DEV Community

Discussion on: Architecture decisions: the belligerent contrarian and the rule of three

Collapse
 
qm3ster profile image
Mihail Malo • Edited

The problem is, even if you do say you were playing devil's advocate afterwards, people will send you this:
I was only pretending censored

In the general case, how to not let the team devolve into hatred and violence when such deception takes place, even if only in the short term?

Collapse
 
danlebrero profile image
Dan Lebrero

My only advice, which I understand is not generally applicable, is to do it only if

you have to be comfortable with your status within the company and the people in the meeting

You also have to go prepared, so you have arguments for the pros and cons of each of the options.

In the case that you get to play the contrarian, it is "you" vs "the rest", so as long as you don't take it personally, the rest of the team will not exercise in any violence against you :P.

And I am talking about technical decisions, not political decisions (inside the company). Political decisions are a different beast.

Technical decisions are not about "me" winning. It is about making an informed and rational decision. You have to be open to being wrong.

Note that a rational decision must take into account the irrational human nature, so sometimes you have to be open for the team to be wrong, as the team owning a not-so-great decision can actually be better than a team being forced into the best-in-class option.