But, more seriously, how do you handle objections? Are you just apeing the Apache “+1” stuff like everyone does, or do you also implement the “0” and “-1 must have clear objection” parts, too?
Usually, you at least reveal the votes only after everyone has cast his vote to minimize bias effects.
I am sure, 37s will say none of their employees will ever be reluctant to be the only one who goes against the grain and spoil the consensus. Well, maybe they are the one exception.
SH
on 24 Mar 10
It’s tongue-in-cheek, guys. Chillax!
JD
on 24 Mar 10
The question was “How many 1’s does it take to make 13?”
Kevin
on 24 Mar 10
Lame… consensus building or fake leadership.
Brian
on 24 Mar 10
The question was: “What’s the international dialing code for the US?”
+1 for the +1 reference. Limit the amount of “what ifs” by just giving an up/down vote on the issue. This isn’t an inherent way of determining how or what action to take. Way to foster a simplified way of decisions making.
The original description with this post (and in the RSS feed) said this:
“Decision making, 37signals style. If your company can’t make decisions this easily, here’s a shameless plug for REWORK.”
...which sounds a bit more provocative and may explain the comments.
Jeremiah
on 25 Mar 10
I was impressed by Matt’s post earlier. This post seems the opposite. What am I missing?
From the limited amount of information we have, looks like a classical case of groupthink (Which isn’t good, btw). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
Yep
on 24 Mar 10Decisions lacking of any dissent typically are done easily.
Gary
on 24 Mar 10If everyone agrees with a decision it’s probably not the type of question you should ask in the first place. Wastes time for nothing.
Lee
on 24 Mar 10So you only hire people who totally agree with you?
Josh
on 24 Mar 10Was this a “who wants to get lunch?” survey?
jsled
on 24 Mar 10+1 to other commenters. ;)
But, more seriously, how do you handle objections? Are you just apeing the Apache “+1” stuff like everyone does, or do you also implement the “0” and “-1 must have clear objection” parts, too?
David Norton
on 24 Mar 10http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2222-people-who-agree-with-you-should-drive-you-nuts
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. Love the blog. :-)
Martin
on 24 Mar 10Usually, you at least reveal the votes only after everyone has cast his vote to minimize bias effects.
I am sure, 37s will say none of their employees will ever be reluctant to be the only one who goes against the grain and spoil the consensus. Well, maybe they are the one exception.
SH
on 24 Mar 10It’s tongue-in-cheek, guys. Chillax!
JD
on 24 Mar 10The question was “How many 1’s does it take to make 13?”
Kevin
on 24 Mar 10Lame… consensus building or fake leadership.
Brian
on 24 Mar 10The question was: “What’s the international dialing code for the US?”
Jon Smock
on 24 Mar 10Well, I thought it was funny.
Michael Moncur
on 24 Mar 10“If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking.”
-- Lyndon B. JohnsonJohn
on 24 Mar 10I find the other comments interesting given the lack of information in the blog post.
How the commenter reads between the lines is actually quite a good indication of their perception of 37signals as a company!
Ted
on 24 Mar 10Maybe this is a good tease for how you make decisions if someone doesn’t concur?
Lots of companies/groups/teams rely on consensus and voting. It’s how disagreements are resolved where it gets interesting.
What do you guys do when there’s a -100 among the mix?
Lysander Spooner
on 24 Mar 10You guys aren’t following your own principle of simplicity!
Why the number? All you need is + or -
The Real Josh
on 25 Mar 10+1 for the +1 reference. Limit the amount of “what ifs” by just giving an up/down vote on the issue. This isn’t an inherent way of determining how or what action to take. Way to foster a simplified way of decisions making.
Michael Moncur
on 25 Mar 10John:
The original description with this post (and in the RSS feed) said this:
“Decision making, 37signals style. If your company can’t make decisions this easily, here’s a shameless plug for REWORK.”
...which sounds a bit more provocative and may explain the comments.
Jeremiah
on 25 Mar 10I was impressed by Matt’s post earlier. This post seems the opposite. What am I missing?
From the limited amount of information we have, looks like a classical case of groupthink (Which isn’t good, btw). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
Anonymous Coward
on 25 Mar 10@Jeremiah, a sense of humor.
Adam
on 25 Mar 10+1 for Josh’s comment re lunch
This discussion is closed.