> "You know how you wanted to pivot to that new JS Framework? You got the green light. Let's get started ASAP, ok?"
It sounds like the PM also wanted to pivot.
But someone between you and the VP on the org chart didn't.
Were they bitter about the situation where it seemed like you went over their head? Were there repercussions from that?
I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but you make it sound like the decision was unambiguous - you are being forced to use some tech that's slowing you down, and you know of a way to speed things up. Why did that need a VP to be approved?
I'm not bringing this up to blame you - but I also want to make sure anyone reading this doesn't feel like their only action in a situation like this is to wait for a VP to come in, hear all their complaints, and magically solve their problems. In another situation, your exact actions would have led to no change, and a ruined relationship with a manager who would have vindictively punished you by going outside the reporting chain.
"In the Abilene paradox, a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of many or all of the individuals in the group. It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's and, therefore, does not raise objections, or even states support for an outcome they do not want. A common phrase relating to the Abilene paradox is a desire to not "rock the boat". "
I ran a meeting once where a significant consensus decision was made after lengthy discussion of several alternatives.
The result surprised and disappointed me, so I checked with everyone individually later, away from the meeting, to find nobody in the group wanted the option they voted for, they just voted for what they thought everyone else wanted. Which turned out to be wrong. It wasn't even a compromise, it was just incorrect belief from misinterpreting everyone else's sentiment.
The least popular option prevailed, with unanimous consensus, and nobody knew it was unpopular until I checked after.
>> It sounds like the PM also wanted to pivot. But someone between you and the VP on the org chart didn't.
Most of the department was still on Waterfall, we were doing Agile. They mandated we use their old tech stack since we opted for Agile instead of their standard Waterfall project management. This was communicated as a compromise, not knowing how old the tech stack was.
There was a lot of back and forth and the PM showed incredibly courage to stand up to the department heads. Using the old tech stack was a compromise, but in the end, started slowing the project down. Once I was able to explain in more layman terms how it was affecting the project, the people with more say allowed us to pivot.
There was minimal backlash, once we pivoted. I made sure we started hitting goals and gaining traction quickly to offset any arguments they were going to make. I knew we'd be under a microscope, so I put in the extra work to make sure we were covered.
It sounds like the PM also wanted to pivot. But someone between you and the VP on the org chart didn't.
Were they bitter about the situation where it seemed like you went over their head? Were there repercussions from that?
I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but you make it sound like the decision was unambiguous - you are being forced to use some tech that's slowing you down, and you know of a way to speed things up. Why did that need a VP to be approved?
I'm not bringing this up to blame you - but I also want to make sure anyone reading this doesn't feel like their only action in a situation like this is to wait for a VP to come in, hear all their complaints, and magically solve their problems. In another situation, your exact actions would have led to no change, and a ruined relationship with a manager who would have vindictively punished you by going outside the reporting chain.