TBT 35/52: The Benefits of Stubborn Consistency
Event Tip! 📣 The amazing Elena Verna—my coworker (Head of Growth @ Amplitude) and product-led growth expert—is doing a free webinar on PLG and experimentation on August 16th. I always learn so much from her talks. Check it out.
I was chatting with an engineering leader friend recently.
I asked about his opinions on pair programming.
His take:
Pair programming is an absolute waste of time. I hate it.
I actively discourage it at Acme.
Note that he didn’t say:
I haven’t gotten a lot of value out of pair programming.
Or
I can see situations where it might be valuable, but that’s not the culture here.
Or
It doesn’t match my worldview around how good engineering happens.
No. He said, “Pair programming is an absolute waste of time. I hate it. I actively discourage it at Acme.”
I used to get mad in situations like this—I hate absolutism—but realistically, his company is effective. People who like pair programming don’t end up working there, or if they work there, they don’t end up staying. He’s vocal about his disdain for pairing when talking to job candidates. Just because he’s stubborn about pairing doesn’t mean he is stubborn about everything. He’s pretty open-minded about a lot of things. If he were a jerk, it would be a different story.
Anyway
If you work with people, you’re going to encounter stubbornly-dismissive-about-something people. And no matter how curious you believe you are, you’re probably stubbornly-dismissive-about-something as well.
But there is a subtly important lesson here. It centers around coherence, intentionality, and at least some conviction and experience. The lesson goes back to my (other) friend Joshua Arnold’s “reverse Anna Karenina principle”:
Unhappy teams and orgs are often *very* similar, while happy/successful teams and orgs can be quite different.
What if my friend’s company is successful because they have the conviction to discourage something while still being relatively fair (based on the standards they communicate), capable, and kind? What if an intentionally coherent culture beats an incoherent culture, even if the team is stubbornly-dismissive-about-something. Maybe, to a point, it doesn’t matter what a team does as long as it does it consistently and people know what to expect.
Something like pair programming is culturally dependent (as much as pairing fans believe it is the only way to do things, and pairing haters believe it is the path to hell). Other practices (CI/CD?) are considered essential. Over time, some “optional” practices become “best practices” (which doesn’t mean best, just more universally accepted). And some “best practices” (e.g., story points) lose favor.
Over the last couple of years, I’ve met successful individualistic teams, collectivist teams, competitive teams, consensus-focused teams, top-down teams, bottom-up teams, manager-centric teams, low-process teams, high-process teams, and everything in between teams.
A common thread? Coherence and intentionality—sometimes self-aware, but often as an unconscious act (unconsciously intentional). The intentionality extends to challenging and updating beliefs as the situation warrants.
It pays to be opinionated AND to be able to update those beliefs when conditions change.
Some companies are incoherent. They are all over the place. If they are opinionated, their opinions are flat-out maladaptive. These companies fail quickly if they are small, and slowly if they are big.
Some companies are opinionated and coherent but not flexible. As long as the situation remains stable, they’re ok. These companies can do fantastically well! Until something changes. That’s when things get hard!
Some companies are opinionated, coherent, and adaptive. Strong opinions, loosely held. When things change, they can adapt. These companies do better, though it is never easy. Many of these companies start as #2 companies, and learn the hard way.
(Reminds me about the differences in the pandemic response between countries)
Back to my friend, perhaps one day he’ll be in an environment that needs to pair. And he’ll give it a try. Or not.
What does this mean for you and your company?
What do you value?
Do team members know what to expect?
Do team members understand what your version of good looks like?
Are leaders able to model good?
Do you let your “freak flag fly” during the recruiting process?
Are you open about who you are and what you value?
Are you stubborn about something? What are you adamant about? Why? What experiences inspired that level of stubbornness?
And perhaps most importantly, if conditions change and require you to embrace new ideas, will you be curious enough and open enough to try something new?
