Typical crisis-provoking events in the life of a programming team are machine malperformance, machine overload, unyielding bugs in critical sections, difficulties in system testing of two unit-tested programs, schedule changes, arrival of new equipment, changes in higher-level management, and changes in specifications. No wonder it seems that crisis is the normal situation in the life of a programming team.
Two general social-psychological observations about group behavior are especially relevant to the crisis-ridden programming team. First of all, it has been observed that in a crisis, members of a group more readily accept relatively strong leadership attempts. At the same time, however, the group becomes less patient with would-be leaders if their direction does not produce effective solutions to group problems rather quickly. Thus, in a programming team—which is possibly in a continual crisis—leadership patterns may be in constant flux. Because of this reshuffling, the more difficult the task is, the more the team comes to follow those leaders who can actually steer the team most effectively.
We can see, then, why the democratic—or perhaps we should say "technocratic"—organization is such a natural one for a programming team. When selecting programmers for teams, we should try to choose people who will fit well within such a self-shifting structure—neither too dominant nor too passive. In training our programmers, we should try to teach them how to follow able leaders and how to grasp leadership opportunities when they themselves are the most qualified in the group. And during the life of a team, we should try—if we are on the outside—not to interfere in those democratic processes which, though seemingly traumatic for the team and its members, will in the long run lead to most effective team functioning.
Indeed, once the team is selected and operating, the wise manager placed above it will adopt a "hands-off" policy with regard to its internal structure and structure change. When, as so often happens, team members come to him to lend an authoritative opinion on their side of some argument, he would do well to follow the pattern of the old rabbi who was sitting in his study one day when an obviously agitated man came to see him. The man told him a long story about an argument just concluded with his wife. When he finished his story, he insisted that the rabbi tell him whether he or his wife had been right.
"You're right," said the rabbi, and the man left the house beaming. Soon, however, the man's wife appeared—even more distraught than the man had been.
"What do you mean," she insisted, "saying that my husband was right? You haven't heard my side of the story." And she proceeded to relate her side, finishing with a demand for a new judgment.
"You're right," said the rabbi, and the wife left satisfied. The rabbi's own wife, however, was not satisfied, for she had overheard both stories and both answers.
"How can you do that?" she demanded. "You told the husband that he was right and the wife that she was right. They can't both be right."
"You're right," said the rabbi.
[This little tale is adapted from my books: The Psychology of Computer Programming and Managing Teams Congruently.]
How Can You Understand Someone’s Context?
6 days ago