The Politics of Design

Are you confident in your architecture?   Does that confidence appear as arrogance to your co-workers?  Is it arrogance?  How do you know?

There is a certain degree of confidence that must come with your job.  In architecture, you're expected to provide some guidance.  Architects are guides.  If you were following a guide through the rain-forests of the Amazon, and he appeared to be mixed-up, second-guessing himself or otherwise unsure, would you still follow him?  Or, would you ask for a refund from the eco-tourism people?

Commitment is a part of it.  There is a possession shift when you are committed.  You start speaking in terms of "my project" instead of "the project" or "your project".  As you internalize an effort, and make it part of yourself, your posture changes and language you use becomes more directing and less about weighing options.  When your guide believes that his well-being is connected to which fork you choose in the trail, he'll be more adamant about the decision.

There are times when you are unsure.  During the early phases of a project, you have some basic signposts.  You have some ideas and concepts strung together.  You think they will play out, but there are doubts.  Still, if you want to predict the future, you want to provide strong, clear direction.  Even if your guide doesn't know the end destination, he still knows that it is better to follow animal trails and stick close to rivers.  So, experience plays a role.

But, is it arrogance?

It is not arrogance if you are still listening.  As conflict arises, you cannot take a "my way or the highway" approach.  Alvo talked a lot about this in the recent "Playing Devil's Advocate" post.  There is no perfect plan, and being open to refinements and changes in approach is an absolute requirement.  The natural evolution of your direction comes from the whole group and ultimately adds to your base of experience in the future.  If this never happened, our group of explorers would never venture into undiscovered country.

It is not arrogance if you are objectively supporting your positions.  Taking the time to develop and communicate the value propositions that come along with your direction is important.  Without this, your team will be quick to dismiss the guidance as hubris and ego.  Discuss your positions openly and include both the positives and the negatives so that everyone understands your view and the reasons you want to pursue a particular path.  No one should be expected to blindly follow a guide, no matter how many times he's been in-country.

So, in the end, a carefully considered and communicated direction, based in experience and commitment, and open to improvements is architecture -- not arrogance.