
It’s Not Your Team, It’s You - abyx
https://avivbenyosef.com/its-not-your-team-its-you/
======
jmcgough
Reminds me of the mentality strong players in MOBAs advocate for. You're
playing on a team with four other strangers, so it can be easy to feel
hopeless and give up when they make mistakes. But the most optimal thing to do
is to not focus on their mistakes, but focus on how you can correct your own
mistakes: how you can beat your lane opponent, how you can anticipate a jungle
gank, how you can translate a won lane into a won game, how you can
communicate your intent effectively with pings to prevent that failed dive
next time, how you can foster a positive mentality among your teammates and
what you can do to help _them_ win their lanes.

You get better by revisiting the decisions you made, think about how you could
do better next time, and move on to the next challenge. When you develop
learned helplessness, you stop getting better and can actually become worse.

~~~
RangerScience
This is a really fantastic way to describe this, thank you.

I'm considering the last few situations I was in, professionally, and how they
match these descriptions...

How do you translate IC work wins into company wins (akin to turning a lane
win into a game win)?

Is... step one of that, gaining the organizational power to expand beyond your
lane?

PS - This concept is hazy and I'm finding it hard to grasp to put it into
words ATM, so if this isn't clear enough for responses, ask some questions and
I'll try again.

~~~
WJW
Mostly, become good enough in your own lane that you get access to / become
desirable for teams with other good players. Some games are just lost no
matter how well you manage your own lane, similar to how some companies are
doomed no matter how good their tech is.

~~~
RangerScience
Hmm.. "The game is lost when those who're winning in it aren't given the lead"
?

Then reconjugate to be a thing you can do -

"If the game's being lost, and you're winning in lane, ask to be given
leadership. It's when /that/ comes back 'no' that it's time for you to find a
new game."

(I'm noticing this is begin to look like "Winners want the ball.")

~~~
jmcgough
You don't have to ask for leadership to do things to enable others. Like
improving CI, facilitating communication with another team, fostering a
positive environment.

I think ICs who focus solely on keeping their head down and writing good code
are limiting themselves, and it's a similar mentality I see at lower ranks in
games.

~~~
RangerScience
This! Definitely. Can you go into more detail / provide links for more on
exactly this?

------
rcoveson
Stoicism: Worry exclusively about the things you can control. The only things
you can control are your own intentions. The behavior of others, the results
of other's actions, and even the results of your own actions are all outside
your control, and it is therefor unproductive to worry about them.

~~~
hinkley
I had some really good luck early career influencing people. It took me quite
a while to realize how much of that was luck and not talent.

Teams are often more concerned with coherence than objective 'rightness', and
they're not wrong to value it, but at the end of the day that really means
that you should look elsewhere instead of being some sort of... I'm not sure
what you'd call it. Vigilante?

I should be looking for a new job, but I'm staying where I am because
_gestures at the world_ but also because I'm still figuring out how to ask
about my non-negotiables during an interview, instead of assuming I'm going to
renegotiate them once I start. You can talk junior developers into a lot of
things. Senior developers push back.

------
dhosek
Hugged to death. Wayback link:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200903162835/https://avivbenyo...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200903162835/https://avivbenyosef.com/its-
not-your-team-its-you/)

------
sailfast
This totally makes sense, if you also find some benefit (personally or
societally / globally) by taking ownership of the problem.

If you're a) not going to get paid b) not going to materially improve your
prospects c) not going to be helping the world etc then I find that digging in
and trying to save everything by making it your problem is a recipe for
extreme frustration which will show up clearly in your interactions with other
people whose job it probably is to do the things you believe are not happening
correctly (managers, executives, other team members)

Make sure before you make this leap that you're doing it for the right
reasons, either for the benefit of the world, or for yourself and not just
because you work someplace and a blog said "you are responsible". Stay
mentally healthy. Save your energy for the important stuff.

Obviously this message is extremely important for smaller places, startups,
etc and in your personal life. Recognize excuses. Be proactive. But there's a
balance when it comes to your work life.

~~~
temikus
Not even mentioning that the approach the author takes assumes that everyone
is a rational player and will not actively try to undermine you and ruin your
career if you (even inadvertently) point out that their project may have
flaws. I’ve learned that the hard way.

------
marcinzm
As I see it it's not that one can't push towards a solution. It's that one
doesn't find the potential reward (or potential risk of negative consequences)
of doing so worth the work/stress/time. Plenty of companies where the nail
that sticks out gets hammered down.

~~~
ISL
Sounds like a culture worth working to change.

~~~
bradlys
Some places can’t be changed. You’ll have to fire the entire executive team
and the board to get a change.

It’s important to recognize when that’s the case and get out.

------
redleggedfrog
"Internal Server Error" It's not your team or you, it's your server.

~~~
deeblering4
One might argue that "it's not your server, it's you."

------
davewritescode
This feels somewhat relevant as a developer who's moved into more of a
leadership. When you're a younger dev, you get ahead by pumping out code,
hitting deadlines and making stakeholders happy. As you transition up the
chain, you need to start depending on the other developers to pump out the
features and you're going to find a lot of them just don't care as much as you
do/did. It can get very frustrating at times.

This article hits the point exactly, I've learned all you can do is lead by
example and hope for the best while trying to constantly improve your own
performance.

------
astockwell
Similar premise to the book Extreme Ownership [1], which I highly recommend.

[1] [https://echelonfront.com/extreme-
ownership/](https://echelonfront.com/extreme-ownership/)

Edit: Link added

~~~
LeSaucy
Anyone else despise managers who only read the inside cover?

------
ISL
It is essential to have a clear notion of what the goal/success looks like, so
that you can own _that_. At present, These days I'm confronting a few
situations in life where the direct path to what has, for a decade, been the
ostensible goal is demonstrably closed.

It has been useful to realize that, in most cases, those goals have been
proxies for more abstract goals that are more attainable. Owning those
outcomes is both possible and powerful.

If the linked post is resonant, have a gander at Extreme Ownership -- the same
general philosophy.

~~~
WJW
Extreme Ownership makes (more) sense in a military context where the price for
failure is much higher than in a civilian situation.

Ownership as a word has been hijacked by self-help marketers to goad people
into providing more labor than they are paid for. True ownership means having
a meaningful stake in the success or failure of the company. If you are not on
the hook for more than having to find a new job on failure and will not get
anything more than a mild pay raise or promotion (if even that) on success,
then you do not "own" a process no matter what any internal document says.
Acting as though you do just means that you are giving away value for free.

~~~
RangerScience
Hmm...

All else being sufficient, acting with/feeling "ownership" over something is
the #1 way I've gained the skills to get that change-companies-promotion.

AKA, I've found it worth it for personal growth, even if it's not been worth
it for this-season career.

------
codingdave
This isn't wrong, but isn't really actionable either. I get that this article
is marketing for the author's services, but we can take these kinds of
problems and think more directly about how to fix them.

As an example, if the CEO (or any other leader) says "No" I'd suggest
exploring further the communication patterns that can help change a "No"
answer into a productive discussion -- splitting fact from opinion,
understanding the motivations of all the players, and knowing the leadership
team to understand what communications styles work best on each of them.

Likewise, when the team doesn't agree on what is important, making some
members feel like the others don't care about the product and/or the
quality... make sure you are working towards the same goals, and measuring
each other on activities that support those goals. If your team isn't defining
the product correctly, or working on the right items, maybe there was never
any solid alignment on the product direction in the first place. Do you put
the customer above the tech? Are you in a place where you need to speed to
market and tech debt is acceptable? Are you still seeking product-market fit,
so experimenting on new tech and approaches does have more value than adding a
new feature to a mismatched product?

Those are the types questions to ask - and again, it will lead to
understanding the motivations of all players involved and syncing up with the
higher-level business strategy.

------
bradlys
I’d be hesitant about this. Author is from Israel. This is very much an
Israeli cultural thing where they believe the individual is the issue, not the
team. Maybe this stems from mandatory military service or something else -
it’s not clear to me. This leads to whoever has an authoritative position
dictating everything. It’s not that teams get together and decide things as a
unit, there’s a dictator somewhere.

But then the dictator makes it seem like it’s what the entire team wants. And
says if you go against “the team” then you’re the issue. Meanwhile, no one may
agree with the dictator but can’t speak up due to whole team mentality and
speaking against is breaking the team values. Effectively, you get gas lit
into believing you’re the only one with an issue when possibly all your other
team members feel similarly.

It’s a weird culture as an American. It definitely doesn’t prize the rebel in
any sense. (I’m not saying being a rebel is inherently good) I’m not saying
America doesn’t do this either.

I’ve seen a lot of group think because of this and essentially one person ends
up dictating everything while making it seem like it’s really the teams
culture. Eventually, people might believe it’s the team culture and forget
what they even wanted in the beginning and just learn to live with suboptimal
decisions that they didn’t even make. Overall, I’d be hesitant to go against
the flow if you’re going to be in a company consulted by this guy. You’ll
probably be fired for bringing up anything counter to “the team”. Seen it
happen.

~~~
abyx
I’m sorry, but _wut_? I’m OP. I work with companies globally, first of all.

But Israeli culture, in high tech, is the exact opposite. Even in my military
service, I was arguing against a Lt. Colonel when I had 4 months of
experience. Chutzpah is what is driving half of the local startups: CEOs have
to convince their teams that regularly poke holes in their plans and ideas.
Not all companies are that way, but for years I’ve been hearing from people I
tend to assume too many people would speak up. First time I’m hearing I have a
bias towards the other side.

------
stennie
I agree with the general sentiment of taking ownership (especially if you are
self-aware enough to realise the coping pattern of deflection). The example of
a CEO not allowing something if you fail to make a well-articulated argument
is obvious, but the complement may not be: they can still decide against a
well-reasoned argument. The dynamics get much more complex when you have a
larger organisation where participants in a decision may have competing
incentives and goals.

I think the ownership action in extreme cases is best summarised by the
simulation in WarGames (1983): "A strange game. The only winning move is not
to play.". There is lots of interesting game theory (which is probably a
digression here), but the Prisoner's Dilemma is a fun starting point if anyone
is interested in an academic side trip:
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-
dilemma/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/).

~~~
Sebb767
> they can still decide against a well-reasoned argument.

Suer, but then you did what you could. I think the main point here is 'do your
best instead of giving up prematurely', not 'slam your head against the wall
until the wall gives in' ;)

> There is lots of interesting game theory (which is probably a digression
> here), but the Prisoner's Dilemma is a fun starting point if anyone is
> interested in an academic side trip:
> [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-
> dilemma/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/).

Game theory is highly interesting. There is also the book "Networks, Crowds
and Markets", which is free to read online [0] and well worth a read. I've
actually had an university course about it.

[0] [https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/networks-
book/netwo...](https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/networks-
book/networks-book.pdf)

------
aSplash0fDerp
"Its not a team, if its working with hot magma"...

When everyone is experienced/educated/elevated past that point (crescendo
cooling), you have a solid team and/or company (four-leaf unicorn rare).

I immediately thought of "Hail Mary" strategies when reading the article,
which keeps the talent/veterns safe and highlights a possible "why" its only
an organizational chart arrangement and not a team environment.

If its an org chart arrangement, its definitely not you (but as other comments
suggest, you still have to perform/produce/thrive regardless of disfunctions
or detached from RL management shuffles)...

------
hinkley
> Why would the CEO allow something if you failed to make an articulated
> argument?

"If I just said the right thing." is an illusion of control trap, which
eventually leads to you blaming yourself for other people's actions, which is
far more unhealthy than the deflection the author is calling out.

I lost count of how many times a particular boss tried to tell me "you can't
fix stupid". He was the first person to leave the team, and he actually moved
across the country (which I have trouble interpreting as anything other than a
Grand Gesture. Fuck this, I'm outta here.)

------
talentedcoin
This sounds good on paper but ... if your team asks you to e.g. prove P=NP,
“taking ownership” of that is just going to be stressful and unsatisfying. Is
that deflecting?

~~~
RangerScience
"Reality is that which, when you ignore it, fails to go away."

fF you truly believe you can do anything (1), when you come across something
you don't manage to do, now you know it's not your disbelief in yourself
that's making it not possible.

(1) If you think you can fly, start from the ground.

Ofc you're correct about the failure mode for this - the attempt, and
subsequent failure, are stressful and the like. Whatcha need is a different
system with a different failure mode, such that the two failure modes don't
"line up". Then you can use one to check the other.

------
IAmNotAFix
Very true. I would add that if you believe it's your team then your team is
probably talking about leadership with variations of the few lines at the top
of the article.

------
tgtweak
Particularly if you do your own devops.

~~~
debacle
Ironic, that.

------
mrkeen
Which one on the team is You though? It cannot be 'not the other guy' forall
guy.

