Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I really like "disagree and commit" but I'm worried how well it would work in most corporations. I think it requires incredible alignment amongst the decision makers about the goals of the project - something that is in short supply.

I had a boss who thought he liked that idea but every meeting turned into an extra fifteen minutes of him badgering me for agreeing to disagree with plans that often blew up later. Sitting through the what went wrong meetings was an exercise in patience that I often lost.

I have no doubt at all that he would label me as a toxic employee, and was not surprised at all to be in the first round of layoffs (worked out for me, I got 27 paychecks that year and a three week vacation), but most of that would be him projecting his issues onto me.

He wanted to be a good manager but was so emotionally challenged by estimates not actually being blood oaths that it twisted every planning meeting into something ugly.

It sounds like he realizes that too, with his comments towards the end of the letter:

"Fourth, recognize true misalignment issues early and escalate them immediately. Sometimes teams have different objectives and fundamentally different views. They are not aligned. No amount of discussion, no number of meetings will resolve that deep misalignment. Without escalation, the default dispute resolution mechanism for this scenario is exhaustion. Whoever has more stamina carries the decision."

We put a strong foundation of trust and knowing the other person has the best intentions. I don't think it would work without strong trust across the organization and especially up and down the chain.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact