Observe the conversation below:
“When I say that Jack is the Module Lead and anything that goes right or wrong in the module, Jack is responsible, I’d like to know how you acknowledge it, Jack?”
Jack replied: “It means that I’m the Module Lead and anything that I code or test is my responsibility. For the items I couldn’t have a look, the person who has written the code, is responsible.”
“Vikram?” I asked Jack’s peer.
“It means that Jack should do most of the coding and testing within the module.”
“Peter?” Finally, I asked Jack’s reporting manager.
“It means that we should tell Jack about anything that happens inside that module. After all he is the module lead. ”
I hear what you guys say. Now, let me ask you this: How should I communicate if I mean that Jack owns the module. That’s why he’s the lead. He owns good and bad things that happen inside the module. If it succeeds, all credit goes to him and if it fails, he bears all the consequences of the failure. How?
“You might say that Jack is the Module lead and anything that goes right or wrong in the module, Jack is responsible.” said Peter and Jack together.
“I hear what you say…” I said.
People respond to their own images of the past rather than the facts represented by the words. Recognize that “Not being specific” is a bigger problem than having mere skills to write the software code.
Reward whom who are able to be specific and reprimand who are not.
