I’m surprised by this and curious at the “team thinks” framing. What advantages do you see here?
I think I would much rather own the critique myself than say “the team thinks x.”
For context, I’d probably start with “what happened with that deployment that was rolled back?” and let them self-diagnose and share their perspective. By listening, I might learn there were extenuating issues, or I may see they are already aware of the issue.
If they’re able to critique their own work, I can agree and reinforce the whys. There’s no hostility and we can talk about what ideas we have for what we can do going forward.
If not, and I think we must do better, I can talk about my concerns, my expectations, and the consequences that I am worried about or frustrated by, and propose more prescriptive remedies.
>I’m surprised by this and curious at the “team thinks” framing. What advantages do you see here?
>I think I would much rather own the critique myself than say “the team thinks x.”
"the team thinks" means, well I went around and talked to everyone else about you before talking to you and they all say you suck! In short I don't think there would be an advantage to that.
I think I would much rather own the critique myself than say “the team thinks x.”
For context, I’d probably start with “what happened with that deployment that was rolled back?” and let them self-diagnose and share their perspective. By listening, I might learn there were extenuating issues, or I may see they are already aware of the issue.
If they’re able to critique their own work, I can agree and reinforce the whys. There’s no hostility and we can talk about what ideas we have for what we can do going forward.
If not, and I think we must do better, I can talk about my concerns, my expectations, and the consequences that I am worried about or frustrated by, and propose more prescriptive remedies.