Case kit 8: the architecture fight that stopped the team

Leans: IC track · Laws in tension: Connection, Buy-In, disagree and commit · Camps: call the decision now vs negotiate interests first

Read the full case text from `case-bank.md`, case 8, out loud at the case slot (about 5 minutes).

To run this case: replace the four case slides in `slides/week-5-case-clinic.md` (the brief, the laws in tension, the both-tracks bridge, and the prepare-your-camp activity) with the slide block below, re-render the deck, and rename the case frame on the activity board with the labels below. The decision sheet in `worksheets.md` works unchanged for every case.

Slide block (Marp)

The slides for this case, on brand and ready to present. Click the deck, then use the arrow keys. Open full screen.

## Case: the architecture fight that stopped the team
    Two senior engineers, three weeks, 140 RFC comments, and four engineers waiting to write code.
    
    Between them sits a lead who is three months into his first lead role, and younger than both.
    
    You will now hear the full case, one page, 5 minutes. Listen for what has already been tried.
    
    ---
    
    ## Case: the laws in tension
    - Buy-In: both RFCs argue positions; neither names the real interests behind them
    - Connection: the fight went public and personal; whoever loses will feel run over
    - Disagree and commit: the tool that ends it, if the commitment is real
    
    The tool is known. The question is when to use it.
    
    ---
    
    ## One deadlock, both tracks
    Whether you lead a team of reports or lead technical direction without reports, you will stand between two people who are both right.
    
    ICs meet this as the RFC war. EMs meet it as two strong reports deadlocked.
    
    The tool is the same on both tracks: interests before positions, then disagree and commit.
    
    ---
    
    <!-- _class: activity -->
    ## Activity: prepare your camp
    Assigned camps, 10 minutes. One camp argues: call the decision now, invoke disagree and commit, unblock four engineers today. The other argues: one more week, negotiate interests one on one first, then decide.
    
    Build your opening and your best evidence from the case text.
    
    Challenge: what is the other camp's strongest attack on you?

Board frame labels

• Frame title: Case: the architecture fight that stopped the team
• Camp A zone: Decide-now camp. Sub: call it today, invoke disagree and commit, unblock the team. Post your opening and your best evidence, one sticky each.
• Camp B zone: Interests-first camp. Sub: one more week: negotiate interests one on one, then decide. Post your opening and your best evidence, one sticky each.
• Decision zone question: Does your move create commitment, or only a decision?

Facilitator notes

What has already been tried: 140 comments, four meetings, two RFCs growing appendixes aimed at each other, one public tone slip with an apology, and a team member privately begging for any decision.

Cross-examination questions:

• Decide-now camp: you call it for Rana. Adham, who carried the pager for the last premature split, is assigned to build the thing he warned against. Describe his commit messages in month two.
• Decide-now camp: on what basis do you decide? You are three months in and both of them know the domain better than you. Name your criteria out loud.
• Interests-first camp: the promotion motive and the pager scars are guesses in the case, not facts. What if you dig for a week and find nothing but conviction?
• Interests-first camp: four engineers idle for another week, watching. What do you tell them on Monday, exactly?

Debrief: expect the room to discover that the camps are not really "fast vs slow" but "decision first vs commitment first." Close with the case's own line: commitment ordered is not commitment, and a decision nobody follows is not a decision either.

← Case bank Facilitator guide