No, it will still be confrontational and that's not how you approach these things.
If you have issues with how the team makes the decisions you have to tackle the problem at the root, rather than to make each and every decision a point of conflict.
If you have issues with how the team makes the decisions you have to tackle the problem at the root, rather than to make each and every decision a point of conflict.
"The more stressful a situation is, the more I find pragmatism is the best tool for improving the product and the team. What are your strategies for choosing when to push back and when to let it be?"
As soon as you start phrasing things in these terms everybody loses.
You're against someone being open when they disagree with something, whether or not their position is valid?
That's a little ridiculous. Being Taoist in withdrawal from conflict is one thing, but being a responsible member of a group is another.
Jacques appears to take a view that disagreement (or "picking battles") is tantamount to a fist fight, which obviously should be avoided. But, I think the OP and others discussing here rather think of of it as merely a difference of opinion, to be noted and moved past. In that sense, "avoiding disagreement" is not helpful because they are not noted, but buried.