice.

I am a co-founder (and CTO) of a small company myself and hence get to talk to the folks in my company quite regularly. I disagree with the notion that passion or personal preference doesn't belong in a decision-making process. Not only does it belong there, it is even a critical part of it, assuming of course that you have good arguments to make for your point and convey it in a respectful and professional manner.

Having passion and personal preference displays that you are engaged in your job and identify with the work that you do and aren't afraid to speak your mind, which requires a certain level of trust. Even more, you were hired precisely because the company came to the conclusion that it can benefit from your (uncensored) input.

It sure depends on the context but presenting your thoughts as "one option is to...", is a marker that you are indifferent to the outcome. It generally does not display trust, confidence or engagement.

So, if your manager is worth her/his money he/she can handle strong opinions just fine and will also consider other viewpoints than yours in the decision making process.

W.r.t. "talk like a leader, not like an engineer", king_panic has the best answer IMO.

I used to provide several options with background and rationale to my boss.

One day, he said, with a slightly frustrated tone, something along the lines of : "Andy: you're providing what appear to be good options and detail here - but someone in a "senior" position should recommend a path forward. Don't just give me 3 options that I need to then go and figure out for myself."

from that point on I've always tried to provide a hard recommendation - and rationale that includes a sort of decision tree approach. "We start with ______ [with good reasons to do so] then if X comes to pass we continue with it and if Y comes to pass we can pick a a different path with another option I have as backup."

The result seems to often be a discussion more about the upsides/downsides and decision tree relative to the business the organization is trying to support (a good thing) vs technical merits of the options which the technical team is trusted to be well versed in.

This is the approach I often take. I'm paid to be an expert and have answers. If the situation has multiple paths, it is on me to weigh those with the context I have and be prepared to adapt when I inquire about other considerations I may have been previously unaware of.

There's nothing wrong with having an informed opinion as long as it isn't presented in a combative or selfish manner.

That said, depending on who else may be in the room, if you naturally take that approach, it is often good to sit back and let others speak, or encourage them to if they are not the assertive type. Leadership is as much (if not more) about listening than speaking.

I disagree. Talking about options is _not_ a black-and-white issue, and I feel that seeing this as being indifferent is somewhat of a stretch. Why not outline the options and their respective consequences (as far as you can observe them) as objectively as possible? Here's an example:

'One option is to do it this way. This has the following advantages. Moreover, we could also do it that way. This will likely result in ...'

And of course you _can_ give your preference---but you should be upfront about this. For example:

'Personally, I think it might be worth to pursue option 1 more because of ...'

Strong opinions are one thing, but being capable of seeing alternatives is also very, very valid. Not every [business] decision has _one_ easy answer.

(disclaimer: I am talking about my experience with academic teams inside academia; this is not 100% transferable to the business world, I would wager)

Yeah, the other thing to consider is that as you go up the chain the people you're talking to have more context across the business and may know something you don't.

Outlining options with consequences helps them make the right decision in the macro. I've have many decisions from the technical side that made sense but we're absolutely the wrong choice once I had more context around what other teams planned or the business constraints.

I agree. I'd restate it in a way that applies to both engineering and management: It's ok to be very opinionated about your job. You're paid the big bucks to be an expert, what's the point if you don't have a strong idea of what the Right Thing To Do(TM) is? If I go to a PM or manager with questions on a feature I'm supposed to develop I sure hope they have a strong opinion about what I'm supposed to be building!

Opinionated is orthogonal to being persuasive though. To work on a team you need both; you can't just say what you think is right without evidence and you need to be able to persuade others on your team that you're right. And it's orthogonal to being self aware as well, in particular knowing when you're wrong or a battle isn't worth winning.

There seems to be a confusion or overlap between what a CTO and a CEO needs to do in terms of leadership, they have different audiences.

While CTOs are expected to be heavily technical and fact based, CEOs often negotiate based on feelings, trust, wrong data and emotions with other parties (mostly non-tech) where it does make sense to open several options.

Any engineer growing into leadership will increasingly need to deal with non-tech people that will find the strong engineering opinions as leaving them out of the decision process, and subsequently be offended by that fact.

CTOs have little resilience to bullshit, they aren't known for soft-skills either and tend to be seen as leading the pack. There is a fine line of what being a leader means, depending very much on who your audience is.

Making sound decisions in engineering has nothing with personal preferences or passion. All too often these interfere with the process and, in fact, usually hide the lack of vision.

Interesting that you’re actually advocating for this type of “lord of the flies” culture. It actually indicates your org doesn’t have clear direction or technical competence (imo). I’d personally be wary of joining such a company. I’ve been a part of too many directionless zombies myself.

This might be the most uncharitable reading possible of what they wrote. Having people advocate for different decisions hardly means that the company is a “directionless zombie”. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite. Having a culture where people don’t advocate for something but just go along with whatever is handed down to them from on high sounds a lot more zombie-like to me.

I guess I’ve worked on to many apps that resulted from this sort of thing, over the course of years. In reality, everyone gets a voice and every opinion matters devolves to the vocal minority doing what they want, damn the consequences. Similar to online discussion forums really. It’s almost tautological that this vocal minority does NOT have the best interest of the product or company in mind, but only their own self aggrandizement and careerism.

Somebody at the top ought to have a vision and ability to work with feedback from real customers with real needs to deliver a product that users love and continue to pay for.

If you write an app idiots can use, idiots will

A fabulously illustrative email sig from the type of people who “win” in these orgs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com