Some days, progress doesn’t slow because code is hard.
It slows because decisions refuse to settle.
By Day 7, the architecture had already been discussed, aligned, and agreed upon—with the architect, the lead, and other developers. Implementation was well underway. Then the questions resurfaced.
Why BigQuery and not Postgres or Mongo?
Why Elasticsearch at all?
These weren’t new concerns. They were re-openings. And late-stage reversals are uniquely damaging: they erase visible progress while quietly exhausting the people doing the work.
A long meeting followed—11:30 AM to 4:30 PM. Feature development was paused in the name of “platform stability” due to expected traffic growth. The discussion circled around alerts and monitoring, but without concrete scope, owners, or next steps.
The contradiction landed immediately: right after deciding to halt features, the team agreed to continue feature work for one more day.
Decision paralysis, wrapped in serious language.
I stayed present. I didn’t argue in loops. I observed where energy was being lost and where ownership might emerge—alerts and monitoring quietly surfaced as a potential responsibility area.
The key realization came later:
Lack of output wasn’t a performance issue.
It was a decision-making issue.
One Learning for the Future
In environments like this, progress must be measured by clarity created, not just code shipped.
Going forward:
- Push for time-boxed decisions
- Capture agreements explicitly to prevent retroactive questioning
- Conserve energy when discussions generate more noise than direction
When decisions keep shifting, execution gets mistaken for inertia.
Top comments (0)