怎么说服老板合作_如何说服老板和开发人员您是对的（他们是错的）。-CSDN博客

怎么说服老板合作

by Petr Zaparka

由Petr Zaparka

如何说服老板和开发人员您是对的(他们是错的)。 (How to convince your boss and your fellow devs that you are right (and they are wrong).)

As a developer, I’ve picked up some non-negotiable habits and good practices over the years. But sometimes, I’ve had to work with people who were not on the same wavelength as I was. Most of the time it’s the management.

作为开发人员，这些年来我已经养成了一些不可商量的习惯和良好做法。但是有时候，我不得不和那些不在同一波长的人一起工作。大多数时候是管理人员。

You can’t convince anyone of anything. You can only give them the right information, so that they convince themselves.

您无法说服任何人。您只能给他们正确的信息，以便他们说服自己。

— Eben Pegan

—埃本·佩根(Eben Pegan)

The main reason is usually that we are looking differently at problems and their solutions. We know from experience that cutting corners will get back to us in the form of technical debt or just plain frustration.

主要原因通常是我们对问题及其解决方案的看法有所不同。我们从经验中知道，偷工减料将以技术债务或无聊的挫折的形式回到我们身边。

I’m writing this post to show you how you can change you manager’s opinion — or even that of your peer.

我写这篇文章是为了向您展示如何改变经理的观点，甚至是同行的观点。

正确沟通 (Communicating the right way)

Your message might be very important, but if you fail to deliver it, then it’s your fault. Here is one way to deliver your message effectively:

您的信息可能非常重要，但是如果您无法传递，那是您的错。这是有效传达信息的一种方法：

“To communicate effectively, we must reach people through their Tendency, not our own”

“要进行有效的沟通，我们必须通过他们的倾向而不是我们自己的倾向来接触人们”

-Gretchen Rubin

-格蕾琴·鲁宾(Gretchen Rubin)

As you know, people are not the same. Someone may be easy to reason with, and someone else may be stubborn. According to Gretchen Rubin, we can categorize people into four main Tendencies.

如您所知，人们并不相同。可能很容易与某人推理，而另一些人则固执。根据格雷琴·鲁宾(Gretchen Rubin)的说法，我们可以将人们分为四个主要趋势。

Gretchen wrote a book called The Four Tendencies. She noticed this division among people, and how we can use them and take advantage of them in our lives. Those Tendencies are Upholder, Obliger, Questioner, and Rebel.

格蕾琴(Gretchen)写了一本名为“四种倾向”的书。她注意到人们之间的这种鸿沟，以及我们如何使用它们并在生活中利用它们。这些趋势是支持者 ， 义务者 ， 发问者和叛乱者 。

Here is a quick joke that helps describe them:

这是一个简短的笑话，有助于描述它们：

How do you get an Upholder to change a lightbulb?Answer: He already changed it.

您如何获得支持者来更换灯泡？ 答：他已经更改了。

How do you get a Questioner to change a lightbulb?Answer: Why do we need that lightbulb anyway?

您如何获得发问人来更换灯泡？ 答：为什么我们仍然需要那个灯泡？

How do you get an Obliger to change a lightbulb?Answer: Ask him to change it.

您如何获得义务者更换灯泡？ 答：请他更改它。

How do you get a Rebel to change a lightbulb?Answer: Do it yourself.

您如何获得叛军来更换灯泡？ 答：自己动手。

案例研究 (A case study)

Let’s assume that you have a product owner (PO) on a new project. The PO is only focusing on the things that you deliver. They don’t want you to spend time on anything else, like writing tests.

假设您有一个新项目的产品负责人(PO)。 PO仅关注您提供的东西。他们不希望您花时间在其他事情上，例如编写测试。

Here are four different ways to convince your PO that writing tests is important. But don’t forget that this is just an example — you should be able to use these frameworks in any context.

有四种不同的方法可以使您的采购订单确信编写测试很重要。但是请不要忘记，这只是一个示例-您应该能够在任何上下文中使用这些框架。

Here we go.

开始了。

1. PO作为发问人 (1. PO as a Questioner)

According to Gretchen,

根据格蕾琴(Gretchen)的说法，

Questioners love research, finding efficiencies and eliminating irrational process. They reject lazy explanations like this:

发问者喜欢研究，寻找效率并消除不合理的过程。他们拒绝这样的懒惰解释：

’This is the way we have always done it.’

“这就是我们一直做到的方式。”

Because Questioners have great faith in their own analysis and judgement, they can become convinced of the rightness of their views and refuse to be persuaded otherwise.

由于发问者对自己的分析和判断有极大的信心，因此他们可以说服自己的观点正确，并拒绝接受其他方式的说服。

When dealing with a Questioner, bring reasoning to the table. Have a valid point supported by evidence.

与发问者打交道时，请将推理带到桌上。有证据支持的有效观点。

Here’s an example conversation with a PO named Alex:

这是与名为Alex的采购订单的示例对话：

Me: Hi Alex, can we talk about best practices for a moment?

我：Alex，您好，我们可以暂时谈谈最佳做法吗？

Alex: Sure, what’s on your mind? Me: I think that we are pushing too hard on delivering the features and not thinking about our technical debt. We don’t have much time for testing.

亚历克斯 ：好的，你在想什么？我：我认为我们在提供功能方面太过努力了，没有考虑我们的技术债务。我们没有太多时间进行测试。

Alex: Well, I’m not convinced that spending lots of time on testing will help us to deliver better and faster. We are fixing bugs as they come along and it seems to work. Me: I took a look at how much time we spend by fixing bugs, and the number grows over time. I have worked on lots of similar projects. It’s faster to ignore testing, in the beginning, but you will get to a point where it’s no longer efficient. I think that we are now at that point. Alex: Hmm but I don’t want to hire another person to do the testing, we don’t have a budget for it.

亚历克斯(Alex) ：好吧，我不认为花费大量时间进行测试会帮助我们更快更好地交付产品。我们正在修复错误，它们似乎可以正常工作。我：我了解了我们通过修复错误花费的时间，并且这个数字随着时间的增长而增长。我从事过许多类似的项目。在一开始，忽略测试会更快，但是您将到达不再有效的地步。我认为我们现在到了这一点。 亚历克斯(Alex) ：嗯，但我不想雇用其他人进行测试，我们没有预算。

Me: I have a solution: let’s add testing to the scope of each ticket. It will make developers happy, and you will be able to compare velocity. If you would like to know more, I have some examples of books and articles about the importance of tests. Alex: Ok, remind me of that at our next sprint planning, and I will make sure that everyone is on the same page.

我：我有一个解决方案：让我们在每张票证的范围内添加测试。它将使开发人员感到高兴，并且您将能够比较速度。如果您想了解更多，我有一些关于测试重要性的书籍和文章示例。 亚历克斯(Alex) ：好的，在下一个冲刺计划中提醒我这一点，我将确保每个人都在同一页面上。

Me: Thanks.

我：谢谢。

2. PO作为支持者 (2. PO as an Upholder)

Upholders can make great colleagues. They are self-starters, and they are very interested in performance. But Upholders sometimes get impatient when others struggle to meet expectations.

支持者可以成为出色的同事。他们是自我启动者，并且对性能非常感兴趣。但是当其他人难以达到期望时，支持者有时会不耐烦。

I don’t think that you would have to convince an Upholder about the importance of writing tests. They would react like this:

我认为您不必让Upholder相信编写测试的重要性。他们会这样React：

Me: Hi Alex, I think that we are at the point where we need to spend more time on writing tests. Our technical debt is growing. Alex: I’m ok with that. Feel free to write more tests and do some refactoring. But please make sure that we still deliver features that we promised.

我：Alex，您好，我认为我们正处于需要花更多时间编写测试的时候。我们的技术债务正在增加。 亚历克斯 ：我可以。随时编写更多测试并进行一些重构。但是请确保我们仍然提供我们承诺的功能。

3.作为义务人的采购订单 (3. PO as an Obliger)

Obligers respond to the expectations that work situations almost inevitably supply — with deadlines, evaluations and deliverables.

义务者对工作环境几乎不可避免地产生的期望做出了回应-期限，评估和可交付成果。

So to convince them, we can use another motivator that they follow.

因此，要说服他们，我们可以使用他们遵循的另一种动机。

Me: Hi Alex, I think that we are at the point where we need to spend more time on writing tests. Our technical debt is growing.

我：Alex，您好，我认为我们正处于需要花更多时间编写测试的时候。我们的技术债务正在增加。

Alex: We have a deadline to deal with — is it going to affect it? Me: We might be delayed in the next sprint. But by writing more tests, we will be able to cut the development time. So, we should be faster in next stage and meet the following deadline with ease. Writing tests is also a best practice of development. I can show you a bunch of studies that support it if you are interested.

亚历克斯 ：我们有一个最后期限要处理-这会影响到它吗？我：我们可能在下一个冲刺中被延迟。但是通过编写更多测试，我们将能够缩短开发时间。因此，我们应该在下一阶段更快，并轻松地满足以下截止日期。编写测试也是开发的最佳实践。如果您有兴趣，我可以向您展示大量支持它的研究。

4. PO作为叛军 (4. PO as a Rebel)

I feel a little Machiavellian about this one. Here is an example from the book:

我对此有些感触。这是书中的一个例子：

A rebel child might respond better if you ask: ‘Do you feel like playing the piano now?’ While an Upholder child would be happy to be reminded, ‘Time to practice the piano.’

如果您问：“您现在想弹钢琴吗？”一个叛逆的孩子可能会做出更好的React。抚养孩子的孩子会很高兴地被提醒：“该练习钢琴了。”

So if I wanted to convince a Rebel product owner about tests, I’m not sure what I would do. I would probably spend time on tests and refactoring code without asking.

因此，如果我想说服Rebel产品负责人进行测试，我不确定该怎么做。我可能会花时间在测试和重构代码上而无需询问。

Gretchen does note that “They put a high value on freedom, choice, identity and self-expression.” So, by reacting on my own and taking care of things, I’d fit in that specification. I’d be the rebel!

格雷琴确实指出：“他们高度重视自由，选择，身份和自我表达。” 因此，通过我自己做出React并照顾好一切，我符合该规范。我会成为叛军！

In the end, you need to know who your audience is. You should find out what the priorities of your project are. Then make your argument more compelling by mentioning these priorities.

最后，您需要知道您的听众是谁。您应该找出项目的重点。然后，通过提及这些优先事项使您的论点更具说服力。