Thank you. Especially since you write that "every sentence in the article rings true" for you, can you expand on this from the article:
>engineers that you know to be otherwise reasonably competent simply choosing not to bring up glaring and obvious problems.
What does it refer to? How would/should someone guard against it? Normally we are usually used to being able to receive a bit of push-back (maybe polite) if we propose something with a glaring and obvious problem. Does this mean engineers would build something that doesn't work at all? (For some reason that's completely obvious to them.) In point of fact, I'm not sure what the article refers to, as it doesn't give an example. Could you give an example of what you think they mean, and how someone might protect against this effect? Thanks.
I think "glaring and obvious" is a little hyperbole, in the sense that most of the decisions an engineer can make aren't really that influential, and more often than not if the odds are right, nothing will break.
An example would be: I know this different schedule can probably save the company $xxx money, but since it's my boss who proposed it I'll just let it pass.
It really takes a village. The culture of standing up against higer-ups is sometimes way out of the league for a single person to achieve.
Thank you for the example. I also asked how someone can protect against this effect, but you did not answer that portion of my question. By "someone" I meant, in this case the boss - how can bosses counter this effect?
For instance, to continue with your example, suppose the boss certainly would like to save $xxx with a different schedule they hadn't considered, but isn't even aware that the engineer is competent enough to propose it and knows how to do so: so in this case what could the boss have said or done differently that would have caused the engineer to propose it?
I assume ending each meeting with "We must now talk about anything that would improve the proposal just made; even if it makes me look like an idiot. Zhang Wei, do you know of any improvements?" and then going around pointing to each person and making them tell you whether they do, does not sound like it would "work". In this case Zhang Wei would say "no", as would the rest of the engineers... so how can the manager learn that an alternative schedule which Zhang Wei can propose could save them $xxx? (And maybe even complete production sooner, etc.) Any concrete suggestions here?
Maybe anonymity would help? The problem there is that people won't have as much incentive to propose improvements, as they won't be recognized if their proposals end up being good.
It just has to be ingrained in the company culture I guess. You'd really need to emphasize, whenever possible, that improvements and suggestions and corrections are welcome. You're fighting against upbringing.
>engineers that you know to be otherwise reasonably competent simply choosing not to bring up glaring and obvious problems.
What does it refer to? How would/should someone guard against it? Normally we are usually used to being able to receive a bit of push-back (maybe polite) if we propose something with a glaring and obvious problem. Does this mean engineers would build something that doesn't work at all? (For some reason that's completely obvious to them.) In point of fact, I'm not sure what the article refers to, as it doesn't give an example. Could you give an example of what you think they mean, and how someone might protect against this effect? Thanks.