Why it's important to object, compromise, and a small example at Frappe
There was some debate/banter around a topic between two colleagues at Frappe in July. One of them decided to write about it.
Me: I propose this much EPS for longer blogs.
Other person: Thatâs too much.
Me: Not really, I don't think you get it.
Other person: But this and that and that and this.
Me: rolls eyes
Me: a week later it probably is too much.
This was a rough representation of a conversation that went down internally at frappe over July. While I havenât attached the conversation because it wonât add much value, here are my thoughts and learnings from it.
Hierarchy, decision making, and freedom
I have mixed feelings about hierarchy. I see it necessary to tame the chaos that comes without it. But the order that comes with it is only as good as the person making those decisions. The word manager has some negative connotations surrounding it. Perhaps it comes from how the role is perceived. Managers have targets and sometimes in trying to meet those targets, they can be aggressive, emotional, and micromangerial control freaks. A good manager is a great leader, not a scrum expert.
Many companies are also to blame with the vertically higher skilled employees being promoted to manager. Only being exceptional at their job doesnât make someone a great manager.
You see, people are terrible with freedom, once they have it, they donât know what to do with it. This inherently comes with human nature where people are bad at making decisions. Think about it, in the prehistoric era all that homo sapiens had to do was wake up, hunt, fuck, eat, or get eaten by a larger animal. There was no complex decision making. Most of the day could pretty much be summed up inâI hungry, I hunt. I tired, I sleep.
Come 21st century and the evolutionary traits remain with most of us.
A small spat at Frappe
Enough with the psy and history class, letâs come back to the topic. Well, Frappe is a smaller company that runs without hierarchy. This means that people donât give orders, they make requests, proposals, and objections. Personally, Iâd prefer a more organized approach but seeing how most people arenât ready to be a true leader in the highest sense of the word, this works today.
We use discourse to engage in discussions, make proposals, share thoughts, create polls, and other things. Important bits of communication get lost on IM and a forum also gives a more accountable atmosphere where people have to be weary of what they write. It makes a better platform for productive conversations than impulsive replies.
The energy points squabble
Anyway, at Frappe we use this thing called energy points to roughly record how much work has been done by an individual. Each activity has a certain number of points associated with it. Itâs not an exact science, works well for smaller redundant tasks but is crude for larger abstract tasks.
For some context, the points threshold to reach for every employee is 2,000/month. An issue resolution gets 20, a call 30, a help article 60, and so on.
So, recently, I thought of writing larger or long form content for the ERPNext blog. Naturally, longer content takes more time and effort so I proposed more points for them. After a couple of days, a colleague objected, saying itâs not warranted. We had a lengthy discussion and finally reached a conclusion. In a regular hierarchical structure, this person wouldâve had nothing to do with the work I do and what I said wouldâve been final (if I didnât have a superior).
Making a choice
There were two things I couldâve done here.
- Fight for the proposed points to get more easily and be relieved from thinking about reaching the minimum threshold
- Drop it and come to a compromise because Iâd rather be writing blogs and copies than long ass replies
Needless to say, I chose the 2nd approach. Not only to save time but also because it was the right thing to do. After thinking about the ordeal for a couple days, I realized what this developer was saying made sense after all. Itâs not an apples to apples comparison between developer, consultant, and writing work. But it didnât matter enough to go into micro depths and participate in longer arguments.
Also, Iâd rather be left alone and do my job because I really like it and donât see the need for any rigid measures to tell me how much work Iâve done or get a pseudo sense of achievement. Having said that, I understand how this can be dubbed as a necessity to maintain some accountability.
Why object?
Itâs not every day that you get to object something. A lot of events happen out of sight where you donât even know itâs going to happen until it has. But for the things that are visible, itâs worthwhile to raise your voice and object whatâs wrong. Even if itâs not perceived wrong on a broader level, itâs good to voice your opinions now than later. This way, you as an individual will not be overcome with resentment later.
I understand that not everyone is brave enough, confident enough, or adept enough in their communication to do this. A good way to do this is ask yourself some questions. âDoes this change upset me? What do I not like about this? Do I fear this change? Is it unfair on a broader level?â Then write down your answers and make them readable. This way, you have a structured response to type or recite when the time comes.
Why compromise?
Itâs a struggle when what you want is different from what others want or think is fair. Perceptions can be wildly different and without walking a mile in the other personâs shoes you really donât know their struggles. That is, unless, you have exceptional emotional intelligence. I donât, Iâm learning.
Well done compromises are a win-win. When thereâs conflict of interest, find a balance, a midway that everyone is comfortable walking. Enforcing authority or aggression is a short term fix and grows old quick. Compromising to some extent saves time, reduces the bitterness of conflict, and is sustainable in the long run.
Conclusion
Even though the situation itself wasnât very important, speaking on a broader level, the ensuing discussion was something that made me think and learn. Or maybe it was just some good banter. The quality of the objection/arguements should be given more merit than the person making the points. In this situation, my revised proposal for 'energy points' was taken as a fairer assessment and everyone could agree to it.
Something I took from this and thought about is that itâs easy to pass orders with little thought or judgement. In reality, itâs hard to account for everyoneâs sensitivities and make decisions that everyone is okay with. Of course, you canât keep everyone happy at any given moment. In times like this, itâs important to object what's wrong and to compromise when you know youâre wrong. But itâs even more important to object politely and know when to compromise.

Prasad Ramesh
Marketing at Frappe
Tangible items are essential components of a compelling story. An object can be any shape or size, and it can represent any concept. It may be a treasure, a power item, a sign of doom, a testament of love, or a life-changing identity secret.
Surely an informative blog you have shared with us, I would say that many students would take this for their educational help. So, I would love to recommend it to them!