Honest Answers: When Priorities Change  🔗 **Source:** [Honest Answers: When Priorities Change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [priority-changes, context-switching, psychological-safety, disagree-and-commit, engineering-culture] > author: Overcommitted > source: Overcommitted (YouTube) > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI > date created: 2026-10-20 13:53 > > > [!info] Generated analysis — not the author's words. Sections below are machine-written > > from the captured source. Only text inside `> [!quote]` blocks is verbatim from the author. > > Do not quote or attribute any other line to the named author. > > # 🏷️ Title: Honest Answers: When Priorities Change > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🧭 Table of contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning styles assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO analysis](#️-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) - [🔄 Refactor appendix](#-refactor-appendix--honest-answers-when-priorities-change) ## 📝 Summary Source: the Overcommitted channel, a 29:32 episode uploaded 2026-10-20, the first of a new Honest Answers segment per the video description. The hosts are Erika and Bethany (spelling from the description; the auto-captions render the first name as "Erica"). The captions carry no speaker labels, only `>>` turn markers, so every speaker attribution below is inferred from turn order and from who asks versus answers. Where the inference matters, the text says so. - **What happened.** The hosts answer an anonymous listener question: a project was priority one on a Monday-start plan, the priorities changed on Friday, and the team now works on something unrelated. They give advice in four parts: separate healthy change from whiplash by how it was communicated, manage context switching, handle the loss of control, and use disagree and commit or leave. They close with a game that translates corporate memo phrases. - **The claim.** Priority changes hurt most when they arrive without a stated reason and without a say for the people affected. The hosts say you can reduce the damage with stopping notes, handoff documents, a record of contributions, a degree of separation between identity and assigned work, and honest pushback before a decision followed by full commitment after it. - **What is advice, experience, or research.** Most of the episode is advice and personal experience. The hosts also cite research from memory: attention residue (Sophie Leroy), a plan-making effect, a stress and autonomy finding, a NASA account of canceled projects, and the disagree and commit principle. The description links sources for these, but this analysis did not fetch or verify them. The transcript gives no sample sizes, dates, or effect sizes. - **Why it matters.** The listener's situation is common, and the episode gives concrete, low-cost actions: write the stopping note before the switch, write the log of what you shipped or learned, ask for the reason and the plan in writing, and treat disagreement as something to say before a decision, not after. - **Key stakeholders.** The anonymous listener, individual contributors who absorb the change, managers who carry roadmap and headcount consequences, and leaders who make the call. The hosts name researchers (Sophie Leroy, a speaker named "Steve Meyer" in the captions, NASA staff) as sources. - **Risks and tradeoffs.** The advice assumes a workplace where pushback is safe and where leaving is possible. The hosts state the first condition for disagree and commit (00:20:59) but give no guidance for when it is missing, other than leaving (00:23:55). The research is paraphrased from memory without methods. One speaker cites the Stack Overflow survey and developer surveys from the previous episode as context (00:18:04, 00:26:08); this source does not establish what those surveys found. - **Bottom line.** The most useful content is procedural: a stopping note with a next-step plan, a contribution log, and a before-the-decision disagreement. The weakest content is the causal story about why priorities change, which rests on one host's gut reaction and a cited framing, not on evidence in the source. ## 📖 Main content **The question (00:00:43).** The listener writes that last week the team understood one project was priority one and prepared to start on Monday. On Friday, the priorities changed and the team now works on something entirely different. The listener asks how to deal with it. **Why priorities change (00:00:43 to 00:03:38).** One host's first reaction is that the cause is departments not communicating, which pushes individual contributors to work out the real priorities themselves. The other host sorts explanations into two camps: change is part of the job (customers ask for new things, competitors move, another team needs more help than the roadmap predicted), or change is whiplash, a gap between what decision makers know and what everyone else knows. Named causes of whiplash: customer escalations, no single shared goal (a North Star or predetermined priorities), lagging metrics that make leaders impatient, and shiny new object syndrome after a conference or offsite. The host says organizational psychologists locate the difference in communication: change comes with what changed, why, and what it means for you; whiplash comes across as surprise, your work doesn't matter, and we forgot to tell you. **Communication (00:03:38 to 00:08:41).** The first host says bi-directional communication makes changes feel less random and more strategic, and says the people closest to the users and technology see finer details. The second host adds two variables: audience (leaders, managers, and contributors care about different consequences, so the "what it means for you" part differs) and style (announce and mandate versus propose and invite feedback; an ask-me-anything session in person for impactful changes). Both say feedback needs psychological safety and that constant reprioritization signals an unhealthy culture. One host adds that not every change is a leadership failure and that contributors sometimes need to absorb the change and move on. The other advises documenting what you learned and built, because repeated moves can hurt career progression when there is no finished output to point to. **Context switching (00:08:41 to 00:15:53).** The second host presents attention residue, credited in the transcript to Sophie Leroy: part of your attention stays on the unfinished first task. The remedy given is a good stopping point and a specific plan for what is next, which the host says some researchers found stops intrusive thoughts even when you do not do the work. Switches between larger problem areas cost more than switches within one area. The first host shares a personal practice: two tasks in progress, one hard and ambiguous, one easy, alternating when frustrated or bored. The same host suggests, as a guess, that a walk or coffee might help the brain switch. For parking work, the first host uses AI automations: a morning routine that scans Slack and the previous day's work and suggests where to pick up. Both recommend writing documents as if you will not be the one to continue them. **Control and stress (00:15:53 to 00:20:13).** One host says not to hold work too tightly or seek identity in it, because the company decides allocation, while still voicing opinions on strategy. The other names the most common feeling as being a pawn and cites a researcher (captioned "Steve Meyer"), who is reported to have found that uncontrollable stress does the damage: executives with heavier loads showed less stress than lower-level staff with less say, with heart health and drinking patterns given as one example. The host reads a quote that perceived reduced autonomy, such as micromanagement, triggers a threat response. A caveat follows: if people already feel insecure, forcing control on everything raises distress, and leaders should not force positivity because lost work is a real loss. The host cites NASA research that canceled projects can compare to a family breaking up, and an engineer who spent seven years on a canceled spacecraft project calling it a major grieving process. **Disagree and commit, and leaving (00:20:13 to 00:26:08).** The host explains disagree and commit: push back respectfully before the decision, with data and reservations, then execute wholeheartedly, without passive resistance or I told you so. The condition: it only works with psychological safety, otherwise it is compliance with a nicer name. The other host tells a personal story: reorged off a team they believed in, asked twice to join another team, was denied both times, read the denial as a signal of poor fit, and found a new job. The advice that follows: pause and evaluate what is in your control, and if you have done all you can, look for a new situation. The first host adds that a manager who listens and escalates, even when nothing changes, makes a difference, and that speaking up has earned thanks from colleagues who held the same view. **The memo game (00:26:08 to 00:29:04).** The hosts translate corporate phrases. These are jokes and opinions, not claims: bias for action as more work with fewer people, right-sizing the roadmap as cutting scope (read as good news), not a reorg as a reorg, paused indefinitely as canceled, and a new North Star as either an acquisition or a leader's new enthusiasm. **Uncertainties and contested points.** - Which statements come from which host is inferred from turn order. - The researcher named "Steve Meyer" in the captions does not match any name in the description. The description lists David Rock (Psychology Today, autonomy as reward or threat), Bordia and colleagues (uncertainty during organizational change), and Glavin and Schieman (control and uncertainty). The source does not say which one the quote comes from, so the attribution stays unresolved. - The origin of disagree and commit is stated two ways within one sentence (00:20:13): it comes from Amazon, and it is often credited to Andy Grove of Intel. The description links a concept overview and Amazon's leadership principles; neither was checked here. - The claim that your brain needs to work on one thing at a time (00:11:38) sits beside the other host's report that two tasks in progress works well (00:12:19). The hosts treat this as individual variation, which the source does not test. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=0) Introduction and the new segment - The two hosts met on a team at GitHub, per the intro, and describe the podcast as engineers sharing what they learned. - Honest Answers is new: a listener-submitted situation, answered as guidance. Submissions go through a form on the podcast website. > [!quote] [00:00:00] > we are introducing a segment we're calling honest answers. #### ⏱️ [00:00:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=43) The listener question and the first reaction - The question: the Monday-start priority was replaced on Friday by unrelated work. - First reaction ties the cost to AI-era framing: code is cheap, but planning, brain power, and context are not. > [!quote] [00:00:43] > Last week, we understood one project was priority number one and worked to prepare for it to start work on Monday. > [!quote] [00:00:43] > planning isn't cheap, brain power isn't cheap, context isn't cheap #### ⏱️ [00:01:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=86) Two camps: change versus whiplash - First diagnosis: departments not communicating, leaving contributors to guess the real priorities. - Camp one: change comes from customers, competitors, and other teams' needs. Camp two: whiplash, a gap between what decision makers know and what everyone else knows. - Listed causes of whiplash: customer escalations, no North Star or fixed priority set, lagging metrics, shiny new object syndrome after a conference. - The line between the two is communication: what changed, why, and what it means for you. > [!quote] [00:01:26] > it's just a sign of uh when different departments aren't communicating well with one another #### ⏱️ [00:03:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=218) What made the difference: communication - The question to the other host: have you felt both, and what separated them. The answer is communication, top-down changes feel random. - Sometimes leadership makes bad decisions, and sometimes a pivot is valid. Bi-directional communication makes changes read as strategic. - The people at the bottom are closest to the problem, the technology, and the customers. > [!quote] [00:03:38] > whiplash comes across more like surprise, your work doesn't matter, and we forgot to tell you. > [!quote] [00:04:22] > it makes things feel a lot less random and more strategic. #### ⏱️ [00:05:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=348) Audience and style of communication - Leaders care how a change affects their work, managers care about roadmaps and headcount, and contributors care about what they execute. - The same three-part message needs a different last part for each audience. - Style: announce and mandate versus propose and invite feedback. For impactful changes, the host prefers in-person feedback such as an AMA with room for questions. > [!quote] [00:05:48] > that last part is going to look different depending on who you're talking to. #### ⏱️ [00:07:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=436) Safety to give feedback, and what ICs owe - Feedback to leadership needs psychological safety, which the host says is not always present. - Priorities change once in a while and that is fine. Constant change signals an unhealthy culture. - Counterweight: contributors also need to absorb change when it is legitimate. > [!quote] [00:07:59] > not every change is a leadership failure. > [!quote] [00:08:41] > definitely collect things that you have been doing even if it's not being able to work on something in completion. #### ⏱️ [00:08:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=521) Attention residue and the stopping note - Attention residue, credited in the transcript to a researcher named Sophie Leroy: attention stays on the first task, worst when it is unfinished. - Fix per the host: reach a clean stopping point and write what you would do next. Written plans for unfinished tasks reportedly reduce intrusive thoughts. - A recap also gives you a capped, describable chunk of work to point to later. > [!quote] [00:09:25] > when you switch from task to task, part of your attention is still stuck on that first thing. > [!quote] [00:10:11] > making a specific plan for an unfinished task helps stop the intrusive thoughts, even if you're not doing it. #### ⏱️ [00:10:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=653) Switch size and personal workarounds - Personal observation: bigger switches cost more mentally than small ones within one area. - Writing work down and telling people what was done means the work is not lost when it is put down. - The second host works well with two tasks, one hard and ambiguous, one easy, and alternates between them. The first host adds a guess that a walk or coffee helps a switch. > [!quote] [00:10:53] > But, bigger switches cost more mentally. > [!quote] [00:12:19] > I find that I typically work well with like two things in process. #### ⏱️ [00:13:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=824) Parking work so it is cheap to resume - The first host reports ending days exhausted with little to show, and relabels the cause as the cost of context switching. - The other host runs a morning routine of AI automations that scan Slack and the prior day's work and propose a starting point. The stated motive is trouble with starting. - Both advise writing documents as though someone else will continue them, which also covers personal leave. > [!quote] [00:13:44] > I have a lot of like AI automations to remind me what I'm doing at any given point > [!quote] [00:14:27] > being able to prepare documents as though you won't be working on it uh in the future is always helpful, #### ⏱️ [00:15:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=953) Holding work loosely - Advice from one host: the work belongs to the company, which decides allocation. Keep opinions on strategy, but keep distance from the assignment. - Framing offered: someone else may gain the experience, and success for everyone can mean you are not on this work. > [!quote] [00:15:53] > hold any work too tightly or to seek my identity in any piece of work #### ⏱️ [00:17:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=1040) The feeling of being a pawn: autonomy and stress - Cited finding, attributed in the captions to Steve Meyer: stress damage tracks lack of control. Executives with heavier workloads showed lower stress than lower-level staff. - Example indicators given: heart health and drinking patterns. No data or method is given. - Possible link to people starting their own companies, which the host ties to a Stack Overflow survey from the previous episode. - A quoted line on perceived reduced autonomy triggering a threat response. > [!quote] [00:17:20] > it's uncontrollable stress that does damage. > [!quote] [00:18:48] > a perception of reduced autonomy, for example, because of being micromanaged can easily generate a threat response. #### ⏱️ [00:19:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=1171) Control has a catch, and canceled work is a loss - Giving people control backfires if they already feel insecure and a leader insists on controlling everything. - Leaders should be honest and not force positivity. - NASA example: canceled projects compared to a family breaking up, with a seven-year engineer calling it a grieving process. > [!quote] [00:19:31] > canceled projects can compare to a family breaking up. #### ⏱️ [00:20:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=1213) Disagree and commit - Two parts: disagree before the decision with honest concerns and data, then commit afterward without passive resistance. - Origin stated two ways: Amazon, and often credited to Andy Grove at Intel. - The condition: psychological safety. Without it, the practice is compliance. > [!quote] [00:20:13] > you push back respecta- respectfully, and then you commit once a decision is made. > [!quote] [00:20:59] > it only works when there is psychological safety. #### ⏱️ [00:21:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=1303) A reorg story and the decision to leave - One host connects most issues to a lost sense of control. - Personal story: reorged off a team they liked into a team without psychological safety, twice denied a move, read the denials as a signal, and took a new job. - Advice: pause, list what is in your control, collect data, and if nothing remains, look for a new situation. > [!quote] [00:23:11] > it was a signal to me that it wasn't a good fit anymore. #### ⏱️ [00:23:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=1435) A listening manager, and speaking up for others - Advice and experience: having someone to tell, even without agency to act, helps. Silent suffering is the worst case. - One host notes feeling more affected by changes to other people and says speaking up has earned thanks from colleagues who held the same view. > [!quote] [00:24:40] > The worst is when you are silently suffering and there's no one you can talk to you that will do anything or say anything. > [!quote] [00:25:25] > I'm so glad you said that. I was thinking the same thing, but I didn't want to speak up. #### ⏱️ [00:26:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=1568) Wrap and the memo translation game - The host says the topic fits recent developer survey concerns and hopes the tools help. - Game setup: translate corporate memo lines to their actual meaning. - Jokes and opinions, not claims: bias for action as more work with fewer people, and right-sizing as cut scope read as good news. > [!quote] [00:26:53] > We want to sharpen our bias for action. > [!quote] [00:26:53] > To me, it means we're reorging and slimming down teams but increasing the amount of work we we have to do. #### ⏱️ [00:28:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI&t=1701) Last memo lines and sign-off - Paused indefinitely is read as canceled, and new priorities arrive before the pause ends. - A new North Star is read as an acquisition or a leader's new enthusiasm from a conference or meeting. - The closing asks listeners to follow, subscribe, and find the show on Bluesky (spelled Blue Sky in the captions). > [!quote] [00:28:21] > by the time the indefinite pause has resumed, like there's new priorities and nobody cares. ## 📚 References The transcript itself contains no links; the following come from the video description or are primary sources for named entities. This analysis did not open any of them, so the claim each supports is unverified here. **Linked in the video description** - John Cutler, TBM 31/52: Why Does Our Strategy Keep Changing? https://cutlefish.substack.com/p/tbm-3152-why-does-our-strategy-keep - ShiftMag, Do managers shift priorities to make engineers miserable? https://shiftmag.dev/shifting-priorities-development-business-886/ - UW Bothell, Sophie Leroy on attention residue and ready-to-resume plans: https://www.uwb.edu/news/2019/02/12/task-interrupted - Sophie Leroy's faculty page and research publications: https://www.uwb.edu/faculty/sophie-leroy/ - Jellyfish, Mitigating Context Switching in Software Development: https://jellyfish.co/library/developer-productivity/context-switching/ - Masicampo and Baumeister, Consider it done! Plan making can eliminate the cognitive effects of unfulfilled goals: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024192 - Hello Interview, Handling a project priority change: https://www.hellointerview.com/community/questions/project-priority-change/cmlj4w9bn01yq08adp1vva9ot - David Rock, A sense of autonomy is a primary reward or threat for the brain: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-at-work/200911/a-sense-of-autonomy-is-a-primary-reward-or-threat-for-the-brain - Bordia and colleagues, Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control? https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320444000128 - Glavin and Schieman, Control in the Face of Uncertainty: https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272514546698 - NASA, Managing the Trauma of a Terminated Project (PMHut reprint): https://pmhut.com/managing-the-trauma-of-a-terminated-project - Disagree and commit, concept overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disagree_and_commit - Amazon leadership principles, Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit: https://www.aboutamazon.com/about-us/leadership-principles - Quote Investigator, Plans Are Worthless, But Planning Is Everything: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/18/planning/ **Primary or named-entity sources** - Sophie Leroy: the researcher the transcript credits with the attention residue concept (00:09:25). The two Leroy links above are the nearest primary sources in the description. - The plan-making effect (00:10:11): the transcript says only some researchers found it. The Masicampo and Baumeister paper in the description is the likely match, but the episode does not name it. - The stress and autonomy finding (00:17:20): the captions say Steve Meyer. No description link carries that name, so the primary source is unresolved. David Rock, Bordia and colleagues, and Glavin and Schieman are the closest candidates by topic only. - NASA (00:19:31): the description links a PMHut reprint titled Managing the Trauma of a Terminated Project. - Disagree and commit (00:20:13): the transcript credits Amazon and says it is often credited to Andy Grove at Intel. The description links a concept overview and Amazon's leadership principles, which supports the Amazon side only as a pointer. - Stack Overflow survey and developer surveys (00:18:04, 00:26:08): referenced from the previous episode. No link is given, and this source does not state the findings. ## 🗣️ Paraphrase A listener says the priority they prepared for was swapped for unrelated work on a Friday. The hosts start by splitting causes. Sometimes the world changes, and sometimes the change is a failure to share information up and down the org. They say the felt difference comes from whether people hear what changed, why, and what it means for them, or whether they find out that their work no longer counts. For the person living the change, the advice is practical. Stop at a clean point and write down what you would do next, so the unfinished task stops pulling at your attention. Write documents as if a stranger will pick them up. Keep a record of what you did and learned, since work that never ships leaves a thin trail for promotion discussions. Expect bigger switches to cost more than smaller ones. One host runs an AI-assisted morning routine to recover context, and the other pairs a hard task with an easy one. On the feeling of helplessness, the hosts cite a researcher's finding that stress comes from lack of control, add that a canceled project can feel like a loss, and recommend disagree and commit: argue before the decision, commit after it. They say that only works where people can disagree safely. Where it does not and nothing in your control changes the situation, one host says to look for a new team or job. A listening manager helps even when nothing changes. They end with a game that translates corporate memo phrases into blunt meanings. ## 📰 Newsletter **Plans changed on Friday. Here is what to do on Monday.** Overcommitted, a podcast about engineering careers, opened a new Honest Answers segment with a question many contributors know: the roadmap you prepared for was replaced at the last minute. The episode is not about WordPress, but the pattern shows up in open source constantly: a sponsored contributor is reassigned between releases, a team shifts to a different release priority, or a feature branch waits on a decision. The hosts offer a short toolkit. Write the stopping note before you switch, because they cite research that a specific plan for an unfinished task quiets the mind. Keep a log of what you built or learned so unshipped work still counts. Say your disagreement before the decision, then commit after it, and only where people can disagree safely. They also play a memo translation game worth a smile: not a reorg is a reorg. Worth noting: the research is cited from memory and the description links the sources. Watch the episode, then open the links to check them before you quote anyone. Links: [the episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI), [Sophie Leroy on attention residue](https://www.uwb.edu/news/2019/02/12/task-interrupted), [disagree and commit overview](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disagree_and_commit). ## ✅ Action items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: before a talk or demo slot is dropped, write the stopping note and the reuse plan so the prepared material survives a priority change. - Education: add a short segment to a workshop on writing handoff notes with a next-step plan, using the stopping-note practice as the exercise. - Developer experience: when a docs or sample-code effort is paused, leave a status file in the repo stating what is done, what is next, and who can pick it up. - Developer marketing: no direct action from this source; nearest relevance: campaign plans get reprioritized, so keep assets modular and dated. - Community management: when community priorities change, publish what changed, why, and what it means for contributors, the three-part pattern from 00:03:38. - Internal/external/cross-project: ask for the reason and the effect on each audience in writing when priorities shift, since the hosts say the last part differs by audience (00:05:48). #### OSPO - Policy and governance: write a short change-communication norm for program priorities: reason, effect, and a feedback window, plus who decides. - License compliance: no direct action from this source. - Security management: no direct action from this source. - Software inventory: no direct action from this source. - Developer support: offer handoff templates for projects that stall or move owners. - Community engagement: no direct action from this source; nearest relevance: upstream funding commitments that change mid-quarter need the same what, why, and what it means message. - Strategic alignment: check whether a single shared goal (the North Star the hosts name at 00:02:09) exists for the program, and record how reprioritization is announced in OKR reviews. #### Community - Maintainers: keep a visible decision log for roadmap changes so contributors can see the reasoning. - Contributors: encourage a personal contribution log, since the hosts say moved-around work can leave little finished output to show. - Sponsors: no direct action from this source; nearest relevance: sponsors who redirect funded work should state the reason and effect to the maintainers affected. - Ecosystem: no direct action from this source. #### WordPress - Core: no direct action from this source; nearest relevance: release priorities shift, so make the reason for a scope change visible on the make blog. - Core Performance: no direct action from this source. - Core AI: no direct action from this source; nearest relevance: an AI-assisted morning routine for resuming work (00:13:44) is one speaker's practice, not evidence of a tool to build. - **Core Program Team:** use the three-part change message (what changed, why, what it means for each team) for cross-team dependency changes. - Mobile: no direct action from this source. - Playground: no direct action from this source. - Community: no direct action from this source; nearest relevance: event-team volunteers also experience whiplash when scope is cut late. - Training: no direct action from this source; nearest relevance: a lesson on handoff notes and stopping points would fit a contributor-onboarding path. - Marketing: no direct action from this source. - Support: no direct action from this source. - Design: no direct action from this source. - Documentation: a handoff note template (done, next, blockers, who can continue) fits the team handbook. - Photos: no direct action from this source. - TV: no direct action from this source. - Polyglots: no direct action from this source. - Accessibility: no direct action from this source. - Meta: no direct action from this source. - CLI: no direct action from this source. - Hosting: no direct action from this source. - Tide: no direct action from this source. - Openverse: no direct action from this source. - Themes: no direct action from this source. - Plugins: no direct action from this source. #### The WPOCC - Programs: no direct action from this source; nearest relevance: fellowship and stipend recipients whose project is reprioritized should get written reasons and a feedback window. - Projects: no direct action from this source. - Funding experiments: no direct action from this source; nearest relevance: cancel or pause decisions on funded work should state the effect on the recipient. ### FAIR - Technical independence: no direct action from this source. - Policies and covenants: no direct action from this source; nearest relevance: a covenant could name how priority changes get communicated to participants. - Productized governance artifacts: a change-notice template (what changed, why, what it means for each role) fits a charter appendix. ## 🧪 Hypotheses 1. Teams that announce priority changes with all three parts (what changed, why, what it means for each role) report lower whiplash scores in a pulse survey than teams that announce changes without those parts. 2. Writing a stopping note with a next-step plan before switching tasks cuts time to resume the first task by at least 20% compared with switching without one. 3. Switching between projects costs more resume time than switching between tasks inside one project, by a margin that exceeds individual variation. 4. Disagree and commit raises sustained commitment only above a threshold of team psychological safety. Below it, the practice correlates with lower discretionary effort and silence, which the episode calls compliance. 5. The number of priority changes per quarter, more than any single change, predicts a rise in intent to leave. 6. Engineers who keep a contribution log while being moved across projects produce more complete promotion packets than peers who do not. ## 📊 Methodology - **H1.** Survey 15 or more teams quarterly on a validated autonomy-and-clarity scale, and code each priority change in the team's channel for the three message parts. Regress the survey score on the number of parts present, with controls for team size, tenure, and change magnitude. - **H2.** Run a within-subject experiment. Each participant works two coding tasks, is interrupted at a set point, and either writes a stopping note and plan or does not. Measure time to reach the prior state on resumption, counterbalanced across order. - **H3.** Instrument resume time across two switch types in the same participants: PR to PR in one repository, and project to project. Report medians and the within-person difference, not group means. - **H4.** Measure psychological safety with a validated scale and code recorded decision meetings for dissent before the decision and visible effort after it. Split teams at pre-registered safety levels and compare outcomes. - **H5.** Use a longitudinal panel with monthly counts of reprioritizations and a quarterly intent-to-leave item. Fit a lagged model and test for a threshold effect. - **H6.** Randomize volunteers who are moved across projects to a log-keeping practice or a control, then have blinded reviewers score packet completeness against a rubric. - **Controls.** Pre-register thresholds, report effect sizes with intervals, and record the setting, since a hosted-versus-in-office difference would confound the safety measure. ## ❓ Questions - What is the listener's role, and does the team have a stated North Star? The episode answers a general case, and the answer changes for a manager versus a contributor. - Which source does the stress and autonomy finding come from, given the captions say Steve Meyer and no description link carries that name? - What data supports the claim that a specific plan for an unfinished task stops intrusive thoughts, and does it hold for software work lasting days? - Is the origin of disagree and commit Amazon, Intel, or both, and which version do the hosts use? - What is the minimum level of psychological safety at which disagree and commit works, and how would a contributor measure it? - When a contributor cannot leave, what does the episode recommend beyond writing things down? It states only the leave option. - How should the advice to keep distance from assigned work (00:15:53) be reconciled with the finding that canceled work is a real loss (00:19:31)? - Does an AI-assisted morning routine (00:13:44) reduce attention residue, or does it only reduce the cost of re-finding context? ## 🔮 Future research - **Whiplash measurement.** A validated instrument that separates healthy change from whiplash by communication quality, tested across team sizes and remote versus office settings. - **Stopping-note effect in software.** Experiments with developers on real repositories, measuring resume time and defect rate, not lab tasks. - **Switching cost by scope.** Resume cost for task, project, and domain switches, including whether the host's two-task alternation helps some people and not others. - **Disagree and commit under low safety.** Observational work on what happens when teams adopt the principle without the safety condition. - **Contribution records and career outcomes.** Whether a log of unshipped work changes promotion decisions or only helps the engineer feel better. - **AI-assisted resumption.** Whether automations that summarize prior work lower context-switching cost or add review overhead. ## 💡 Implications - **Practice.** The stopping note, the handoff document, and the contribution log are low-cost habits an engineer controls even when the priority does not. The hosts present them as practices; the supporting studies are only linked, not shown. - **Policy.** Teams can adopt a change message standard: what changed, why, and what it means by role. This follows the hosts' framing of the difference between change and whiplash. - **Security.** No direct implication from this source. - **Education.** The episode packages attention residue, plan-making, autonomy and stress, and disagree and commit as a short tour of workplace psychology. Instructors should have learners check the sources before repeating the claims. - **Funding.** Funded or sponsored work that is canceled imposes a real loss on the recipient, per the NASA account (00:19:31). Funders can state reasons and give notice. - **Career.** The advice to leave when nothing in your control changes (00:23:55) depends on labor-market conditions the hosts do not discuss. ## 🧠 Learning styles assessment - **Reading level estimate.** Flesch Reading Ease about 69 and Flesch-Kincaid grade about 8.7, computed with a syllable-counting script on the transcript. Sentence boundaries come from caption punctuation, so treat both numbers as approximate. Spoken, conversational English, with terms like attention residue and psychological safety defined in passing. #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: the description lists 14 source links, and a summary paragraph states the arc of the episode. Whether the video carries on-screen visuals cannot be determined from the transcript. - Improve: add a diagram of the change-versus-whiplash message (what changed, why, what it means for you) and a one-slide stopping-note template. #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: the format is conversational audio with turn-taking, and examples are told as stories (the reorg story, the memo game). - Improve: a 2-minute recap at the end listing the five practices would help listeners who cannot review the description. #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: terms are defined as they appear: whiplash, attention residue, disagree and commit, North Star. - Improve: a glossary in the description. The captions garble several terms and names, so a text glossary corrects them. #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: the stopping note and the two-task alternation are doable actions. - Improve: a worked example of a stopping note, with a sample next-step plan, would turn the advice into a task. #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: the causal chain from lack of control to stress is stated (00:17:20), and the condition on disagree and commit is explicit (00:20:59). - Improve: sources with sample sizes and effect sizes for each cited finding. The transcript supplies none. #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: two hosts, with disagreement and shared stories, and an invitation to submit situations on the website. - Improve: a discussion prompt for teams, such as which of your last three changes carried the what, why, and what it means parts. #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: the questions at 00:21:43 prompt reflection (which of these rings true for you). - Improve: a self-check list for deciding whether to stay or go, with what is in your control as the first item. #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: touch grass (00:16:36) is the only nature reference, used as an idiom. - Improve: tie to rhythms of attention (rest, walks) and to the cycle of project seasons, which the host's walk suggestion (00:13:02) gestures at. ## 📊 Accessibility assessment Judged on the video as published, from the transcript, metadata, and description. Visual presentation is not assessable here. #### Screen reader semantics - Present: the description has a summary paragraph and a list of source links with titles and URLs, which a screen reader can navigate. - Improve: the metadata lists no chapters (the chapters field is empty). Chapters would give a navigable outline. WCAG 2.2 AA 2.4.6 (Headings and Labels) is the nearest criterion for section labels. #### Keyboard navigation - Present: platform player controls; not under the creator's control. - Improve: chapter markers would make keyboard seeking meaningful, tied to 2.1.1 only through the platform. #### Contrast and readability - Present: not assessable from a transcript. - Improve: if on-screen text or lower-thirds exist, check 1.4.3 (Contrast Minimum). #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: the platform resizes captions separately. - Improve: any burned-in text will not resize, which touches 1.4.4 (Resize Text) and 1.4.10 (Reflow). The transcript cannot show whether any exists. #### Media and captions - Present: auto-captions exist, with `[music]` and `[laughter]` sound tags, and the description is detailed. - Improve: captions have no speaker names, only turn markers, and they garble proper nouns: Erika appears as Erica, Bluesky as Blue Sky, and the cited researcher as Steve Meyer, which does not match any name in the description. They also record disfluencies such as a duplicated a (a an) and a clipped respecta-. WCAG 1.2.2 (Captions, Prerecorded) requires captions that convey the speech and speaker identity, so the auto-captions fall short in substance. If the video has on-screen content, 1.2.5 (Audio Description, Prerecorded) applies. #### Forms and interactions - Present: listener submissions go through a form on the website, mentioned at 00:00:43. The form is not part of this source. - Improve: link the form in the description. The form's own labels and errors fall under 3.3.2 (Labels or Instructions) and 3.3.1 (Error Identification), which this source cannot assess. #### Standards reference - Gaps against WCAG 2.2 AA: **1.2.2** (caption accuracy and speaker identification), **1.2.5** (if visual content exists), **2.4.6** (no chapters or section labels), and **1.4.4 / 1.4.10** (only if burned-in text exists). Corrected captions and chapter markers are the two highest-return fixes. ## 🌍 DEIB assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: references include GitHub, Amazon, Intel, NASA, and US developer surveys. Corporate English idioms are explained by the game. - Improve: all examples are US tech employers. A mention of other labor markets would test the advice to leave, since leaving carries different costs by country, visa status, and benefits arrangement. #### Inclusive language - Present: the hosts use second person and speak about the audience as colleagues. No slurs or exclusionary terms appear. - Improve: crazy appears as a self-deprecating aside at 00:12:19 and pawn names a feeling, not a person. The phrase touch grass at 00:16:36 is an idiom that may confuse readers of English as a second language. At 00:13:02 a garbled phrase near a point about brains reads as evolutionary not typical in the captions. It is unclear what word the speaker used, so the source does not establish the meaning. #### Neurodiversity support - Present: strong chunking by topic, a consistent structure of question, framing, and response, and a mention that people's brains differ in how they handle switching. One host says the two-task pattern is how their brain works, which models naming your own working style. - Improve: there are no chapter markers, the captions lack speaker labels (harder to follow turn-taking), and the general claim that the brain needs one thing at a time (00:11:38) is stated before the exception at 00:12:19. The source does not discuss ADHD, autism, or other conditions by name. #### Representation - Present: two hosts alternate asking and answering, and both share personal experience. The listener is anonymous. - Improve: no third-party voice appears, and the cited researchers are quoted secondhand. The listener's role, level, and location are unknown, so the advice cannot be matched to a contributor versus a manager. #### Psychological safety - Present: the episode names psychological safety as the condition for feedback (00:07:16) and for disagree and commit (00:20:59), and treats canceled work as a real loss (00:19:31). - Improve: the advice to leave when nothing else works is stated without a safety net or acknowledgment that leaving is not available to everyone. Stress and grief appear without a pointer to support resources. No content warning is needed, since the story told is a reorg and not a harm. ## ✅ Logical validity #### Strong reasoning - **Conditional claim with a stated precondition, 00:20:59.** Disagree and commit works when there is psychological safety, and without it is compliance. The claim states its own boundary, which makes it testable. - **Mechanism to remedy, 00:09:25 to 00:10:53.** Attention stays on an unfinished task, so a clean stopping point and a written next-step plan should reduce the pull. The remedy follows from the stated mechanism. - **Message structure, 00:03:38 and 00:05:48.** Change is communicated as what changed, why, and what it means for you, and the last part varies by audience. The reasoning is specific and usable. - **Balancing view, 00:07:59.** Not every change is a leadership failure, and contributors also need to absorb change. This guards against reading all reprioritization as dysfunction. - **Self-limiting remark, 00:12:19 to 00:13:02.** One host reports that the two-task pattern works for them and offers a guess, introduced with I almost wonder, about walks. These are marked as personal or speculative, not as general facts. #### Fallacies - **Single-cause attribution, 00:01:26.** Quote: "it's just a sign of uh when different departments aren't communicating well with one another." The sentence names one cause for a Friday reversal. The same conversation then lists legitimate causes (00:01:26 to 00:04:22). Fix: present communication failure as one common cause among several, and name how to tell them apart. - **Hasty generalization from a personal experience, 00:21:43 to 00:23:55.** The reorg story supports the advice to look for a new situation. One case, one employer. Fix: state it as one speaker's experience and list the conditions under which leaving is reasonable. - **Unnamed sources, 00:10:11.** Quote: "some researchers found that making a specific plan for an unfinished task helps stop the intrusive thoughts." No names or conditions are given. The description's Masicampo and Baumeister link is a possible match, which the source does not confirm. Fix: name the study in the episode. - **Overgeneralization about brains, 00:11:38.** Quote: "Your brain kind of needs to work on one thing at a time." The next speaker reports working well with two tasks, so the universal claim does not hold for everyone. Fix: state it as the general tendency with individual variation. - **Anecdote used as evidence, 00:17:20 to 00:18:04.** The finding is described as at least one example, with heart health and drinking patterns, and no method. The executive versus staff comparison may be confounded by selection and income. Fix: give the study, sample, and what was controlled. - **Contradictory origin claim, 00:20:13.** The principle is said to come from Amazon and to be often credited to Andy Grove at Intel. The two attributions are presented in one breath without reconciling them. Fix: check the provenance and state one. - **Unresolved tension, 00:15:53 and 00:19:31.** One host advises keeping a degree of separation from the work and not seeking identity in it. Later the NASA example describes canceled work as a grieving process. The episode does not reconcile detachment advice with the real loss it describes. Fix: say that detachment lowers the cost of change and does not remove the grief. #### Tone of voice - Warm, conversational, and candid, with contractions and second person. Hedges mark the speculative parts (I almost wonder, I'm sure). Humor appears in the memo game, where the answers are jokes. The tone is supportive and non-accusatory toward leaders, and acknowledges that leadership sometimes makes bad decisions and sometimes has valid reasons. The research segments shift to a more didactic register, with less hedging than the personal parts, even though they carry the weakest sourcing in the transcript. ## 🛡️ DARVO analysis Not applicable to this source. DARVO describes a response pattern to an accusation, and this is an advice segment with no accuser and no accused. The hosts discuss leadership behavior in general terms and name no individual or company as having wronged anyone. For completeness across the three prongs: - **Deny:** nothing is denied. The hosts acknowledge that leadership makes bad decisions and that some changes are valid. - **Attack:** no one's credibility is attacked. The memo game mocks corporate phrasing as a genre, not a named person. - **Reverse victim and offender:** no such move appears. The closest thing is the framing that not every change is a leadership failure (00:07:59), which asks contributors to weigh the other side and does not recast leadership as the victim. ## 🎯 Conclusion The durable content is procedural. When priorities change, the hosts say to get to a clean stopping point and write a next-step plan, to write documents so someone else can continue, to keep a record of what you did and learned, and to voice disagreement before a decision and commit after it. The condition they attach to the last is psychological safety, and when it is missing, they say to look elsewhere. The causal and research claims are weaker as presented. The cited findings arrive from memory without sample sizes or methods, one source name does not match the description, and the origin of disagree and commit is stated two ways. The detachment advice and the grief finding sit side by side without reconciliation. **Next steps for readers:** write a stopping note before your next switch and time how long it takes to resume. Start a contribution log this week. When your next priority change lands, ask for the reason and the effect on your role in writing. Before quoting any finding from the episode, open the linked source and confirm it says what the hosts say it does. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — Honest Answers: When Priorities Change > Density: 2–5 Literature atoms (H3 pad), 0–3 Permanent candidates (H4 pad). > Emitted: 4 Literature, 2 Permanent. Resonance filter applied: the memo game and the > two-task anecdote were dropped as opinion or personal style without a transferable claim. > > Konik claim-header rules: present tense, declarative, ≤10 words, searchable, unique. > > Atomicity: one declarative sentence per atom. "and"/"also" → split. > > Tag pool: #bmf · #addendum · #xref · #articleseed · #storystem · #share · #aphorisms ### 📚 Literature Split Pad #### [H1] Communication separates change from whiplash > [!quote] [00:03:38] > whiplash comes across more like surprise, your work doesn't matter, and we forgot to tell you. **Context & use**: - 00:03:38, the host contrasting whiplash with change communicated as what changed, why, and what it means for you. - The framing is attributed to organizational psychologists but unsourced in the transcript. Use as a working definition and cite the description link before relying on it. **Tags**: #xref #articleseed <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### [H2] Switching tasks leaves attention on unfinished work > [!quote] [00:09:25] > when you switch from task to task, part of your attention is still stuck on that first thing. **Context & use**: - 00:09:25, the attention residue explanation, credited in the transcript to Sophie Leroy. - The description links two Leroy pages. Confirm the wording against them before quoting the research. **Tags**: #xref <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### [H3] A written next-step plan quiets unfinished tasks > [!quote] [00:10:11] > making a specific plan for an unfinished task helps stop the intrusive thoughts, even if you're not doing it. **Context & use**: - 00:10:11, the remedy for attention residue. The researchers are not named in the transcript. - Testable with a resume-time experiment, which makes it a good candidate for a small personal trial. **Tags**: #xref #share <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### [H4] Disagree and commit needs psychological safety > [!quote] [00:20:59] > it only works when there is psychological safety. **Context & use**: - 00:20:59, the stated precondition for the practice. Without it, the host calls the result compliance with a nicer name. - The origin of the principle is stated two ways at 00:20:13, so keep the precondition and leave the provenance open. **Tags**: #xref #aphorisms <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### 🧠 Atomic Split Pad #### [P1] Write the stopping note before the switch **Claim** (one sentence, Courtney's voice): Before leaving unfinished work, write a clean stopping point and a specific next-step plan, so the task is easy to resume and stops pulling at your attention. **Evidence pointer**: [[#H2]] · [[#H3]] **Scope & conditions**: Holds for work you expect to resume or hand off. The supporting research is cited from memory in the episode with no sample or method, so treat the effect size as unknown and test it on your own work. Does not address switches forced inside a single day with no time to write. **Links**: - [[Attention residue]] — because extends - [[Handoff documentation]] — because applies-in team handoffs and personal leave - [[Context switching cost]] — because contrasts on scope: task versus project switches <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### [P2] Disagreement before a decision needs safety to count **Claim** (one sentence, Courtney's voice): Disagree and commit works only where people can dissent without penalty, and elsewhere it is compliance with a nicer name. **Evidence pointer**: [[#H4]] **Scope & conditions**: Applies to decisions with a defined decision maker and a window before the decision. Does not cover decisions made without notice, where the practice has no window to operate in. Origin and exact formulation of the principle are unresolved in the source. **Links**: - [[Psychological safety]] — because extends - [[Priority change communication]] — because applies-in how a change reaches contributors - [[Leaving a team or role]] — because contrasts on options when safety is absent <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - [F1] Open each description link and confirm what it says before citing the attention residue, plan-making, autonomy, and NASA claims — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2KZtlFNsI #fleeting #inbox - [F2] Resolve the researcher the captions call Steve Meyer at 00:17:20 against the David Rock, Bordia, and Glavin and Schieman links #fleeting #inbox - [F3] Open question: how does detachment from assigned work (00:15:53) coexist with canceled work as a real loss (00:19:31)? #fleeting #inbox - [F4] Article seed: a three-part change note template (what changed, why, what it means by role) for docs and DevRel priority shifts #fleeting #inbox #articleseed - [F5] Check the origin of disagree and commit, since the episode gives Amazon and Intel in one sentence at 00:20:13 #fleeting #inbox ### → Things 3 (max 2 actions) - [ ] Open the description links and verify the attention residue, plan-making, autonomy, and NASA claims before citing them — research, 20 min #things - [ ] Write a stopping-note template with a next-step plan and trial it on the next task switch — work habits #things <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** [[Full Document Contents/Articles/Honest Answers When Priorities Change.md|Honest Answers: When Priorities Change by Overcommitted]] ## Highlights - [00:02:53] to the metrics lagging behind, or the sort of like shiny new object syndrome, where an executive or a leader goes to a conference or an offsite and comes back um with a new idea that they want implemented now. The difference between change and whiplash can sometimes come down to communication. So, some of those sort of like systemic issues, such as like having no North Star, do take some forethought, but the forethought and the intention is really what organizational psychologists suggest as being like the real difference between how these experiences are felt by the workers, where change is communicated more like this is what has [00:03:38] changed, this is why, here's what it means for you, and then whiplash comes across more like surprise, your work doesn't matter, and we forgot to tell you. So, I guess have you felt both of those experiences and what made the difference for you between feeling some sort of logical change and this whiplash experience? >> Yeah, definitely. I mean, I think it's really communication. When communication is like top-down, things tend to feel more random or tend to feel like you're caught off guard by changes in priorities. Sometimes Sometimes leadership makes bad decisions. Sometimes they try to catch it early or like if there's a pivot in the market. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m5d777cycvhynvqaa1869rcc)) - Note: [H1] Communication separates change from whiplash - Tags: atom/literature/h1 - [00:08:41] you've done towards that priority just because that can harm career progression or like making sure you get to the next level because you might not have like concrete things that you've output if you're constantly being moved around. So, definitely collect things that you have been doing even if it's not being able to work on something in completion. >> That's a great segue to our next topic, which is how you do keep things in motion for you personally and then also for whatever team organization you're working on when there are these shifts. So, there are some considerations from researchers to take into your toolbox. One is this idea of attention residue. This is coined by a researcher named [00:09:25] Sophie Leroy, and the idea is when you switch from task to task, part of your attention is still stuck on that first thing. Um, and it's the worst when that thing is unfinished. So, when you're interrupted or when you expect that you're going to get back to it, you still have that feeling of part of your mind, part of your brain is still on that first task. So, what you mentioned about leaving notes, leaving a good stopping point, is sort of the fix to that. So, recognizing when you get this change that "Okay, I am going to have to put that thing down. Let me get it to a state where in the future, if I can pick it back up, I can do that easily." Helps ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m5d779ym48kwpgaj1gpk8w7y)) - Note: [H2] Switching tasks leaves attention on unfinished work - Tags: atom/literature/h2 - [00:10:11] get rid of that residue, and it helps you really cleanly switch, knowing that there's kind of that nice stopping point. And to your point, the other benefit is be able to look back and say, "Look, this is a like a meaningful chunk of work, and and here's a little cap on it." Also, um, some researchers found that making a specific plan for an unfinished task helps stop the intrusive thoughts, even if you're not doing it. So, this is kind of that like take the 5 minutes at the end of whatever you're doing to sort of summarize it, recap it, make a plan for what's next. You're not actually doing it, you're not taking time to do the work, but having that [00:10:53] plan really helps you set it down cleanly. And recognizing the cost is bigger when you switch between larger problem areas. I have found this personally that I'm switching tasks a lot in a day now, between one thing and another. I'm like trying to manage multiple things in my brain at once, but it is manageable on a smaller scale, sort of within a problem area. But, bigger switches cost more mentally. Like, going from one PR to a different one within a project is going to be easier for my brain than going from one project to a different one and completely having to change that area. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m5d77cbpqqwe8p0hs7mzbwp1)) - Note: [H3] A written next-step plan quiets unfinished tasks - Tags: atom/literature/h3 - [00:20:13] grieving process. So, what do we do if we can't necessarily force autonomy in whatever organization, but something that we all have the opportunity to do is something called disagree and commit. So, this comes from Amazon, often credited to Andy Grove from Intel um and the idea is that you push back respecta- respectfully, and then you commit once a decision is made. So, there's two components. The first part is to disagree, and this happens before the decision, if that's possible. Speak up honestly, share concerns, present data, argue your position, if you have reservations, voice them, and basically the goal in this stuff is to [00:20:59] stress test ideas and um surface blind spots. But then, after you've done that, then the step is to commit. So, even if you don't agree with everything, you execute wholeheartedly, don't hold on to this passive resistance, don't say I told you so if things go wrong, and like you said, give your energy, your creativity to this this path ahead. And the catch here is that it only works when there is psychological safety. So, if you keep getting overruled when you disagree or you're never given the opportunity to disagree, um it's just compliance with a nicer name. So, there are some prerequisites for that system to work. But, that is ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m5d77ev3yerfqg0d3draepka)) - Note: [H4] Disagree and commit needs psychological safety - Tags: atom/literature/h3