A Technology Architect’s Guide to Humans Part Three: Difficult Meetings Will Come to an End, Respect Will Last Much Longer
Humans have a strange attitude to meetings. They claim to hate them, but spend a lot of time attending them.
Meetings are strange too. They are supposed to be tools for effective decision making. But, because they are made up of humans, they are also full of feelings: fear, doubt, pride, hostility, defensiveness and the rest.
At their best, great meetings can draw out these feelings, precipitate productive conflict (conflict is not always bad) and use them to help make good decisions. However, great meetings like that depend on a lot of conscious teamwork, some external coaching, and a team which is highly mature and comfortable with itself. Most teams and most meetings are not like that. As a result, they often attempt to take decisions in an environment which is not calibrated for good decision making.
Technology architects often find themselves in meetings, usually in the role of an expert who needs to help the meeting come to a decision. They may also find that they are the most technical person in the room, as well as the person with the strongest architectural mindset (translation: person who thinks most clearly).
They will also often find that they have to deliver news which the rest of the meeting does not want to hear. The tool that everybody loves is not ready to use. We already have six solutions which do the job of the technology which the programme sponsor wants to buy. The API design was flawed from the outset.
If they have diligently practiced the skills of Zang Jing Ge (technical excellence; communication mastery; and leadership power), then they may already have led the other members of the meeting to understand the situation, and to be ready to accept and respond to the bad news.
But we all know that, however good we are, this will not always be the case. We will always find ourselves in meetings where people do not want to accept our recommendations, and wish that we would either keep quiet, fall in line with the rest of the meeting, or change our position.
What do we do in such situations?
I think that we all know what we should do. We should tell the truth, firmly and clearly. We should be assertive and persuasive. We should be capable of being swayed by rational argument, by new insights and new facts, but we should not be swayed by intimidation or mere peer pressure.
But we are humans too. We are susceptible to blame and praise. We worry about what people think about us. We want them to like us. Is it so bad if we compromise our position for the sake of team unity?
Sometimes such compromise is fine. Sometimes we disagree as a team, but commit to a single outcome as a team. But sometimes such compromise is not fine. Sometimes we are not doing it because we have reached a position we can agree with: we are doing it for a quiet life.
I have good news and bad news for those times when you find yourself in this situation.
The bad news is that it is part of our job to tell the truth, even when it is uncomfortable and difficult. It is our job to persist in the face of human pressures, even when our own human nature is telling us to give in. We did not get to be architects by winning a popularity contest.
The good news is that meetings only last as long as they last. A good deal of the pressure you feel will alleviate when the meeting ends. It may be difficult while it lasts, but we’ve all been in awkward social situations, and bad meetings are often just that - awkward social situations.
The better news is that, if you stay firm, you will win something better than immediate praise at the end of the meeting, or a pat on the back for caving in. You will, over time, win respect, both from your colleagues and from yourself. You will get more confident, and you will be more comfortable with being uncomfortable. You will also avoid that long lived regret that goes with knowing that you were part of a bad decision, that you could have been firmer, and that you now have to live with the consequences.
Humans choose to put themselves in situations where they have to make decisions and cope with feelings at the same time. Technology architects are human too, are subject to the same feelings, and can find it difficult to speak up and stick to the course of action demanded by their professional expertise. But they can help themselves by focusing on the respect they can win by staying true to the truth: respect feels good too, and it lasts longer than ephemeral praise.
(This is the third of an occasional series of lessons learnt about how technology architects can deal with their fellow humans. Part one is here and part two is here.)
Informatica - GSI Partners
5 年I frequently think to myself that whilst we may be all be out of any given meeting room in 30/60 minutes time, the consequences of a poor (but avoidable) decision will live with us all far far longer & soak-up precious resources to then fix.? Thanks for the reminder.
Associate Architect at HSBC Global Banking and Markets
5 年Some very good points and advice David Knott. There are many variables that influence the "debates" that you refer to that occur in (and out of) meetings, most subject matter experts have an ego (of varying sizes) when it comes to their chosen subject. I see part of my role is to get the best from these experts which sometimes means forming a relationship as is necessary so those involved feel comfortable putting the ego (and associated strong opinions) to one side so open discussion can take place to help work towards the best solution. I do not want to own a solution but I do want everyone involved to understand and be convinced it is the right solution, when all things are considered (which may not have been considered before). When sitting in a meeting where a decision is required part of the role of an architect is to understand the participants, their "mood", knowledge, passion, objectivism etc.. , so when facts are needed they are provided in such a way that it's not simply fanning flames but as you say - providing pure facts for consideration.
Chief Architect. Technology. BFSI.
5 年I’ve always said and continue to say that an Architect has the pressure (it is a good thing) of being the person with all the answers in any meeting. It is a fancy and much sought after title in an organisation but carries with it accountabilities, behaviour and deliverables (all aspects of zang jing ge) that one cannot ignore or run away from. Your note echoes it very well. Good one David.
A very thoughtful piece. When I feel that I *need* to disagree or speak out it can be overwhelming and in my youth it would often ill advisedly fly straight out. Nowadays I try to put an outbox delay on with a mental version of Clippy saying "looks like you're about to have an opinion" and I try to figure out if it's my emotional investment in something (ego), a neutral opinion (and thus just filler) or something more evidence based and thus likely to add value, even if it might be poorly welcomed. The great Chilean film maker and poet Alejandro Jodorowsky advises: never give an opinion without qualifying it as an opinion and never give a fact without qualifying it with "to the best of my knowledge". Still, even after all that, I end up being humbled when I realise I should have kept my fool mouth shut... Learning to admit my own mistakes was even more liberating still. It's hard to argue with somebody when they qualify facts, point out opinions, consider their position and then admit when they're incorrect or have derailed the meeting with their unnecessary input.
Director, Emerging Technology, Innovation & Ventures
5 年Great article, David