[criemen]

This is the key insight for me about this post, and I fully agree with you.

No collaboration means less opportunities for learning from people (even the post admits!) that are "better at what you are doing than you are", which imo stunts personal growth.

Decision makers need to be clearly appointed, accountable, and empowered to follow through. But that power then also comes with listening to feedback from all relevant parties. As long as they trust that they're being listened to, they don't get a say in the actual decision making process themselves. I also agree about taking reversible decisions faster.

Another point I deeply disagree with is

> collaboration forces the driver to slow down and explain stuff (background, context, their thinking).

Yeah, and that's a good thing. It forces them to properly think through their thoughts, if they can't explain what they want to do clearly and why, it probably shouldn't be done. Quality goes up by slowing down.

[46Bit]

> if they can't explain what they want to do clearly and why, it probably shouldn't be done. Quality goes up by slowing down.

I kind of agree. Without what you describe, teams often get lost. But I’ve also seen that approach keep teams stuck in comfortable local minima. Sometimes you’ve got to take risks.

[criemen]

People need agency, and feel empowered to go forward. I'm not arguing against that interpretation of the post. But having agency doesn't equal a lack of accountability, or being able to explain what you're doing.

In the end, it's a tricky balance between moving fast and slow, which is why no one has found the perfect, long-term viable solution yet.

[methyl]

> Quality goes up by slowing down.

Not necessarily. You get biggest insights about quality after you ship, not before. Slowing down means you ship later, which means the insights are delayed. Unless you work in a rocket industry et all, slowing down will be detrimental to the quality.