[karimmaassen]

Asking a team what they want or prefer doesn't always equate to what it actually is they need or prefer. Often it's either peer pressure or a false believe something has value while in reality it doesn't.

Not saying this is the case with your team, but be aware this can happen.

[mszcz]

It can also be the Abilene Paradox [1]. No one likes the stand-ups but no one wants to rock the boat so everyone says they do like the stand-ups. Not saying that it's happening here, just that you need to be aware of that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox

[shapefrog]

It is almost impossible to not ask the question in a loaded way.

"Do people want to continue doing this thing that we always do, that I come out of my office and round up everyone every morning and lead as your benevolent leader, or does someone else want to say my way is bad and have an idea on how we can achieve a not necessarily defined objective?"

[blowski]

How such a discussion will go depends on the context in which it takes place. If you have a culture where people feel comfortable expressing dissenting views, they can do this. But if people are nervous of rocking the boat, they’ll probably stay quiet. I’ve managed teams where people would certainly say “this isn’t working, let’s change it”.

[kiliancs]

I agree. If processes are regularly evaluated, if management regularly looks for ideas and encourages communication and individual initiative, if communication is open in the team and questions are welcome (this starts with example and encouragement from more senior developers and management), it's possible to talk about this sort of thing, and more.

[mszcz]

True. Doing a show of hands by asking "all in favor?" instead of "all opposed?" should in theory yield the same result but I'm sure it doesn't.

[shapefrog]

Ask one of each and see if for + against = total team ...

[TeMPOraL]

I think the only way is to just ask every person privately what they think, and tally up the responses.

There's a reason why voting in democracies tends to be done via a secret ballot.

[kthejoker2]

Reminded me of this scene from Death of Stalin

https://youtu.be/AB0yZBVoSN4

[mszcz]

The original idea of nudging a vote this way was brought to my attention in a book by Viktor Suvorov (it was either Aquarium or The Liberators).

Some communist asshole wanted his nephew or something hired for some government position. He made the mistake of doing a vote by asking "all in favor?" because no-one raised their hands. What Suvorov suggested was the guy should've used "all opposed?". He said no one would've raised their hands neither but the result would've been very different ;)

[throwaw1234]

Exactly, most of the time engineers already know what managers truly want - say if the manager asks the team about 4 standups per week, then obviously 4 times a week is manager's preference. Most of the time no one will object, and just do the bloody stand ups.

If a manger thinks that that's not the case in their particular team, and the team members always speak their mind, then I have a bridge to sell to that manager.

Or to look at it the other way around: how many times engineers themselves _asked_ their manager to do those stand ups? Yep, wouldn't be that many.

[gregdoesit]

Yes: you need trust so people on the team feel safe to share what they think.

I’ve personally tried to earn as much trust with actions as possible. E.g. this was my approach in having (eventually) all team members lead projects [1].

For example, on the projects people led, I gave them free hand on most, if not all things. People were free to decide how to do standups (or not do them at all, like some did) and hopefully these experiences helped them both shape their opinions and share these more freely in other situations as well.

As an engineer, I also hated being micromanaged and remembered situations when I was not comfortable speaking up. I tried to remember all of these and create and environment where this does not happen - eg never shoot down anyone’s idea, don’t assume I know better just because I have a manager title. Basically, try to live up to the manager I would have wanted back in the day.

And yes, managers’ words always carry more weight, which is the nature of a hierarchical dynamics (as much as I wish it was less so). I don’t know how to counter that beyond trying to foster a safe place where criticising the manager (me) is also completely fine, and to be celebrated (as it takes courage) and never result in any real or perceived retaliation.

[1] https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/a-team-where-everyone-is-...

[throwaw1234]

> feel safe to share what they think.

This will never be the case. Never. Engineers can sometimes be slightly more open in technical arguments... senior engineers to much lesser extent - seniors learned that sharing what everyone truly thinks is prohibitively expensive to their career, no matter how much amazing boss you think you are.

Anything more than technical stuff, especially management style -- forget it. No one will share what they think, unless the situation is beyond repair, and at this point junior engineers will rather share to the skip level manager or HR (futile, thus junior engineers), and seniors will just a) check out or b) leave.

> foster a safe place where criticising the manager (me) is also completely fine, and to be celebrated (as it takes courage) and never result in any real or perceived retaliation

Cute.

[StephenJGL]

The process is the same as anything. Collect opinion and data and goals. Continue when the first two align to goals. Reevaluate when either doesn't.