TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Open Decision-Making (2014)

139 点作者 robfig将近 4 年前

14 条评论

bricemo将近 4 年前
Almost all of the hard decisions I’ve seen in my career stemmed from this one line that is glossed over: “when consensus doesn&#x27;t occur it&#x27;s because there isn&#x27;t a clear answer or because there is a conflict between groups. In these situations it&#x27;s up to management to make a decision so the organization can move forward.” This happens very often with design vs. product.<p>I was disappointed this wasn’t dug into deeper. All the examples given seem easy: picking a logo or hiring someone. But the harder ones are around things like “what is the overall direction for the company”, “who is our real customer”, “what is the main value prop of our product”, etc. In these discussions there can be die hard commitment on different sides from different departments. I don’t see a poll helping in this situation, and the author admits that too, which kind of makes the whole approach for simple decisions only.
评论 #27938483 未加载
评论 #27939819 未加载
评论 #27939290 未加载
matco11将近 4 年前
Lots of interesting pearls of wisdom. I really enjoyed reading this and found it useful.<p>Perhaps it’s me, but it almost feels like the author perceives that managing a company is the same as making a stack of decisions, and the piece covers well how the CEO relates to other employees in the decision-making process.<p>While making decisions is certainly an important part of what a CEO does, managing a company also involves managing how decision making happens within the organization: that often means helping decision making happen with less and less direct involvement of the CEO.<p>Indeed, as an organization grows, the number of decisions to be taken grows too, and so an important aspect of any framework for effective decision making involves managing people, and designing the organization, in such a way that decisions are moved away from the CEO.<p>In this sense, it would have been interesting to read more about when and how a CEO should let others take over the process for certain decisions, how a CEO should pick which decisions to be involved in and which should be delegated, or how a CEO should evaluate the performance of the organization’s decision making capabilities.
sideproject将近 4 年前
“Oh Concensus - The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus?&#x27;” - Margaret Thatcher
评论 #27939184 未加载
评论 #27938716 未加载
评论 #27943295 未加载
评论 #27939468 未加载
Iv将近 4 年前
When explained the way decisions are made in Japan, I encountered a notion that I wish was more considered: the idea that taking a decision is a separate process than applying the decision.<p>Since then, I have wondered why no companies tried to make the processes separate, like we do in democratic countries by separating legislative, judiciary and executive branches.
评论 #27938849 未加载
评论 #27938487 未加载
specialist将近 4 年前
This article completely jives with my own experiences using democracy in the workplace.<p>My misc Yes and:<p>I&#x27;ve always struggled to articulate my ideas, experiences. Workplace democracy is a hard sell. I&#x27;ve only successfully used it when I had full control, like a benevolent dictator. Supremely ironic.<p>Focus on good structures and processes and the outcomes will take care of themselves. h&#x2F;t Luke Hohmann and The Journey of the Software Professional.<p>Workplace democracy is about both empowerment and responsibility. I hired really good people. The answers we need are right here. The trick is creating the environment where the team can find and flesh out their answers. Together! Maybe this is called nurture.<p>My team members have always owned their processes and structures, and therefore they earned their outcomes. Using democracy instills emotional involvement and commitment.<p>My primary involvement was adjudicator, enforcer. If a team made a joint decision, I held them to it. No sniping, sabotage, withholding, backstabbing, and all those other icky personal political BS details. If someone wanted to, needed to, revise a team&#x27;s decision, then it was handled democratically. So be prepared to be the asshole.<p>Democracy feels slower, more painful. That&#x27;s only because the heartache is front loaded. It&#x27;s one of those &quot;go slower to move faster&quot; things. If you stick to the process, there&#x27;s much less rework, relitigation.<p>Trust is key. In that &quot;disagree and commit&quot; sort of way. In owning and learning from mistakes. In demonstrating that team decisions will not be capriciously or casually disregarded or overruled.<p>Like a magpie, I cobbled together goofy ideas from every where. Joint Application Development (JAD) for brainstorming, project planning. Approval voting for triage. Roman evaluation for hiring. Balance of powers between roles (Marketing, Engineering, QA) for governance. Streamlining from Goldratt&#x27;s theory of constraints. Etc, etc. Books like Innovation Games are good sources.<p>Democracy is hard. Requires commitment. It gets A LOT easier once the culture is established (eg storming, forming, norming, performing).<p>Major caveat: Once you experience democracy, a high trust environment, it kinda ruins you for the rest. It&#x27;s really, really hard to suspend disbelief.
devnonymous将近 4 年前
Interesting article. FWIW, although unrelated, this is by John Ousterhout, the author of &quot;A philosophy of software design&quot;<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hn.algolia.com&#x2F;?q=a+philosophy+of+software+design" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hn.algolia.com&#x2F;?q=a+philosophy+of+software+design</a>
growup12345将近 4 年前
In my experience, lack of consensus is always due to people who have strong opinions and potentially a lot of knowledge in a general area, however the specifics&#x2F;particulars of the problem are not known or understood by them, hence they are effectively “trying to solve the previous problem, not the current problem”. The metaphor often used is “they were fighting the old war” and I think that makes sense: people who get into high management positions think that they know everything, and they do, but about “old stuff”. New problems, or problems in a slightly different subarea come about and they are suddenly finding themselves unqualified, so they try to re-establish dominance through pulling rank.<p>Just my 2 cents
noduerme将近 4 年前
I&#x27;m not sure if it&#x27;s a stylistic choice or a badge of 90s hackerdom, but this and the next top HN personal blog post right now have no scaling or view metas and are impossible to read on a phone. I feel like open decision-making isn&#x27;t working well if it hasn&#x27;t reached a consensus yet about mobile readability. (I&#x27;m just being snarky because I&#x27;m in the middle of rewriting a ton of ancient mobile-unfriendly code, but, really I would polish up my presentation before I put something on HN).
评论 #27942455 未加载
评论 #27941393 未加载
评论 #27939268 未加载
评论 #27938511 未加载
asplake将近 4 年前
&gt; [Works best in environments with] general agreement on the organization&#x27;s overall goals, so that people can agree on how to choose among alternatives.<p>Something I would add to the process is an early exploration of the organisational outcomes relevant to the decision. Goals and measures of success first (hopefully including some leading measures), solutions last.<p>Sometimes those are enough - solutions can be left to those closest to the problem. Hence OKR, 4DX, Tight-Loose-Tight, etc
hdjjhhvvhga将近 4 年前
I read the article and while the approach seems reasonable, in real life it doesn&#x27;t always work.<p>My colleague tried a similar method recently and the result was a total disaster. In stage I, collecting the inputs, he gathered everybody&#x27;s opinions. In stage II, consensus, everybody was happy. Why? Because person A said we should do A, person B said, &quot;Fine, but we should also do B&quot;, person C said, &quot;that&#x27;s perfect, but we must also do C&quot;. The result was a huge monster that everybody thought was possible to realize, except person Z who was responsible for QA and knew very well it&#x27;s going to fail. Now, in phase III, obviously problems started to pile up. Person Z was overworked and in the end he left the company.<p>So, basically you need to be smart and know when it makes sense to use the methodology and when it makes no sense. As a rule of thumb, if you work with a small group of smart people who also have a rough idea of what others are doing, it&#x27;s worth taking the risk.
评论 #27941592 未加载
onethought将近 4 年前
Somehow this brought to mind the Netscape Lore of their CEO issuing the edict:<p>“If you see a snake, kill it. Don’t play with dead snakes. And everything looks like a snake at first.”<p>I think it was intended in a different context to decision making, perhaps more ideas in general. But it came to mind non-the-less.
dang将近 4 年前
A bit from 2016:<p><i>Open Decision-Making</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10828326" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10828326</a> - Jan 2016 (1 comment)
jgalt212将近 4 年前
I&#x27;m only here to say I&#x27;m digging the cgi-bin subdirectory whether or not the site is actually running CGI.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Common_Gateway_Interface" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Common_Gateway_Interface</a>
gkop将近 4 年前
Interesting subject, disappointing article. I wish the author would provide a bit of the historical context of their approach within the field of management science.