👻 How We Critique

If we want to get anything worth done, chances are the problem space is complex and we will work in teams. We come together and rely on each other’s ideas, make novel connections about things shared in a team setting.

In great teams when people are sharing ideas, the goal is to collectively iterate on different aspects of these ideas, which means weighing pros and cons of each proposal and adding small increments of change and evaluate again until you have a solution which suits your need.

Conflicts can occur when you have complicated problems to solve and you have difference in values, personalities, opinions, world view or it can be due to your own desires, stupidity or malevolence (yes we are humans).

How to Critique

Oftentimes teammates need to critique the ideas proposed by others in order to find a solution (to get to a better version), this can give rise to conflict. So what can we do about it.

Rules of Engagement

We need to understand the following things in order to ensure productive conflicts

Mutual Respect

If a person is giving critique about anything, they should only be able to do so if

They respects the person and in his mind i.e other party has established credibility.
They understand there is a chance he can be wrong in pretty significant way and need the other person’s point of view to update his own understanding.

In a discussion both or at least one of the above statements need to be true in order for person to even start a critique.

Long term Partnership

If we are working within a team for a long time they are essentially your partners, when arguing about anything you should keep in mind you are not trying to win an argument, that means if you win, the other is defeated. Do you really want a defeated partner around over the period of next months or years?

Mental Framing

Framing is really important, 2-3 iterations down the line you will find that dynamics are A vs B, when it should be A and B collaborating to solve X. We need to make a conscious effort to have the mental frame and language centered around collaboration.

Furthermore in order to have a productive and critical discourse I think Rapoport’s rule helps

Rapoport’s Rules, named after game theorist Anatol Rapoport, are a set of rules intended to encourage productive, critical discourse.

How to compose a successful critical commentary:

You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”

You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

You should mention anything you have learned from your target.

Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Anatomy of Critique

We should reset and redefine the problem

You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind.

Whenever we are collaborating we need to make sure the problem is clearly defined and well understood. Mostly its a balancing act of finding solutions which satisfies multiple constraints and optimizing multiple variables to different degrees.

Whenever you find that discussion is going in a direction; where we are are not true to our core objective and optimizing either completely wrong variables or with different weights; we need to hit the reset button, clarify, and then start again.

Not the best choice vs Fundamental Flaw Feedback

Every complex thing you will be collaborating on will involve a set of tradeoffs. It is almost certain that with the choices being made some will appeal to some people but not to others. We don’t want the process to halt unless everyone participating agrees with the best option available.

The worst thing you can say, if there is already a solution on the table.

I think if we do it this way …. blah bleh blew

First of all you are changing the subject. Second you are not providing any context for the change.

Not the best choice: I don’t think solution A is the best choice because of XYZ but is still acceptable. I have a better solution then you can … blah bleh blew

Fundamental Flaw: I believe there is a fundamental flaw XYZ in the currently proposed solution at this point its time to reset or you can propose your own solution.

Not all feedback is created equal

My milkshake is better than yours

Many times in your career you will feel like you are proposing minor adjustments but your advice is not being taken seriously while the other changes have been incorporated readily, especially those of senior members or stakeholder.

This occurs because they are basing their decisions on hidden knowledge which usually includes better knowledge about customers, better understanding of risk, budget, resource availability or strength, and weaknesses of a team.

If you want to get better, inquire more about their thought process and this hidden knowledge so you can incorporate that thought process in future suggestions.

On Compromises

There are 2 sets of compromises first one is where you have to compromise on a given set of tradeoffs between different variables, with any complex problem this is the norm and somewhat essential.

However, there is another sense of “compromise” which involves compromising between people, not engineering principles. For example, a minority of a group might object to a particular proposal, and even after discussion still think the proposal is deeply problematic, but decide that they don’t have the energy to argue against it and say, “Forget it, do what you want”. That surely can be called a compromise[] but really all that they’ve done is capitulated.

Keeping Lizard Brain In Check

Thousands of years of evolution developed our intuition, a type of reflex thinking designed to improve our survival. It also baked cognitive biases into us. We respond to conflicts based on our perception of the situation not necessarily to an objective review of facts.

In my experience no one is making a conscious effort to be difficult. Usually it’s a mix of different things inside and outside the workplace affecting the emotional state of the person. When someone is angry, sad, or fearful, they tend to not make rational decisions. Instead they stall, attack, and avoid.

What compounds this is a rather strange sense of delusion that none of this exists. Because our sense of self is restricted to our subjective reality, we get so wrapped up in our own world (and being right), that we assume these biases only apply to others.