undefined | Better HN

0 pointswhateveracct5y ago0 comments

haha i have worked at amazon, where disagree and commit is one of their laminated leadership principles

except it isn't

the principle is "have backbone; disagree and commit"

there's checks and balances in the principle's words themself. every leader i've had who has "disagree and commit" as their guiding light has just been an autocrat. they never mention on the "have backbone" part.

i had a VPE from BigCos come into a LittleBigCo. he was all about "disagree and commit"

really, he had a nose for dissent. he went around managers who disagreed with him to corral their engineers to his side. he put near-founding engineers on bad projects to force them out.

i tried to have backbone with this guy once. i thought one of his tech decisions was bad (and in reality it was politically motivated to force people out.) i wasn't rude or anything. he had a 1-on-1 call with me, and acted like i was being irrational. i stood my ground and made fact-based arguments. he was losing the 1-on-1 debate, so how did he close it?

"look whateveracct..i just have this crystal ball in my stomach, and it's usually right"

disagree and commit? more like stfu i'm the boss

0 comments

gkop5y ago

I was just looking at Amazon’s principles this week, and found the on-its-face ridiculous “Are Right, A Lot”, which more or less directly invites the behavior you describe,

xyzelement5y ago

In my understanding - "are right a lot" is a retrospective thing - it's asking whether the leader's past instincts and decisions had lead to good things. It's not measuring how many meetings you walk out of having gotten your way.

For example, if a leader had an idea X,and Bob talked him into idea Y which worked out, then the leader was still 'right' because listening to Bob was the right thing.

bluesnowmonkey5y ago

> i thought one of his tech decisions was bad (and in reality it was politically motivated to force people out.)

Let’s say you were right: It was a bad technical decision and it was politically motivated. What outcome can you expect from arguing with him on technical grounds? He knows what you’re saying is right, but he already knew that before making the decision. What you need to do is convince him not to act in bad faith. Try to figure out how to do that, and acknowledge if it’s not feasible.

Not to call you out in particular, but I see this as a common mistake by people arriving in a big company. Things are not as you wish, everything is too complicated, motivations are subtle and usually hidden. The trick is to get past frustration that reality does not match your mental model. (People aren’t being honest! How can I even work with people who don’t tell the truth!?) Abandon your mental model, acknowledge reality for what it is, choose goals that are achievable, choose actions that make progress toward your goals.

whateveracctOP5y ago

this guy was VPE - there was no way to sway his autocratic decisions.

i knew he was arguing in bad faith. there was no way to win politically - he was making the decision to shape the company in his own image. so the best i could do was visibly disagree, document his various bad actor behaviors, and share my understanding with other engineers who didn't feel comfortable speaking up.

i just thought the guy was a dick so i felt like stirring the pot a bit. myself and plenty of other respected engineers left one-by-one (he didn't even announce i resigned. people were surprised. he was trying to save some face i think.)

the VPE left shortly after. people blamed the engineering turnover on him haha.

overall i feel pretty good about my short tenure there. i negotiated a nice salary bump when i joined and use it to anchor my new BigCo salary.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse