I find that the best senior engineers don't say "if you're not using Kubernetes you're a moron" and "learn how to sysadmin and you'll realize you don't need Kubernetes in the first place", but instead say "Kubernetes is fantastic for this use case because of these reasons..." and "sysadmin would be easier to use than Kubernetes for this problem because of these reasons..."

I'm not sure how one gets software engineers to justify and back up their decisions like this on a regular basis, but I suspect it would help management trust their engineers more.

> I'm not sure how one gets software engineers to justify and back up their decisions like this on a regular basis, but I suspect it would help management trust their engineers more.

More balanced senior engineers (I know anecdotally that there are lots of them) speaking up and challenging their fellow-engineers to justify their extreme positions will be a good start IMO.

(Bad) Management chooses to listen to engineers that say agreeable things, not true things.

If your manager listens to the engineer who says "Kubernetes is awesome and does all the things!" and doesn't listen to the engineer who says "I think Kubernetes is a bad idea for this project because x, y, and z", then yeah, it's time to find a new manager. Good managers listen to good advisors.

Anecdotally, we had the opportunity to get better gear for developers than an outdated single 24” 1080p screen and slow computer. Higher management invited a few engineers to share Ygritte ultimate setup. These varied widely between one large ultra widescreen and three small screens. The developers in the meeting started arguing vehemently in the meeting and in the end they couldn’t agree and all developers were left with the same stuff. If you were enterprising enough you could gather two of those 1080p screens until someone from workplace it saw that and installed to desk to spec.

It was a mistake to give an option to discuss this to start with. It's always if not this than that, x brand is better than y,etc. What matters: is it a Windows/Linux/Mac shop?

No matter what brand,the base unit comes with enough RAM, processing power and spacious SSD.

Everybody gets the same brand,as it's easier to support from the IT perspective.

Keyboard,mouse,monitors should be an individual choice. Some want to ruin their vertebrae by staring at a tiny 13" screen and be happy about it,while some need 3 monitors and 2 keyboards to feel the power,why not.

Not sure why some companies are so tight when it comes to the equipment for developers,as it's always a small fraction of the overall cost of the position.

That is copy-book Sayre's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law

This is definitely a very difficult spaghetti to untangle, agreed. But IMO a very good start would be to never accept such polar statements in the first place.

"If you use extremist and simplistic generalizations you are not worth listening to in a discussion" would be the first policy I'd put into a team.

Balanced arguments with pro/con analysis is what makes an engineer senior and a contributor to an argument. Everybody else shouldn't participate the next time around.

Agreed. But the balanced people are the least vocal. As Bertrand Russel noted:

  "The whole problem with the world is that fools and 
  fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and 
  wiser people so full of doubts."

I am someone who moved from a programer role into management. My appeal to the balanced senior engineers is to speak up more. We don't have to swing as much as economists, enough to frustrate President Truman to say:

  "Give me a one-handed Economist. All my economists 
  say 'on hand...', then 'but on the other..."

But we can bring more nuance into discussions - especially calling out those among us with polar positions.

As a manager, you need to find a way to pull information from people: with some it's a team meeting,with others it's over a meal during the lunch,etc. I even do this sometimes during the management meetings,when I see people clearly not quite happy about something but reluctant to speak,so I ask them directly what's on their mind and that's often enough for them to tell way more than you could have gotten by just expecting for them to speak up.

All of that is sadly true and it's a fundamental problem with humanity. I'd say that the only solution I am seeing is that the managers must proactively shut down the extremists early and hard.

If you demonstrate that you will not submit to extremists, I've found that a good chunk of the more balanced people are then encouraged to speak up.

---

TL;DR: Silence the bad and loud voices, and the wiser and quieter voices will start speaking.

> at any given time management hears programmers arguing for both sides

I think it was Andrew Grove (of Intel / High Output Management) who boiled this down to the following algorithm:

(1) Invite all sides to a meeting. (2) Ask them what their decision is. (3a) If they agree, implement the decision. (3b) If they disagree, tell them to discuss it, then give you their decision at the next meeting. GOTO (1)

His point being that managers are the least informed (by virtual of organizational pyramids), and therefore the least effective at picking solutions. Build a team that can arrive at consensus, then trust the team.