Advocating vs Arguing: How to Drive Collaboration and Success in Software Development

In the world of software development, disagreements are inevitable. Whether it’s about the tools to use, the architecture to build, or the best approach to solving a problem, developers often find themselves at odds with one another. The key to overcoming these conflicts lies in understanding the difference between advocating for the right solution and falling into the trap of arguing. This podcast episode explores the subtle but critical distinction between advocating vs arguing and how mastering this difference can help developers foster a collaborative, productive environment.

Advocating vs Arguing: What’s the Difference?

At the heart of the advocating vs arguing debate is intent. Advocacy is about championing a solution that will lead to the best outcome for the project and, ultimately, the customer. It’s rooted in objective reasoning, where you present facts, data, and insights to support your viewpoint. Advocacy is a healthy part of team collaboration—it invites open dialogue and allows others to consider new ideas.

Arguing, on the other hand, is often emotional and personal. It occurs when someone becomes attached to their solution, defending it not because it’s the best option for the team or the customer but because they’ve invested time and effort in it. When developers argue, they may lose sight of the project’s goals and focus more on proving their ideas superior. This can lead to friction, slow down progress, and create a toxic work environment.

Advocating: Keeping the Focus on the Customer

Rob highlights the importance of keeping the end-user or customer at the forefront of any discussion. When developers advocate for a solution, it should always be about what’s best for the project and, by extension, the customer. Advocacy comes from a place of collaboration, where team members work together to achieve shared goals.

For instance, let’s say a team of React developers is considering whether to switch to Angular for a new project. Advocacy would involve presenting the pros and cons of both frameworks, considering the customer’s needs, and discussing the team’s ability to execute the transition effectively. The focus remains on how this decision will impact the final product and its value to the customer.

In contrast, arguing might look like one developer aggressively defending React simply because they are more comfortable with it, disregarding whether it genuinely serves the project’s goals. When personal biases and emotional attachments take over, it becomes harder to evaluate what’s best for the team and customer objectively.

Arguing: When Personal Attachments Take Over

One of the most common reasons developers argue is their emotional attachment to their work. As the Michael and Rob explains, developers are not just problem-solvers but creators. They invest time and energy into crafting solutions, and it’s easy to become personally attached to the code they write or the approach they advocate for. However, when this attachment crosses the line into stubbornness, it leads to arguing rather than advocating.

The first step in avoiding the trap of arguing is self-awareness. Developers should ask themselves: Am I defending this solution because it’s truly the best option or because it’s the one I’m most familiar with? Is my attachment to this idea clouding my judgment? By checking personal biases at the door and focusing on the project’s goals, developers can move from arguing to advocating in a productive way.

Advocating vs Arguing: The Importance of Compromise

A key point in the advocating vs arguing discussion is the ability to find common ground. In software development, there are rare cases where one solution is perfect, and all others are completely wrong. More often, the best solution is a compromise incorporating multiple ideas' strengths.

When developers argue, they push for absolu