Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Diamantino Almeida's avatar

What I keep thinking about underneath your four points is the question of why this pattern is so persistent in technical leaders specifically. The over-reliance on details, the caveat before every claim, the inability to leave context out these are not communication failures. They are survival behaviours that worked in a previous context.

Most technical people were rewarded, for years, for comprehensiveness. The person who caught the edge case. The one who flagged the caveat nobody else had thought of. The one who never got caught out. That pattern was reinforced in code reviews, in architecture debates, in every room where being technically correct was the highest form of credibility.

Then they get promoted. And suddenly the room needs a different thing. Not completeness. Momentum, the skill that made them indispensable now makes them difficult to follow.

The "well, technically" impulse is not bad thinking. It is good thinking, in the wrong room. The hardest part is not learning the new skill. It is unlearning the identity that the old one built.

Annalise Koltai's avatar

I really appreciate the call out of storytelling being a craft that someone really needs to hone over time and to not put yourself in the position where you need extensive storytelling skills that you really don’t have.

Great piece.

3 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?