Archive of articles classified as' "Culture"

Back home

Anxiety causes selfish behavior

17/02/2015

BPS Research Digest is a great site, highly recommended for anyone interested in why people behave the way that they do. A little while ago, they reported on a study where anxious participants were more likely to cheat and excuse their own unethical behavior than the control group.

When we’re stressed out and feeling threatened, our priority becomes self-preservation. According to new research, this defensive mode even affects our morality, making us more likely to cheat and excuse our own unethical behaviour.

What’s striking is the cause of the anxiety: they listened to Bernard Herrmann’s Psycho score. Compare this to the stress of micromanagement, yearly review season, project bonuses and deadlines, or even general water cooler politics, and it’s no surprise what goes on in most corporate offices.

I’ve written before about how a manager’s primary job is to build trust and this is a good, concrete example why.

It’s also a good example of why it’s a company’s job to remove anxiety-causing policies. The less anxiety you cause your employees, the healthier they are and the healthier your culture and company is (we want people working together, not behaving selfishly). These policies include:

  • Annual performance reviews. Much has been written about this.
  • Individual performance-based bonuses. They have been proven to be counter-productive, without a single shred of evidence supporting their utility.
  • Limiting career and salary growth based on positions. People should not compete for a single “senior” spot.
  • Limiting PTO and not having separate sick days. Being sick is not a vacation.
  • Not forcing/encouraging people to take a vacation. This causes paranoia, burnout, and envy.
  • Limiting the flow of information. People will worry if they know what they need to know.

The list goes on and on. And the lesson is very simple:

When you reduce anxiety, you get better work.

No Comments

Could employees choose their own manager?

10/02/2015

Someone once brought up to me a plan about enabling employees to choose their own manager. The idea has stuck with me for a while, and being in my current position of authority I’ve pondered it more actively. I’ll use this post to collect my thoughts, and maybe present some ideas for discussion. I’m not going to evaluate the benefits or if this is a good idea, but only think about the practicalities.

First, let’s define the role of “manager”. There are many ways the role of manager can be split up or changed or redefined, but I’m specifically going to talk about the extremely popular and stubborn setup of Dev->Manager->Director->VP->CO, or whatever similar hierarchy. I do believe a better structure exists (or that the lack of structure is better!), but I have not seen it, and this arrangement is certainly the most popular, so let’s work from that.

Second, let’s define the manager’s responsibilities. There is the leadership aspect (setting direction for a team/group), and there is the procedural aspect (hiring, firing, raises). These can be found in the same person, or separate. If we operate in a strict hierarchy, where everyone in a team reports to a team’s lead, leadership and procedure must be handled by the same person. If people report to a “department manager” or someone else who is not a team, leadership and procedure are handled by different people.

That established, how would “choosing your manager” work?

“Choosing your manager” would mean individually choosing only the procedural person. The leadership person must be chosen collectively. The reasons for this are obvious. They could be the same person, though.

Collectively choosing the leader but having an assigned procedural manager will not work. The person doing the hiring, firing, and appraising ends up with the power anyway. It’s not fair to the leader and results in terrible politics when things are not in perfect alignment.

Choosing managers would basically prohibit outside hiring at management level. Good managers want to continue to be managers, and while I do believe they need to be talented programmers/designers/whatever, many would not want a 100% full time role with only the hope/possibility of doing management later. So you have cut down your pool of experienced managers significantly. But maybe that’s ok (most managers aren’t very good anyway).

The procedural stuff involves significant confidentiality in a traditional company. Generally, a manager is first and foremost vetted by management, and only secondarily by her reports. To flip this on its head would require radical transparency. Anyone at any time could become a “manager” and have access to extra confidential information. Salaries, at the very least, would need to be common knowledge (which would imply many other things are common knowledge).

Transparency is the big issue. Employees choosing their own managers would require a radically non-traditional company. At this extreme, you may as well get rid of the notion of managers altogether. Unfortunately it’s traditional companies that would benefit most from structural management changes. But at this point, I’m skeptical of “employees choosing their own manager” being a good idea. The thinking is in the right place! But I don’t see the way there. I’d love to hear of companies where this is done, though, as some concrete examples would help validate or disprove these thoughts (Spotify is the closest I can think of).

2 Comments

Automated testing shows a respect for employees

1/02/2015

In the tech-artists.org G+ community page there was a comment on a thread about unit testing:

A key factor in TA tools is the speed at which we need to deliver them, and our audience is considerably smaller than, say, engine tools code. Therefor it becomes somewhat hard to justify the time spent on writing the unit tests, and then maintaining them as the tools change or are ported or updated to match new APIs.

In other words: Testing is great, but we don’t have time for it. Or the common alternative: Testing is great, but it’s not feasible to test what we’re doing.

Codebases without tests manifest themselves in teams that are stressed and overworked due to an ever-increasing workload and firefighting. Velocity goes down over time. Meanwhile, I’ve never known a team with thorough test coverage that delivered slower than a team without automated tests. In fact I’ve observed teams that had no tests and crunched constantly, added tests and became predictable and successful, then removed the tests after idiotic leadership decisions to artificially increase velocity, and watched their velocity drop way down once the testing infrastructure, and especially culture, fell into disrepair.

Companies that do not require automated tests do not respect their employees, and do not care about the long-term health of the company. It’s that simple (or they are incompetent, which is equally likely). We know that no testing results in stress, overwork, and reduced quality. We know that more testing results in more predictability, higher quality, and happier teams. I would love to blame management, but I see this nonchalant attitude about testing just as often among developers.

The “do it fast without tests, or do it slow with tests” attitude is not just wrong, but poisonous. You are going to be the one dealing with your technical debt. You are the bottleneck on call because your stuff breaks. You are the one who doesn’t get to work on new stuff because you spend all your time maintaining your old crap. You are the one who is crunching to tread water on velocity.

I have a simple rule: I will not work at a job that doesn’t have automated testing (or would be in any way inhibited instituting it as the first order of business).

  • I have this rule because I love myself and my family. There are enough unavoidable opportunities to interrupt evenings and weekends for work reasons. It is irresponsible to add more ways for things to break.
  • I have this rule because I care for the people I work with. I want them to have the same option for work-life balance, and work with me for a long time.
  • I have this rule because I want the company I’ve decided to invest in (employment is the most profound investment!) to be successful in the long term. Not until the end of the quarter, or even until I leave, but for a long, long time.
4 Comments

Change should be the ally of quality

26/01/2015

In The Beauty of Testing, Steven Sinofsky writes:

…great testers understand one the cardinal rules of software engineering—- change is the enemy of quality.

This is not a cardinal rule. This is a outdated and obsolete mode of thinking. Change is how you discover great UX. Change is how you refactor and reduce technical debt. Change is how you incrementally improve both your product and code quality.

Maybe that’s too obvious, and clearly Sinofsky isn’t arguing for static software. More nuanced (and the rest of the piece provides that nuance) would be “change inevitably introduces bugs, and bugs reduce quality.”

This too I take issue with. Your codebase should be verifiably better after you fix a bug: you’ve found a shortcoming in your automated tests, so you add a test, and maybe refactor some stuff as well. Or, you’ve identified a bad experience, and can change it to be better in a controlled manner. A bug is an opportunity for improvement. Without bugs, it can be very difficult to improve.*

It can be difficult for anyone who hasn’t worked in a codebase with extensive testing to understand this. In most cases, fixing bugs is playing whack-a-mole. Whack-a-mole is unacceptable to me. Every change we make at Cozy is making the code clearer, simpler, better tested. It’s making the product smoother, faster, and more intuitive.

Change is necessary; it is up to you to determine if it is a friend or foe.


If you’re practicing disciplined development and automated testing and not creating many bugs, good job! This post isn’t for you :)

4 Comments

Undefining “technical debt”

6/01/2015

For me, technical debt is defined pretty loosely as stuff you don’t like in the code and need to change to keep up velocity. However, I’ve seen lots of articles lately discussing a precise definition of “technical debt.” I would sum them up as:

  • Technical debt is incurred intentionally. Sloppy code or bad architecture is not debt.
  • It is a business decision to incur technical debt.
  • It is a business decision to pay down technical debt.

I hate this characterization of technical debt. I hate it because it’s damaging. It assumes a conversation like this happens:

Manager: “How long to do this feature?”
Programmer: “We can do that feature in 4 weeks properly, or 2 weeks if we take shortcuts that will hurt our velocity in the future.”
Manager: “OK, take a shortcut and get it down ASAP.”
… 2 weeks later …
Manager: “How long to do this feature?”
Programmer: “We must spend 2 weeks paying down our technical debt, then another 2 weeks to do the feature.”
Manager: “That sounds fine.”

Every muscle in my body twinges when I think about this. Quality is not something you can put off to later. The idea that a team would do a sloppy job but have the rigor to repay it later is unbelievable. The closest I’ve seen is rewriting a system after years of shortcuts, which often does not end well. This mentality goes along with “how many bugs you have should be a business decision”. This isn’t OK. Do not write something you do not plan on living with. Do not place the responsibility of doing a good job on the business. I find it sad that a programmer would think such behavior acceptable. This is your life. This is your code. Take some responsibility. Take pride in your work.

Or don’t, and sling garbage while getting paid a pretty penny. Just don’t pretend you’re respecting your craft.


(I just want to take a moment to give credit to the team at Cozy. We recently had a couple weeks of crunch. The team delivered fully tested code the entire time).

10 Comments

More effective interviews

30/12/2014

David Smith over at baleful.net makes some interesting points about the length of most interviews:

So mathematically, you will most likely get the highest confidence interval with: 1) Resume screen, 2) Phone interview, 3) In-person interviews 1-3. From the above, this should represent about 50% of the total causes, but should produce 91% of the total effect. Adding additional interview steps after that 91% brings only incremental improvement at best and backslide at worst.

He makes an extremely compelling argument, and I encourage you to read the entire piece. That said, I still prefer a full day of interviews as both the interviewer and interviewee.

The interviewee angle is easy. I enjoy interviews. I like to dig into my potential employer. I want to grill your second-string players. I want to hear how junior people feel treated. I want as much information as possible before making my choice. But I know this is just me, and people who are less comfortable with interviews probably prefer shorter ones. I also admit I don’t think I’ve learned anything in the second half of a day of interviewing that would have made me turn down a job. But I have learned things that helped me in my job once hired.

The benefits of full-day interviews for the interviewers is much more complex. There are several factors:

  • We have diverse backgrounds and expertise, and each group brings a unique perspective. Candidate postmortems are not dominated by the same couple interviewers.
  • I want to give as many people experience interviewing as possible. I consider it an important skill. Limiting things to three in-person interviews means the interviewers are all “musts” and I don’t get to experiment at the periphery with groups or combinations.
  • People want to be a part of the process. I’ve personally felt frustrated when left out of the process, and I know I’ve frustrated others when I’ve left them out.

For a developer role, I want them to meet with at least: founders, ops, lead developer, two developers, myself. We’re at an absolute minimum of 7. That is with a narrow set of views, without inexperienced interviewers, and leaving good people out. What am I supposed to do?

  • For starters, the interview process should be more transparent and collaborative. Ask the interviewer if they want a full day, two half days, morning or afternoon, etc.
  • No group lunches. I’ve never gotten useful feedback from a group lunch. Keep it down to one or two people. A candidate just doesn’t want to embarrass themselves, so they just shut up, and side conversations dominate.
  • Avoid solo interviews. I used to hope to solo interview everyone. But over time, I’ve found that pairing on interviews enhances the benefits listed above. There are still times I will want a solo interview, but in general I will pair.
  • Cut the crap. Interviewers should state their name and role. Don’t bother with your history unless asked. Don’t ask questions that are answered by a resume. Instead of “tell us about yourself” how about “tell us what you’re looking for”.
  • Keep a schedule. Some people are very bad at managing time. If someone isn’t done, too bad, keep things moving. They will eventually learn how to keep interviews to their allotted time.

Thanks to David for the insightful post. I’ll continue to keep full-day interviews, but we’ll definitely change some things up.

6 Comments

We’re not so different, you and I

21/12/2014

Ben Sandofsky wrote a post about why QA departments are still necessary, specifically with regards to mobile app development. He makes a good point: mobile apps create a distribution bottleneck that makes very rapid iteration impossible. I agree, and this is a good angle to think about. I would have been happy with an article focused on this.

Ben is clearly a talented guy but this post was insane. In a literal sense. It is a rant for anti-Agile curmudgeons at best, and would leave me questioning the experiences of anyone that thinks this way at worst.

Websites ship embarrassing bugs all the time. They get away with it because they didn’t ship it to all users. You roll-out everything out to 1% of users, and watch your graphs. If things look good, slowly roll out to 100%.

The idea that this is this sort of incremental rollout is ubiquitous amongst web developers is crazy. It requires infrastructure, code designed to support split testing, experienced operations engineers, robust monitoring, a disciplined process, and more. The institutions with this sort of sophistication all have strong automated testing environments. Which brings me to my next issue:

I think automated testing accelerates development, but I haven’t seen a direct correlation between testing and quality. On projects with massive, high quality test coverage, I’ve seen just as many bugs slip through as projects with zero coverage.

This is the software equivalent to climate change denial. Where does this experience come from? I am not sure I’d be able to find a single developer who would corroborate this. Oh, right:

Tell a game developer you don’t need [QA], they’ll tell you you’re nuts.

The game industry is full of these folks who believe what they are doing is such an untestable snowflake. Unsurprisingly, games have historically been the buggiest software around. Never, ever look at game development as an example of how to do QA right. Not just automated testing, but manual QA too.

…a great QA team is far from a bunch of monkeys clicking buttons all day.

Game development has a hallmark technique of hiring masses of QA people and have massive layoffs at the end of projects. There is an entire website dedicated to tales of horror from QA people. It makes The Daily WTF look like paradise.

Take the unicorn of “two week release cycles.” As you build infrastructure for faster releases, simple code becomes unwieldy. Tasks that should take hours take weeks.

What does this even mean? There are endless apps on two week release cycles. I am confused how building infrastructure for faster iterations ends up adding complexity to simple code or tasks.

Disciplined development is a lost art.

You could make this argument when we moved away from punch cards. But the idea that success in mobile apps is achieved through discipline, but success on the web can be achieved by recklessness, is beyond baseless. It’s downright insulting.

I consider it a tragedy that, when faced with the reality of App Store distribution bottlenecks, Ben’s answer is to go back to the process of yesteryear and throw out the lessons we’ve learned. Why not invent new ways of building in quality? New ways of iterating on apps faster? There are so many interesting problems to solve.

Finally, Ben cautions:

Today, any web developer who wants to stay employed has learned to build apps. If web companies want to remain relevant, they’ll have to do the same.

I have a better warning. Don’t throw away the incredible advances we’ve made over the last decade. Don’t downplay the success and rate of innovation in web development as something that doesn’t apply. Don’t throw away the universal “good idea-edness” of automated testing. Don’t rely on a separate department to enforce quality. Don’t stop looking for ways to make development better.

1 Comment

The QA Department Mindset

8/12/2014

From this post by Rands, titled “The QA Mindset”:

At the current gig, there’s no QA department. […]

My concern is that the absence of QA is the absence of a champion for aspects of software development that everyone agrees are important, but often no one is willing to own. Unit tests, automation, test plans, bug tracking, and quality metrics. The results of which give QA a unique perspective. Traditionally, they are known as the folks who break things, who find bugs, but QA’s role is far more important. It’s not that QA can discover what is wrong, they intimately understand what is right and they unfailingly strive to push the product in that direction.

I believe these are humans you want in the building.

At my current job, we don’t have a QA department either. And like Rands, I wasn’t comfortable at first. I’ve worked on teams without QA, but an entire company without a QA Department? I’ve certainly had questions about the use of a QA department, but does that mean they are a bad idea?

Yes, and this line in Rands’ defense is why:

Unit tests, automation, test plans, bug tracking, and quality metrics. The results of which give QA a unique perspective.

I am a staunch believer of “building quality in.” Every bug that slips out is a failure of your development process. The way to higher quality is not to find, or fix, more bugs. It’s to avoid them in the first place.

If you rely on QA to champion unit testing, automation, bug tracking, and quality metrics, your development process is lacking its most important tools and measures to improving quality. Quality can’t be imposed by QA, it must grow out of enabled and engaged development teams.

I have a saying: “Don’t hire to fix a problem.” If you have a quality problem, hiring a QA department isn’t going to fix it. You instead hide the systematic problems that cause quality issues in the first place.

This is not to say “the QA mindset” isn’t valuable. It is. One of my best hires was Bjorgvin Reynisson, who was a Test Engineer at Nokia and I hired as a QA Engineer at CCP. He was embedded with the graphics engine team and he helped them develop extensive automated correctness and performance testing systems. He worked with them to recognized holes in their process and test coverage. He helped with tracking issues and increasing quality. This is the “QA Mindset” I treasure, and this type of person is invaluable to development teams. Bjorgvin unlocked a latent “culture of quality” in the team he was a part of.

I contrast this “QA Mindset” with the “QA Department Mindset“. The QA Department Mindset has two damning characteristics. First, it is innately adversarial, as Rands notes.

Yes, there is often professional conflict between the teams. Yes, I often had to gather conflicting parties together and explain[…]

Second, it is by definition a separate department, which creates obstacles to better integrating engineering and QA.

Bjorgvin should be spending time with his teammates and the rest of the developers figuring out how to improve the entire development process. He should not be spending time with other QA personnel focused on QA functions. When I was Technical Director for EVE Online, I made sure there were minimal discussions gated by job title. Talk of a trade went on in Communities of Practice, which were open to all. Sometimes this didn’t happen, and those times were mistakes.

Like Rands says:

Yes, we actually have the same goal: rigorously confirming whether or not the product is great.

If that’s the case, QA should not be broken out into a separate department. QA should be working side by side, reporting into the same people, measured by the same success metrics, contributing to the holistic success of an entire product.

I love the QA Mindset. It’s tragic that having a QA Mindset gets confused with having a QA Department.

2 Comments

Long live Slack, down with egotistical email

17/11/2014

We use Slack for team communication at Cozy. I struggled with the transition. When I reflected on my struggles, it made me better understand what a destructive format email is for workplace communication.

A quick disclaimer. This is only about work communication and not personal communication. I love email. I think email will be around for a long time and I will lament if and when it goes away. I just don’t think we should be using email for work.

Oration is the highest form of feeding an ego. You craft your message carefully. You research, write, and rehearse. Finally, you take the stage. You command everyone’s attention. And once you’re done, an important topic has been thoroughly addressed and everyone can go on with their lives, better off after hearing what you said.

Email is oratory without the speaking* (or skill). My problems with email stem from when it is used for one-way communication. I suspect that most emails I’ve ever received from anyone in management have been one-way. Generally these emails are meant to, first and foremost, communicate the sender/manager’s self-importance. Often the email contains a nugget of actual information which should be hosted elsewhere. Sometimes the email is an announcement no one understands. And as a rule, you can’t rely on people reading the email you send anyway.

When you craft a long email, like an orator crafts a speech, it is an ego boost. Each one is a masterpiece. You are proud of your fine writing. When you craft a long chat message, on the other hand, you look like a dramatic asshole. It puts in stark perspective how awful the written format is for important or high-bandwidth communication. I’ve never seen someone post a 300-word message to chat. How many 300-word emails do you have in your inbox?

Removing email also levels the playing field for communication. You don’t need to be a manager or orator. Everything you write has a visibility you can’t change. You choose your audience based on topic. Is there a question about a product’s design? Well, it goes into the product or design channel, whether you are Executive Emperor or QA Associate II. Also, no one really wants to read your dramatic flair so please keep it short and to the point.

I used to get frustrated when I’d write an excellent email, send it out, and within a few minutes someone would reply with a message like “Yeah, just to build on what Rob said, it’d be a good idea to do X.” You idiot! You are an Ice Cream Truck driving through the State of the Union. But of course, the problem was mine, playing a manipulative game, focusing too much on this amazing message I’d created. Sometimes these emails would be about the manipulative games people were playing and how we weren’t focused on the employees and customers and things that were actually important.

Email in the workplace is a systematic problem. We take it for granted. We use it constantly. We don’t question it. But email has a cost. It feeds into the already inflated ego of managers. It encourages one-way communication. It is wonderful for grandstanding. We spend a lot of time crafting museum-quality correspondence no one wants to read. And in the end, there are better ways to accomplish what we use it for.


* One of the greatest “speeches” of all time, Pro Milone by Cicero, was written, not spoken. We know great orators by their writing, not their speaking.

No Comments

First, do no harm

13/11/2014

From a wonderful post by Matt Williams about the type of business he is looking for:

A Business Manifesto
We are uncovering better ways of running a business and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:
People and interactions over profits and prestige
Quality service over quantity of service
Customer relationships over contract negotiation
Flexibility over following a plan
That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.

In a nutshell I want to work for a company which values people — both inside and out of the company. I want to work where people strive to do things right.

When I go home, I want to be able to look in the face of my daughter and not have to make excuses for the work that I do and the effect it has on others.

Sums things up nicely (and definitely what we aspire to at Cozy, by the way we’re hiring).

It is a reason I left the video games industry. I wanted to use my skills to do something I felt was more constructive.

But more than that, I was amazed and frustrated with how the industry was run (almost as bad as films). Mass layoffs even on successful projects. Over-managed projects that go on for 4, 5, 6 years and are cancelled. Creating an exploitative product in order to milk a customer base. Huge budgets, huge marketing, appeals to lowest common denominators (often sexual). There are good companies but the business models are so insane that you can be around for 10 years and fold tomorrow.

2 Comments