> I have seen these behaviors only when I work with toxic engineers.
I think it is pretty clear that the need to have all team members commit to projects after the design review is to prevent backstabbers to stab other team members in the back with sudden epiphanies and claims they would never make such a mistake.
You only need seat belts and airbags if you crash your card too.
I can commit to your design, but if I think it is bad design damm sure I should be allowed to call it bad design. Both before and after the fact. If you create a system where my prior disagreement will be punished, I may choose not to say it prior, but that does not mean I can not speak about it later.
If I find out the design is bad in the middle of implementing it or after I see how to nice sounding words were implemented in practice, again, I should have right to say so.
All of these rules are just attempts to make yourself look better by preventing criticism.
What if I really disagree with the design and the way we're going about the project and think it will fail. But I have been overruled, and have requested to be moved to another project?
Which is happening atm in a project I'm in right now. They're not letting me move, I'm trying to just do the work but there's just no way I can be at my most productive in situations like this.
> What if I really disagree with the design and the way we're going about the project and think it will fail.
You just need to grow a spine and express your concerns.
Alternatively, if growing a spine is not an option, you forego any entitlement to point fingers the moment you avoid your responsibility of voicing concerns in a timely manner.
The spineless, sociopath route of not voicing any concerns and proceeding to throw everyone around you under the bus by feigning you knew better is something that's the worst of all options.
No. In a teams and companies where it is safe to disagree, people disagree openly. If they are not, it is because management or you are punishing dissent. If that is the case, the solution is to stop punishing that dissent.
Second, you can not use theoretical option of formal review as a way to avoid responsibility. Just because you sent your 150 long pages pdf to people to read and they actually read it in allocated 2 hours they could afford for it and did not seen issues does not mean you dont have responsibility.
This is case of you wanting reward if it goes well, but also wanting to hide behind review if it goes bad.
