Mike asks:
...I imagine that there isn’t much of a hierarchy [at 37signals]. But in situations where you arrive at an stalemate, and a decision needs to be made, who makes the call? I am referring more to design decisions rather than business decisions.
We’re rarely find ourselves in a design decision stalemate. A stalemate means someone has to ask permission to do something and the other party says no. A battle ensues with neither side backing down.
Getting real breaks stalemates
We don’t get into those battles. If someone feels like a change should be made they usually either just 1. make it, or 2. mock it up to show it off before making it. Once it’s real we can all make a more informed decision about it. At this point a stalemate is the least common outcome. Stalemates are often the byproduct of abstraction or illusions of misunderstanding. Getting real breaks stalemates before they even happen.
Diffuse through responsibility
However, when we do run into two strong opposing viewpoints on a particular design decision, we usually diffuse the tension by making the person championing the progressive idea responsible for any issues related to their decision.
For example, if Ryan wants it this way, and I want it that way, I might acquiesce say “Ok let’s go with your solution, but you’re responsible for any support emails, confusion, or questions that are directly related to your implementation.” Ryan can accept that responsibility and move forward, or he may say “It’s not worth it right now, let’s just go with your solution.” Or maybe we’ll both agree to not do anything right now. That’s a reasonable decision too.
Decisions are temporary
Since we believe decisions are temporary, we’re open to revisiting, repairing, or replacing a decision if it doesn’t pan out. No one at 37signals is personally invested in a bad decision. If it’s bad, we know it’s bad and we do what we can to make it better. Instead of throwing good money after bad, we get rid of the rot and try something else. You can usually tell pretty quickly if something isn’t going to work out. We don’t pretend we can get it right all the time.
So if you hit an impasse, ask one party to step up and take ownership of the implementation, support, and customer feedback loop. They may feel it’s worth it and move forward. Or they may have second thoughts. Either way, it’s a great way to move past a stalemate if that’s where you find yourselves.
Keep the questions coming
Got a question for us? Please send it along to svn [at] 37signals dot com and use the subject “Ask 37signals”. Thanks again!
Kyle Maxwell
on 28 Nov 07You can also sum this up as saying “we act like mature adults and try to get along”. /thumbsup
Ryan
on 28 Nov 07Wait, what? If you hit an impasse you might “both agree to not do anything right now?” How is that NOT a stalemate, and more importantly, doesn’t it fly in the face of the article you linked about “temporary decisions,” in which you write, “Decisions are temporary so make the call and move on … This isn’t brain surgery, it’s a web app…”
The stalemate “breaking” strategies you describe sound kind of catty. “We can do it your way, sure, but I’m not going to help if it breaks or deal with customers.” Uh, what? I thought we were working for the same company?!?
That’s a total cop-out, passive aggressive, non-decision wimpy way to handle disagreements. Either hold your ground or move on and fully support all aspects of the project even those that, gasp, were not your decision and that you disagreed with. Trust that if the other person turns out the be wrong, he’ll be gracious enough to do the same.
Stand behind your products, stand behind your team. I don’t want to buy from a company where support becomes politicized (and then they have the audacity to brag about it to boot).
WmD
on 28 Nov 07I’m not sure if forcing the person to be responsible for support/etc would work for everyone. See, I’m lazy by default. And even if I think my way would decrease (or not impact) the additional work of support/etc, I wouldn’t take that deal.
If only to not be required to answer those emails.
Don’t get me wrong, I would handle the support on any decision I might have made wrong. But I don’t like being forced to.
Now that I think about it, I’m might be an asshole and require the inverse (i.e. the other stalemater to be responsible for the support of the unchanged item). That makes sense logically, but at that point, logic would have no part of my decision making process, and I’d only be doing it because I can.
This (along with my total incompetence) might be why I don’t work for 37 signals.
JF
on 28 Nov 07Ryan: Choosing not to do anything is a perfectly good decision, as long as its a decision. Treading water and “holding your ground” for days until there’s a “winner” is not our idea of time or energy well spent. We’d rather just agree to not do anything right now and move on to other things. We’ll come back to this if it even matters anyway at a later date.
Ben Strackany
on 28 Nov 07With the “Diffuse Through Reponsibility” option, what if Ryan responded with “No, let’s do your idea, and any issues are your fault and responsibility?”
I guess I’m a bit concerned that the DTR technique can lead to blame games, failed ideas (because the person doesn’t have the team’s support), and dumping problems on someone’s head instead of the team coming together to resolve issues jointly.
You don’t want to start a culture where people are afraid to come up with new ideas because no one will support them if there are issues. How about instead (if necessary) require the idea’s champion to take the lead on things—but don’t send him/her out on a limb (“You’re on your own, sucker!”).
Hmm I realize I just said the same thing as Ryan (the commenter).
Ben Strackany
on 28 Nov 07And granted, I know we’re reading these ideas in a vaccuum, so I’m assuming that overall your culture is very team-focused & that people know they won’t normally be abandoned. Perhaps the DTR technique’s risks are minimized in a close-knit supportive environment where there’s already a strong team aspect.
You could also settle stalemates through a Wii tennis match.
JF
on 28 Nov 07With the “Diffuse Through Reponsibility” option, what if Ryan responded with “No, let’s do your idea, and any issues are your fault and responsibility?”‘
If I wanted to take that on I’d say “Sounds good to me.” Of course I’d be thinking that my idea was a good one so there would be little to no support burden.
The point of taking responsibility for the results of your actions is to make you reconsider your solution. If you think it’s still solid then you wouldn’t be worried about shouldering the support burden since you wouldn’t expect there to be one.
And granted, I know we’re reading these ideas in a vaccuum, so I’m assuming that overall your culture is very team-focused & that people know they won’t normally be abandoned.
No one is being abandoned in any of this. Making someone responsible for something isn’t stranding them alone with their decision. It’s making someone responsible and accountable. They’re in charge. They can ask for help if they need it or change their mind if they want to. This isn’t about “GOTCHYA!”
Erik
on 28 Nov 07Good post. At my workplace it is sometimes hard to defuse tension, and we sometimes find ourselves in the throes of a stalemate, mainly because we don’t all feel we can make decisions for ourselves.
Roger Wilco
on 28 Nov 07I think what the entire article is trying to say is, “Jason makes the call. But he’s nice and thoughtful about it.”
Personally, I think a good team is priceless but every good team needs a captain.
Cory R. King
on 28 Nov 07Not all decisions are easy to back out of though.
You botch a database schema change and often it is virtually impossible to back out of. For example, the simplest thing to do might seem “one database per application”, after all it makes the schema more simple. Beware of that false simplicity because once “joeblow” signs up for both applications, you can never merge them back together again. Easy to get into, hard to get out.
You let your userbase create 75×75 pixel avatars like I did. Easy decision, after all it is only like a line of code, right? Easy to back out of right? A year later and I wanted less cluttered look so I resized them to 50px^2, and trust me, I pissed off everybody on my website. Turns out they loved 75px and I’ll be stuck with that design mistake for a good long while more. Easy to get into, hard to get out.
So, beware of thinking you can easily back out of seemingly small changes just because they are easy to get into. It could cost you big time in the future.
Poul Krogh
on 28 Nov 07In the issue at hand it is also important not to play “the blame game”. If a decision have been made and it pans out to be wrong for one or the other reason, it seems to me that 37signals do the right thing and fix it, and waste less time on the blaming part (sure there would be some “told you so’s”, but that is OK in a friendly environment). Usually you wouldnt have 2 strongly opposing and the rest of the guys indifferent. People usually lean towards one of the ideas and if you are the minority, you should examine if your objection is based on a strategy concern (Cory’s 75×75 vs 50×50) or just a personal bias (dont like green headline). If its a strategy concern you should debate it until your worries are eased or the majority is won over. Personal biases are easier to let go.
Mikhail
on 28 Nov 07Any advice on situations when it’s difficult, or at all impossible, to estimate the outcome of a decision? It may still be necessary to make one, and it may still greatly affect the overall results (e.g. sales), but due to other factors it may still be hard to understand whether the decision was right or not.
Jim
on 28 Nov 07Jason, stopping being all fire all the time. I think you need a hug.
Erik
on 28 Nov 07This is all a lie. Haven’t you guys seen the video from their office floating around on youtube? What do they really do? Arm wrestle.
Preston
on 28 Nov 07I smell a tinge of BS here too =)
Perhaps the environment described in the post is so rare that it’s hard to believe it exists in the wild.
Almost always, especially with design, there seems to be a ‘benevolent dictator’ pulling strings when it comes to pretty to moderately important decisions. Minor implementation details can usually be left for underlings to figure out.
Scott
on 28 Nov 07“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” – James Madison.
This advice sounds great in the heavenly utopia where team members like and respect each other. In non 37Signals environments, where blamestorming is common and and people have fiefdoms to defend and resources to hoard, “owning” the decision is not as clear-cut as “I’ll take on the fallout if it turns out to be the wrong decision.” Options? Work for 37S, start your own shop, or suck it up and pray for a better tomorrow.
JF
on 28 Nov 07Perhaps the environment described in the post is so rare that it’s hard to believe it exists in the wild.
Perhaps, but it’s found here at 37signals.
It’s unfortunate it’s so rare elsewhere in the wild. I suspect that will change over time as companies begin to realize that giving people the power to make their own decisions is a good thing.
We’re talking about adults here, not children. It’s a shame many companies consider their employees incapable of making good decisions without the parent (read: manager, CEx) giving them permission. When you treat people like children, you get children’s work.
At 37signals a stern “no, we’re doing it this way because I said so” command is maybe uttered a couple times a year. For the other thousand decisions we make it’s up to the people working on the projects to decide what’s best for the products. That involves persuasion, trading concessions, and accepting or laying responsibility.
If something doesn’t work the way we thought it would we change it. No big deal. We’d rather see it play out than shut it down before it had a chance to breathe. Not in every single case, of course, but almost all.
Don Schenck
on 28 Nov 07My question is: WHY, oh WHY on Earth would someone work at a place where this type of attitude DID NOT prevail?
For God’s sake people … life’s too short to work with people you don’t like, can’t work with, etc etc.
Put the Ego down and slowly back away …
jen_chan, writer MemberSpeed.com
on 30 Nov 07Who says that a stalemate has to end with a loser and a winner? I really like the part where you stressed the fact that decisions are temporary. There are a lot of melodramatic people in this world and many more who unconsciously act like it. It’s not the end of the world. Decisions only help you focus on one direction. If that path turns out to be awry, you do have the freedom to make a decision that will help solve the problem.
This discussion is closed.