A challenge with many leaders is creating the right environment to allow dissent. I draw upon Retrospectives as a useful tool and here are some tips if you are a leader looking to use it effectively.
Be clear about your motives – I can see some types of leaders who want to use retrospectives as a way to get to blame (which is definitely not the point). It helps to be explicit upfront about what you expect from people and to let people know if there will be consequences. If people feel like retrospectives are being used to “find dirt” or for blame, people will refuse to actively participate in future sessions or simply lie.
Find an independent facilitator – I address a number of the trade-offs of an independent facilitator in The Retrospective Handbook and when you’re a leader running a session, there will be times you will want to participate. Playing dual roles (participant + facilitator) can be really confusing for those simply participating, so I recommend at least starting retrospectives with an independent facilitator.
Allows others to talk first – Leaders often come with a level of explicit or implicit level of authority. Different cultures treat authority differently and it pays for a leader to be aware of the significance that is automatically added to your words by holding back and allowing others to speak. Focus on listening first and foremost, and ask clarifying questions rather than being the first to put your opinion on the table.
Pick a topic that affects all participants – When choosing participants, make sure that the topic is relevant and that everyone can contribute different perspectives for. Although outside opinions about a particular topic are often welcomed, retrospectives are best when people can share their experiences. If, as a leader, you are gathering a group of people who don’t regularly work together around a common topic, reconsider if a focused retrospective is a good solution.
Keep an open mind – There is no point in gathering a group of people if the leader is going to follow through on an action they thought of previously to a retrospective. Consider scheduling a retrospective early on, very focused on information gathering and generating insights as a first part, and then a second part with a smaller, focused group on the next steps. By having time to digest the new information, you may find you end up with very different solutions than what you first had in mind.
When used well, retrospectives can create a safe space to invite people to dissent and create an ongoing culture of challenging the status quo.
I wanted to respond earlier, but tweets were too restrictive. Here’s my response.
The argument against Tech Leads
The article rebuts the necessity for a Tech Lead with the following points (emphasis author’s, not mine):
Well functioning teams in which people share responsibilities are not rare.
When a team is not functioning well, assigning a tech lead can potentially make it worse.
There are many great points in the article. Some of the points I support such as how sharing responsibilities (also known as effective delegation). Distributing responsibilities can be one way effective teams work. Other points lack essential context such as the title (it depends), while other points lack concrete answers such as how to turn a dysfunctional team into a highly performing team.
Are well-functioning teams rare?
I’ve worked with at least 30 organisations over my career as a consultant, and countless teams, both as a team member (sometimes Tech Lead) and as an observer. I have seen the whole spectrum – from teams who function like a single person/unit to teams with people who simply tolerate sitting next to each other, and where one can’t miss the passive-aggressive behaviours or snide remarks.
The article claims:
that the “tech lead is a workaround – not a root cause solution
Tech leads could alleviate the consequences only
Unfortunately the article doesn’t explain how or why the tech lead is a workaround, nor how tech leads alleviate just the consequences.
The article gathered some discussion on Hackernews, and I found some comments particularly interesting.
Let’s take a sample:
(gohrt) Trusting that a pair of engineers will always come to an agreement to authoritatively decide the best way forward seems naive to me. Where are these magical people?
(vidhar) …we live in reality where lots of teams are not well-functioning some or all of the time, and we still need to get things done even when we don’t have the time, resources or influence to fix the team composition then and there.
(ep103) If I had an entire team of my great engineers, my job would be easy. I’d simply delegate my duties to everyone else, and we’d all be nearly equal. I’m jealous of people who work in a shop where the teams are so well constructed, that they think you can get rid of the tech lead role.
(shandor) My experience with other developers is that there is a surprisingly large dev population who would absolutely abhorred if they had to touch any of those things (EDIT: i.e. tech lead responsibilities)
(doctor_fact) I have worked on teams of highly competent developers where there was no tech lead. They failed badly…
(mattsmith321) It’s been a while since I have worked with a lot of talented, like-minded people that were all capable of making good technical decisions.
(jt2190) I’ve been on more that one team where no leadership emerged, and in fact, leadership type behavior was passively resisted… These teams (if they can be called that) produced software that had little to no overall design.
Do these sound like well-functioning teams to you? They don’t to me.
Well-functioning teams do exist. However it is clear that not all teams are well-functioning. In my experience, I would even say that really well-functioning teams are less common than dysfunctional, or just functioning teams. For me, the comments are proof enough that well-functioning teams are not everywhere.
It is actually irrelevant if well-performing teams are rare – there are teams that definitely need help! Which leads to the question…
Does assigning a tech lead to a poorly functioning team make it worse?
In my talk, What I wish I knew as a first time Tech Lead, I explain how acts of leadership are amplifiers (can be good or bad). Therefore assigning a bad tech lead to a poorly functioning team will probably make it worse. However I don’t think organisations set out to give teams bad tech leads.
If a team is poorly functioning, what do organisations do? Simply leave the team to stew in its own juices until things are resolved? That’s one option. Doing nothing is a gamble – you depend on someone in the team to take an act of leadership but the question is will they? I’ve seen many teams never resolve the very issues that make them poorly functioning without some form external intervention or assistance.
Most organisations try to solve this by introducing a role who has some authority. It doesn’t necessarily need to be a Tech Lead, but when the core issues are technical in nature, a good Tech Lead can help. A good leader will seek out the core issues that prevent good teamwork, and use their role to find ways to move them towards a well-functioning team. Sometimes this may mean calling meetings, even if the team do not want to have meetings to reach an agreement about how the team handles certain situations, tasks or responsibilities. A good outcome might be an agreed Team Charter or some clarity about who in the team is responsible for what. A team may end up with a model that looks like they do not need a Tech Lead, but it takes an act of leadership to to make that happen.
The wrong analysis?
The article suggests that a full-time Tech Lead introduces risks such as a lack of collective code ownership, decision-making bottlenecks, a single point bus factor, and (reduced) impact on motivation. I have seen teams with and without Tech Leads both suffering from these issues. In my experience, teams without a Tech Lead tend to have more issues with knowledge silos, no cohesive view and less collective code ownership because there is little motivation to optimise for the group and individuals end up optimising for themselves.
The issue is not caused by whether or not teams have a Tech Lead. Rather, these issues are caused by a lack of a technical leadership (behaviour). The Tech Lead role is not a prerequisite for having technical leadership. I have seen teams where strong, passionate individuals will speak up, bring the team together and address these issues – which are acts of leadership. I have also seen dysfunctional teams sit on their hands because individual (job) safety is an issue and these issues go unaddressed.
The article misses the subtle but important point of good technical leadership. A good leader and Tech Lead is not trying to own all of the responsibilities – they are there to make sure they happen. There is nothing worse than expecting everyone is responsible for a task, only to find that no one is responsible for it.
“The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. (They) are the one that gets the people to do the greatest things.” – Ronald Reagan
The extent to how much individuals in a team can own these responsibilities is a function of the individuals’ interests, skills and experience. It depends!
Asking whether or not teams need a Tech Lead is the wrong question. Better questions to ask include what’s the best way to make sure all of the Tech Lead responsibilities are fulfilled, and what style of leadership does this team need right now.
Good software architects understand that their role as a leader is not necessarily telling developers what to do. Rather, good architects act like a guide, shepherding a team of developers towards the same technical vision drawing upon leadership skills such as story-telling, influencing, navigating conflict and building trust with individuals to turn their architectural vision into reality.
A good leader, and thus, a good architect, will listen carefully to the opinions of each contributor, fine-tuning their vision with feedback from the team. This leads well onto the next point.
Being a developer
Making good architectural choices is a function of balancing an ideal target architectural state with the current state of a software system. As an example, there is no sense in adding a document database to a system if the problem domain is better suited for a relational database, even if that’s boring. An architect may feel tempted to impose technologies or architectural choices without considering the fit for the problem space – AKA behaviours of the “ivory tower architect.”
The best way an architect can mitigate this is by spending time with developers and time in the code. Understanding how the system has been built up, and the constraints of the system as it stands today will give the architect more information about the right choices for today’s environment.
Having a systems focus
Seasoned developers know that code is only one aspect to working software. To make code run, a seasoned developer understands there are other important quality attributes necessary for code to run well in its production environment. They consider aspects like deployment processes, automated testing, performance, security, and supportability. Where developers may approach these quality attributes ad hoc, an architect will focus on understanding not just the code but also the quality attributes necessary to meet the many needs of different stakeholders such as support, security, and operations staff.
The good architect focuses on finding solutions that can satisfy as many of these different stakeholder needs instead of choosing a tool or approach optimised for the preferences or style of a single contributor.
Thinking like an entrepreneur
All technology choices have costs and benefits, and a good architect will consider new technology choices from both perspectives. Successful entrepreneurs are willing to take risks, but seek ways to learn quickly and fail fast. Architects can approach technology choices in a similar way, seeking real-world information about short- and long-term costs and the likely benefits they will realise.
A good example is when the architect avoids committing to a new tool based on reading a new article, or having heard about it at a conference. Instead they seek to understand how relevant the tool is in their environment by running an architectural spike to gather more information. They don’t pick a tool based on how good the sales pitch is, but what value it offers, given what they need for their system. They also look for the hidden costs of tools such as how well is a tool supported (e.g. level of documentation, community adoption), how much lock-in the tool brings or the extra risks it introduces over the long-term.
Balancing strategic with tactical thinking
A lot of teams build their software reactively with individual developers choosing tools and technologies that they are most comfortable with, or have the most experience with.
The good architect keeps an eye out for what newer technologies, tools or approaches might be useful but does not necessarily draw upon them immediately. Technology adoption requires a considered approach looking at a long-term horizon. Architects will seek for a good balance between agility (allowing the team to move fast) and alignment (keeping enough consistency) at both a team and organisational level.
Architects know that effective communication is a key skill for building trust and influencing people outside of the team. They know that different groups of people use different vocabulary and that using the technical terms and descriptions with business people makes communication more difficult. Instead of talking about patterns, tools and programming concepts, the architect uses words their audience will be familiar with. Communicating technical choices to business people with words like risk, return, costs, and benefits will serve an architect better than the words they use with their development team.
An architect also realises that communicating within the team is just as important as outside, and will use diagrams and group discussions to establish and refine the technical vision, and use a written log like an Architectural Decision Log or a wiki to provide a historical trail for future generations.
Doing the job of a well-rounded architect is not easy. There are so many elements to focus us, each drawing upon many skills that a developer often doesn’t focus on practicing. What is most important is not necessarily the ability an architect has, but that they have enough expertise in each of these different areas to be effective. An architect who is skillful in only one of these six areas described above will not be as effective as an architect who has a good level of expertise in all of them.
I’m proud that many people are actively addresing diversity issues. Research shows that diversity leads to better problem solving and often, more creative solutions. Unfortunately the results of history lead us to where we are today, but we can always do better. I’m proud to be part of ThoughtWorks, where we are also trying to do our part to address diversity issues, and our work was recently recognised as a great company for Women in Tech. And yes, I do realise that diversity goes beyond just gender diversity.
As a fairly regular conference speaker this year, I have been disappointed by some of the actions of both conference organisers and speakers that have been, in my opinion, rather unhelpful.
At a conference speaker’s dinner earlier in the year, the topic of diversity came up where someone calculated that only 4 out of almost 60 speakers were women. I was truly disappointed when one of the conference organisers responded with, “That’s just the industry ratio isn’t it? It’s just too hard to find women speakers.” Of course not all conference organisers have this attitude, such as The Lead Dev conference which ended up with 50% women:men speaker ratio or like Flowcon which achieved a >40% ratio women:men as well. Jez Humblewrites about his experiences achieving this goal (recommended reading for conference organisers).
At another conference, I saw a slide tweeted from a talk that looked like this below (Note: I’ve found the original and applied my own label to the slide)
My first thoughts went something like: “Why do all the developers look like men and why do all the testers look like women?” I was glad to see some other tweets mention this, which I’m hoping that the speaker saw.
We all have responsibilities when we speak
I believe that if you hold talks at a conference, you have a responsibility to stop reinforcing stereotypes, and start doing something, even if it’s a little thing like removing gendered stereotypes. Be aware of the imagery that you use, and avoid words that might reinforce minority groups feeling even more like a minority in tech. If you don’t know where to start, think about taking some training about what the key issues are.
What you can do if you’re a speaker
As a speaker you can:
Review your slides for stereotypes and see if you can use alternative imagery to get your message across.
Find someone who can give you feedback on words you say (I am still trying to train myself out of using the “guys” word when I mean people and everyone).
Give your time (mentoring, advice and encouragement) to people who stand out as different so they can act like role models in the future.
Give feedback to conferences and other speakers when you see something that’s inappropriate. More likely than not, people are more unaware of what other message people might see/hear, and a good presenter will care about getting their real message across more effectively.
What to do if you’re a conference organiser
I’ve seen many great practices that conferences use to support diversity. These include:
Having a code of conduct.
Look actively for more diverse communities and encourage them to apply for talks.
Consider removing names from submissions to prevent gender bias during reivews.
Provide sponsorships, discounts or special diversity tickets to encourage people from minority groups to attend.
One thing that I have yet to experience, but would like as a speaker is a review service where I could send some version of slides/notes (there is always tweaking) and get some feedback about whether the imagery/words or message I intend to use might make the minorities feel even more like a minority.
Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home and School by John Medina – A description of rules with how our brain works and how we learn. Our visual senses tend to trump our sense of smell. We need sleep to restore our energy and to help us concentrate. Spaced repetition is important, but assigning meaning to new words and concepts are also important to learning. Since I’m fascinated with learning and how the brain works, I’ll add this to my reading list.
Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-free Productivity by
David Allen – Although I never read the book, I felt like I follow a similarly described organisation system. The GTD method is almost like a cult, but requires a lot of discipline for it. Unlike keeping a single list of things to do, they have a systemised variant for keeping long-lived projects and ways of managing tasks to help you focus on getting through actions. Probably a good book if you want to focus more on breaking things done into smaller steps.
The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right by Atul Gawande – With lots of examples from the healthcare industry, a reminder that useful checklists can help us avoid making simple mistakes. For me, the idea of standardised work (a lean concept) already covers this. I agree with this idea in principle, but I’m not so sure the book covers the negative side effects of checklists as well (people getting lazy) or alternatives to checklist (automation and designing against error/failure demand to be begin with).
Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone To Take Action by Simon Sinek – A nice summary of leadership styles and rather than focusing on how something should be done, and the what, is starting with the why. I liked the explanation of the Golden Circle with three concentric circles draw within each other, with the Why being the starting point that leads to the How that ends in the What. It’s a good reminder about effective delegation and how powerful the Why motivator can be. I’ve added this book to my reading list to.
I’ve signed up for a new service, called Blinkist, a service that provides summaries of books in 15 minutes both in text and audio format. I was looking for a way to review a number of books that I’ve both read and not yet read, to either determine whether or not I should read them, or just something new to learn.
Here’s a review of some of the book summaries that I’ve been listening/reading to:
Games People Play by Eric Berne – Humans play games all the time, acting in the role of Parent, Adult or Child depending on the “game” being played. We play games with different goals (safety, interaction, ) in mind although we cannot articulate them. Understanding the different roles people have when in a game gives insight into patterns of behaviour and this insight is useful in all relationships. We need to be particularly careful playing too many games in a personal relationship, as it is only when we stop playing games do you get to truly create deeper relationships.
Turn the Ship Around by David Marquet – A leadership tale that describes a leadership style that made one of the worst performing naval ships into one of the best. A good summary of turning a command-and-control leadership style, into a leaders building leaders style as well as other tricks to create quality control and feedback without using punishment. I’ll add this to my list of books to read further.
The Coaching Habit by Michael Bungay Stanier – A nice summary that distinguishes between the difference of mentoring (where you are providing more advice/answers) to coaching (where you lead through asking questions). A good summary of the benefits to this leadership skill, and some good examples of open questions to stimulate good conversations.
Getting There: A Book of Mentors by Gillian Zoe Segal – With a subtitle about mentors, I thought this book would focus more on how mentors helped people succeed and instead you end up hearing the stories of some successful people. Although still inspirational, I found the summaries didn’t focus very much on the role the mentor played.
I recently moderated a panel in our London ThoughtWorks office aimed at developers leading technnical teams as a follow up from the Lead Developer conference.
Leading development teams can be a challenging prospect. Balancing the needs of the business with those of your team requires a number of different skills and these situations are often very difficult to prepare for.
This panel session will provide a platform for a group of tech leads to come together and share their experiences, insights and advice around the topic of managing conflict and overcoming difficult moments within your teams.
Our panelists are all at various stages of their own leadership journeys and will be offering a range of perspectives and viewpoints to help you on your way.
The panelists shared their experiences around situations like:
Having a tough conversation with a team member or customer;
Sharing how they have dealt with overtime (weekends, later work);
How they resolved a technical disagreement within a team; and
Handling a particularly aggressive person, or being aggressively threatened;
The audience also threw in a few questions like:
Dealing with office politics;
Finding access to key influencers/stakeholders;
Where you draw the line with a person on a team; and
Dealing with a technical stakeholder who is too involved, because they seem to have too much time;
We also had some great sound bites in relation to the topics being discussed.
I’d like to thank Amy Lynch for organising the panel, Laura Jenkins and Adriana Katrandzhieva for helping with the logistics, all the panelists who contributed their experiences and shared their stories (Priya Samuel, Kornelis (Korny) Sietsma, Mike Gardiner, Laura Paterson and Jon Barber) and all the people who turned up for the evening.
At our internal away day in Brighton, ThoughtWorks EU had a Pillar 3 Bookstore, a book store selling books that encouraged people to learn more about Social and Economic Justice Issues. I ended up picking up The John Carlos Story: The Sports Moment That Changed the World, a bibliography of one of the two famous runners in the 1968 Mexico City Olympics Games who raised their black-gloved fists on the winning podium.
As an Australian I remember reading last year a couple of articles of Peter Norman, a person who joined their protest by wearing a symbol but also lived with the same consequences. He died of a heart attack in 2006.
Despite being icons for protesting the movement, what struck me is the courage and the passion that John Carlos had at the time, fighting for equal rights and representation despite the environment in which he found himself. I can only imagine what it was like, having used the opportunity of a world-wide stage, to live with the aggressive response from both the Olympic committees and the sporting community back in the day.
I really enjoyed reading the book to better understand the story you never hear about, and the struggles and bravery people have to fight for the causes they believe in. Do yourself a favour and get a copy of the book here.
Earlier this week, I ran a workshop at the first ever Agile Europe conference organised by the Agile Alliance in Gdansk, Poland. As described in the abstract:
Architects and architecture are often considered dirty words in the agile world, yet the Architect role and architectural thinking are essential amplifiers for technical excellence, which enable software agility.
In this workshop, we will explore different ways that teams achieve Technical Excellence and explore different tools and approaches that Architects use to successfully influence Technical Excellence.
During the workshop, the participants explored:
What are some examples of Technical Excellence?
How does one define Technical Excellence?
Explored the role of the Architect in agile environments
Understood the broader responsibilities of an Architect working in agile environments
Focused on specific behaviours and responsibilities of an Architect that help/hinder Technical Excellence
What follows are the results of the collective experiences of the workshop participants during Agile Europe 2016.
A set of coding conventions & standards that are shared, discussed, abided by by the team
Introducing more formal code reviews worked wonders, code quality enabled by code reviews, user testing and coding standards, Peer code review process
Software modeling with UML
First time we’ve used in memory search index to solve severe performance RDBMS problems
If scrum is used, a good technical Definition of Done (DoD) is visible and applied
Shared APIs for internal and external consumers
Introducing ‘no estimates’ approach and delivering software/features well enough to be allowed to continue with it
Microservice architecture with docker
Listening to others (not! my idea is the best)
Keeping a project/software alive and used in prod through excellence customer support (most exclusively)
“The art must not suffer” as attitude in the team
Dev engineering into requirements
Problems clearly and explicitly reported (e.g. Toyota)
Using most recent libraries and ability to upgrade
Right tools for the job
Frequent availability of “something” working (like a daily build that may be incomplete functionality, but in principle works)
Specification by example
Setting up technical environment for new software, new team members quickly introduced to the project (clean, straightforward set up)
Conscious pursuit of Technical Excellence by the team through this being discussed in retros and elsewhere
Driver for a device executed on the device
Continuous learning (discover new tech), methodologies
Automatic deployment, DevOps tools use CI, CD, UT with TDD methodology, First implementation of CD in 2011 in the project I worked on, Multi-layered CI grid, CI env for all services, Continuous Integration and Delivery (daily use tools to support them), Continuous Integration, great CI
Measure quality (static analysis, test coverage), static code analysis integrated into IDE
Fail fast approach, feedback loop
Shader stats (statistical approach to compiler efficiency)
Lock less multithreaded scheduling algorithm
Heuristic algorithm for multi threaded attributes deduction
It is easy to extend the product without modifying everything, modularity of codebase
Learn how to use something complex (in depth)
Reuse over reinvention/reengineering
Ability to predict how a given solution will work/consequences
Good work with small effort (efficiency)
Simple design over all in one, it’s simple to understand what that technology really does, architecture of the product fits on whiteboard 🙂
Systems’ architecture matches team/org structure
Ideally separated tests, Automated performance testing, automatic front end functional testing with selenium, unit testing done for the first time 10 years ago, constructing new performance testing cases takes minutes, after refactoring unit tests are passing (majority of them – hopefully all!)
Constant curiosity for new technologies/approaches
Good knowledge of software patterns (when to use and when not)
Learn from mistakes
Definition of Technical Excellence
(Technical) Excellence is an attitude to be better than yesterday
Technical Excellence is the holy grail that inspires teams to stay on the path of continued improvement
Technical Excellence is a process that continuously improves product design and the development team. Examples: Automation, knowledge sharing, culture. Synonyms: Dream
Technical Excellence is an ability to consciously apply tools and practices to solve and continuously improve over complex problems in a sustainable way and within constraints (e.g. time and money). Examples: Continuous Delivery
Activities of an architect
Able to choose the right solution amongst many possibilities (awareness of consequences and limitations)
Being able to justify technical decisions made
Thinking (find time to think about the product, structure, technologies used, etc)
Helps resolve interdependencies, helps to identify/minimise external noise (i.e. technical dependency change with negative impact), co-ordination of integration with other teams working on the same project
Start and moderate discussions on design, longer term consequences of decisions, etc
Requirements definition, making sure ‘nothing’ is omitted during analysis/design
Questions decisions to encourage thinking about wider picture amongst developers, asks questions (non obvious especially), Asking difficult questions about work being done
Listens to others
Encourage people to bring ideas, encourage idea sharing
Setup backlog for achieving technical excellence
Challenge old decisions
Business decision support (IT, 3rd party)
Make sure we don’t bite more than we can chew – incrementally/iterative
Ensure architecture is visible, understood and accessible to the team, keep the technical cohesion, helps team consider the bigger picture and interdependencies, helps team define the system and diagram it
Detailed knowledge of technologies/protocols used
Proposes solutions to complex problems
Wide view of situation/projects, look what other teams are building for things to reuse or interface to
“Main” test scenarios definition
Definition of components structure and interactions
Guard technical vision (dialogue with stakeholders)
Focus on project goal
Verification of current design vs planned use
Ad hoc just in time consulting to feature teams when things get complex
Teaching teams, sharing technical knowledge (and expertise) with the team
Coaches team. Gets buy-in from the team for change they are about to trigger, coaches dev team
Identifies technical skillset gaps in the team
Mitigates the risks
Out of box ideas
Research for solution, helps team identify areas for experimenting, exploring new territories
Creating proof of concept (POC)
Learns new things, research and try new tools, ideas, technologies, etc
Gains an in-depth understanding of a system before attempting to change it
Reviews teams’ system design, performs code reviews and coding standard support, reviews code
Behaviours that support Technical Excellence
Gives team rapid and timely feedback
Patiently explaining all the tiny details responding to simple questions
Be there whenever needed
be the safety net whenever devs need you
Set communication for knowledge sharing
Explain the reasons behind the design
Raising the visibility of good developers
Do pair programming, works with the team
Explain technical excellence value for business
Encourage team to think and work towards Technical Excellence
Growing people, mentoring developers to improve tech skills, training the team, educate actively – organise coding dojos, etc
Set up backlog for achieving Technical Excellence
Raising the team spirit and motivation
Waking up with 3am to connect with a team on a daily basis (for a distributed team)
Discussing discovered problems with the team
Sat down with the team to teach and record architecture training for future use
Keeping an eye on new things on the market and bringing them to the team
Staying current in technologies, tools, concepts, etc.
Being a visible role model in terms of pursuing Technical Excellence
Support team in collaboration with other teams
Helps team identify blindspots
ability to change contexts between projects
Lets the team make decisions
Take a step back and make room for technical advancements of the whole team
Not doing stuff from actively discourage column
Team makes decisions
Behaviours that discourage Technical Excellence
Dictatorship, have to do it my way, will to control (every small detail)
Blaming and shaming
Making arbitrary decisions, especially without explaining the reasoning behind it
Rejecting too complex C++ code
Using ambiguous, complex, uncertain English vocabulary
Shutting down emergent ideas from the team
Discouraging ideas “I couldn’t care less about your sophisticated C++ SPT initialisation”
Created ugly prototype for a demo and forced team to clean up afterwards
Imposing BDUF (Big Design Up Front) over the development team
Created non-viable design (i.e. could not be implemented with current constraints)
Enforcing old known technologies, etc out of inertia/ignorance, sticking to the “old ways”
Doing too many activities to follow through – not focused on any (and no time to encourage Technical Excellence)