You're facing resistance from a senior developer on your code changes. How will you navigate this challenge?

I find it helpful to first seek to understand their perspective fully. I would request a one-on-one meeting to discuss their concerns in detail, ensuring that I listen actively and empathise with their viewpoint. By understanding their reservations, I can better address these concerns, either by adjusting my code changes or by providing a more robust justification for why these changes are beneficial, supported by data or industry best practices.

I would arrange a meeting to discuss their concerns, and listen carefully to understand their objections and the reasoning behind them.

It depends on what they push back on. Is there an issue with the design of the solution overall? Normally this should have been discussed in refinement meetings, so there is no surprise when the code changes are actually implemented. If they didn't raise a concern back then, I consider the solution as accepted and will raise a point of re-designing the solution before proceeding any forward. Then we will go on with the redesign, refinement and estimation in the next sprint. Do they have a problem with parts of the code changes? Then they should argument these very well (i.e. it impacts performance, the code is not clean, not tested enough). These will be processed as part of PR feedback.

It's always good to talk. Think collaboration not conflict. Try to understand the other persons perspective. Stick to facts, avoid getting personal. Look at the design and acceptance criteria. Ideally designs are approved before developing the solution. Consider best practice and any agree coding standards defined for the project. Are we looking at 2 ways to achieve the same outcome? Or is there perhaps a point to the objection raised. On most projects there is usually a point of escalation if you reach an impasse. Keep in mind that technical excellence is not the only consideration. If the acceptance criteria are met, what is the impact of expending further effort on task? Has the budget for the task been used?

Always start with the WHY. Listen to the arguments of the person. By doing that you always learn something new. There is a reason, why he holds this oppinion, and know, that they also want to benefit the company. The hardest part here is, not to try to turn him around. Listen patiently, and make followup questions until you fully understand his conserns. #success21 #leadership

I would clearly and logically explain the reasoning behind the code changes, including the benefits and improvements they bring. I will use data, benchmarks, or examples to support my arguments.

After gathering the concerns of the whole team(!), it is your task to sum it up, and categorize the arguments. Foster good and objective discussions now with the whole team. Remember that controversies always generate creative and somethimes disruptive ideas, if the discussions are respectful and objective. #success21 #leadership

Once I have a clear understanding of their concerns, I would articulate the benefits of the proposed changes. This would include explaining how the changes align with the project’s goals, improve the codebase, enhance performance, or address specific technical debt. The key here is to communicate the value in a way that resonates with the senior developer’s priorities.

I would be very flexible to find a middle ground. Incorporate their feedbacks where possible, and propose alternative solutions that address both their concerns and our objectives.

If the concerns raised are valid, I would be open to seeking a compromise. This might involve adjusting the implementation, breaking down the changes into smaller, less intrusive updates, or proposing a phased approach. The goal is to find common ground that maintains the integrity of both the code and the working relationship.

If necessary, involve more relevant members such as a team lead or project manager, to mediate the discussion. This can provide additional perspectives and help reach a consensus.

Now, this is an important step: After having heared all the participants, the arguments, projected results, chances and risks, it is your part as the leader of this subject to make a decission! A company is not a democracy! The leader of the project - after having heard all the participants, having fully understood the subject, and has given all his people the time and listened to them very carefully - has to make the decission, now! #success21 #leadership

If the discussion reaches an impasse, I would consider involving other team members or stakeholders, such as the Product Owner or other senior developers, to gain additional perspectives. A broader discussion can often lead to a consensus or reveal alternative solutions that neither of us had considered.

Let the people know, that the decission is made. And everyone has to drive the solution as decided. That also includes those, who did not agree. That is the point where great and respectful teams brightly shine! And let them know, that from now on only 2 events can revert the dicission: 1. fundamental framework conditions have changed (customer left, disruptive alternative appeared, product suddenly not needed anymore, ...) 2. the implementation takes far too long. This is a clear sign, that something was a fundamentally misjudged. Only in these 2 cases, a reevaluation starts. In all the other cases, you follow the plan! #success21 #leadership

If a compromise is reached, I would refactor the code gracefully, ensuring that any agreed-upon modifications are implemented without compromising the overall design and functionality. It's important to maintain high standards of code quality, even when making concessions.