In a lot of discussion between co-founders or people working together on a project, you will find an irrational focus on things that really do not matter.
For example, you can see two people arguing if a button should be square or if it should be round. This argument is completely pointless. Just go in the direction of the person who feels more passionately about it. A project member who constantly feels overriden in terms of decision making will have a greater negative effect on the project than the decision if a button is square or round.
On points of contention, there are typically these type:
Things that actually make no difference, and its clear they make no difference
Things that may or may not make a difference — the effect is unknown
Things that will make a big difference, and at least one person is clear on this
Items in point 1 should be used for including peoples opinion and building the team. Everyone should be ready to compromise on those points, particular the people that have more experience
Items in point 2 should be A/B tested where possible, and where impossible, there should be serious analysis on the effects. If there is still no consensus, then metrics should be used to validate the assumptions and the choice re-defended after a short while.
Items on point 3 are the critical ones, and when a team member feels this is a point 3 item, then the issue must be discussed in all seriousness. All points must be clearly laid out and explained from both opposing sides. Usually when the point is not overriden, the person with experience can communicate it properly. After all points have been laid, then if it’s convenient to run a test, then it should be done. If it’s not convenient, the final decision maker in the company should decide in one direction (and of course, metrics are executed here). Once the direction is decided, that’s how the company acts — decisively and without doubt in that direction.

Comments
Post a Comment