[skeeter2020]

One of my scrum teams is all very senior developers working in a new area with lots of unknowns and technical challenges. I purposely "leave them alone" not because I'm a clueless manager, but because this type of work is always messy and will have false starts. The phrase "reasonable trust" screams "FAKE!" to me. You trust until it's broken, or you don't trust. I think what you might mean is trust but verify?

[prmph]

You're conflating "guidance" with lack of trust; the two things are entirely separate, and I'm not sure why they are being confused.

I'm leading a small (4 person) team working on a large multi-year greenfield project, and I sometimes schedule the entire team to meet with the client, who is a domain expert, so that we can hash out some fine decisions that he has unique insight into. My insights, as someone who bridges the technical and domain sides are also key to the success of these meetings.

Would you say I don't "trust" the team by not allowing them to work in a silo?

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

> Would you say I don't "trust" the team by not allowing them to work in a silo?

Yes, this means you don't trust them.

As I've already said, I've been doing this for roughly 25 years now. I can tell the difference between a technical decision and a business decision.

Even the wording ... "by not allowing them" implies both that you don't trust them and you don't have enough respect for the authority you wield to avoid using it cavalierly. I mean "by not allowing them to kick kittens". Sure, if they're about to start kicking kittens, #savethekittens. Otherwise, let them work.

Because here's the thing. Shitty managers don't know they're shitty, if they did, they would stop being shitty because recognition is the first step to becoming a non-shitty manager.

Because it's one thing to tell me all of the developers are inexperienced and don't have these skills so you don't trust them. It's another to claim you DO trust them and treat them as if they're inexperienced developers.

[prmph]

I'm not sure if you are capable of understanding the point I'm making, but I'm going to try again (hopefully for the last time):

Please read this sentence again in my comment above: > I sometimes schedule the entire team to meet with the client, who is a domain expert, so that we can hash out some fine decisions that he has unique insight into.

Without getting into specifics, the team simply does not have all the domain knowledge they need to successfully complete the project. I believe you understand what domain knowledge means. It does not mean I think the team is incompetent. No, but the client has some specific domain knowledge (not exactly related to software engineering) that should be incorporated into the project.

Now, according to the team structure, I bridge the gap between the client's domain knowledge and the team's core skills. And this is what shows that I trust the team: I schedule meetings where we all meet with the client, not just me, so that we can figure out some of the decisions together.

If my use of the word "allowing" is what is throwing you off, then let me phrase it this way: how do you expect the team to deliver a successful project by working without interacting with me and the client to acquire the domain knowledge that is needed? If you want the client and I to leave the team alone, how do you expect the team to even know what the client actually wants? The project is a large project; we are refining the specs as we go along. These are not rhetorical questions. I await your answers.