You’ve got a problem.
You want to measure, and improve, something about your project or people. You’ve got a good idea about how to do this. Perhaps the metric you want to use is already widely measured. Perhaps it’s been in the industry for a while. It might be a KPI, related to a management incentive or perhaps you simply want to replace your existing metrics with something better.
Before you put that measurement in place, borrow my Evil Hat.
The Seventh Hat
Edward de Bono identified six different ways in which people prefer to think, and created the six famous thinking hats.
Unfortunately for humanity, there’s a seventh way in which we think. It comes unconsciously from our innate desire for an easy life, our craving for approval, and mechanisms of feedback which tell us whether we’re doing the right or the wrong thing. It comes more consciously from our desire to be paid more, keep or improve our jobs, and make our bosses happy. If we’re determined to be evil, we can think of it as a way of manipulating the system for our personal gain.
The problem is, even if we aren’t evil, we do start responding subconsciously to the feedback provided by our measurements and responses to them. Like an electrical current, we tend to take the path of least resistance. If we’re seeing problems as a result of the metrics, we’ll address the problems – and if we’re doing it subconsciously, we may not actually analyze the cause of those problems, or the effect of our changes outside of the system. We’ll respond to praise for achieving the targets, and to criticism for missing them – even if the targets and the praise are implicit.
By putting on the Evil Hat, we can move those subconscious reactions into the conscious realm. Pretend, for a moment, that you have no care whatsoever for the success of your project, your team or the bigger picture. You are merely interested in your own personal gain. You are not interested in making life better for anyone else but yourself. This is what your brain is already doing, before the altruism in your conscious mind or subconscious habit kicks in (and there are plenty of arguments to suggest that altruism itself is merely done for psychologically selfish reasons).
Congratulations. The Evil Hat has just turned you into a sociopath.
Sociopaths can destroy your company or project
When a sociopath wants something, they can resort to any means necessary to get it. This article, Sociopaths in High Places, illustrates some of the behaviour we can expect from sociopaths, including bullying, cruelty, manipulation and outright fraud.
This only happens because sociopaths don’t care about other people. Of course, most of us are born with empathy. We feel other people’s pain. Don’t we?
When we’re stressed, our adrenaline levels rise. We are primed for fight or flight. Our instincts are turned inwards, to our own survival. We are more likely to act in our own interests, and less likely to worry about those around us. This rather lovely article talks about the circular nature of stress and concentration, relating the feeling of compassion to the state of relaxation. The opposite is also true.
So, let’s imagine that we’ve been set some targets, and we’re not meeting them. Our boss (who has targets of his own) is putting the pressure on us. Now we’re starting to feel stressed, which makes us less empathic. Even if we’re not sociopaths ourselves, we’re capable of selfishness, and it’s starting to show.
Sociopaths are in charge
The targets in any company tend to filter down from the top. The shareholders want a profit. The CEOs, board members and upper management are in charge of delivering that profit. Their targets and metrics are clear. As Chris Matts has said when talking about Feature Injection, they need to “make money, save money or protect money”.
Two psychologists, Paul Babiak and Robert Hare, started applying a checklist for psychopaths to the boardroom members of corporations, and published some of their findings in a book, “Snakes in suits”. This transcript of a radio interview with the authors and other experts illustrates some of the behaviours they found.
It’s often easier for a psychopath to achieve their goals by destroying others. Certainly, they have no empathic reason to want to help others, and they will protect themselves and the power they amass quite jealously. There are some phrases that we can look for to see if we or our colleagues are becoming less empathic with stress:
“It’s not my fault.”
“X did it.”
This is us, protecting our power and our jobs at the expense of someone else. We’re not thinking about the impact on others when we say these things. We’re doing it to protect ourselves.
Of course, true sociopaths and psychopaths (Wikipedia defines the difference nicely) will protect themselves in advance, so rarely have to resort to passing the blame – it will already be obvious to all powerful onlookers that they are blameless. Or, worse, the powerful onlookers will themselves have sociopathic tendencies, and be in cahoots with their sociopathic comrades.
As the stress mounts, the more clever amongst us will start protecting ourselves. We keep those emails, do everything in writing, and insist that processes are followed, making sure that we cannot be blamed for anything more than being cogs in a giant machine. The more creative amongst us find ways of becoming more influential and indispensable – hoarding knowledge, hiding our lack of skill, making friends in high places, setting others up to take the fall. As the habits develop, we become more and more sociopathic ourselves. Anyone who finds themselves unable to dispense with morality leaves, and the company culture is now fully riddled with blame.
Sociopaths can save your company or project
As Robert Hare says in the radio interview:
Enlightened self-interest is not a bad idea for psychopaths, and try to indicate or convince them that there are ways in which they can get what they want and need without having to actually harm other people. “Enlightened self-interest is not a bad idea for psychopaths…” Now it’s easier said than done, because their behavioural patterns are fairly entrenched. But these are not stupid people, I mean the range of intelligence amongst psychopathic populations is the same as it is in the general population. These are people who know what’s going on.
So, what’s going on?
The word is spreading. Self-organising teams, in which the members are not merely cogs, are more performant. Employee empowerment and learning improves company morale, reduces expensive employee turnover and can help make money. Transparency in the workplace fosters productivity. Incremental delivery reduces risk, resulting in more successful projects and more fulfilled staff; even governments are listening.
It turns out that in most cases, doing the empathic thing – creating positive cultures and professional experiences for employees – is also the most profitable thing, helping those sociopathic CEOs. It’s the most productive thing, helping their cahooting managers. If it involves transparency, it’s hard for anyone else to manipulate, and because an enabled, positive, productive workforce creates options it reduces risk and provides the greatest possible control in the event of uncertainty.
The sociopaths of the world – CEOs, managers, and democratic governments – are also starting to listen. If you know yourself to be a sociopath or a psychopath, you’re in a position of power, and you’re not paying attention, then you’re losing this race.
If, however, you are already cynically manipulating your company culture to be better, faster, more productive, empowered, self-organising, transparent, learning, improving, Lean, Agile, incremental, feedback-driven, forward-thinking, creative, optimistic and prepared, then congratulations. You are about to rule your slice of the world. Just what you always wanted.
Put on the Evil Hat
By pretending to a certain amount of sociopathy before we start introducing metrics and targets, we can ask ourselves, “How will we respond to these targets?” Will we game the system, manipulating these in a way which serves our purposes, but not the whole? Are they perverse incentives in disguise? Will we see anti-patterns emerge as a result?
We can also use the Evil Hat to turn this around. What metrics and targets could we put in place that would lead to even more productive behaviours? That would lead to success, and therefore maximise our personal gain? How can we make sure that the things we’re measuring are the things we most want?
It’s Good to be Evil
I was in a meeting when someone suggested introducing a KPI for measuring team leaders. “One of their jobs is to remove obstacles from the path of the team,” a manager suggested. “We should measure how many obstacles they remove.”
“Excuse me a moment,” I grinned. “That sounds like fun. Just let me put on my Evil Hat, and I’ll tell you what I’m going to do in response…”
On an aside, some people have asked me why I’ve chosen to set up my services site as a hard-coded website with server-side includes, instead of using another Wordpress blog or something similar. I did it because:
- It was the quickest way I could think of to get a website out with a reasonable amount of content
- I wanted to be able to get the style right (or at least usable) before I had to wrap it around Wordpress
- I had no idea what I was going to put in the website when I started.
Having said that, it’s now annoying me. There’s enough up there that the next stage is to, um, move it to a customised Wordpress site (it should look exactly the same, but be easier for me to administer).
I did learn a lot about CSS, Mercurial over SSH from Windows, and Apache SSI configuration while I was playing with this. It will be much easier for me to set up the Wordpress site, now I know what I don’t want on it and what I need for the styling to work. And I didn’t need a Wordpress site when I started. YAGNI wins again.
What’s a Cargo Cult?
Once upon a time, during World War II, there was an island on which planes landed. The islanders loved the planes landing, because they brought goods that the islanders couldn’t normally get. The soldiers shared the goods with the islanders, and the islanders considered themselves wealthy, lucky, and blessed by the gods.
When the planes stopped landing, the islanders missed the cargo that the planes had brought, and decided they’d try to bring them back.
They did the same things that they’d seen the soldiers do to make the planes land. They created signal fires, waved at the sky, wore coconut-headphones on their ears and made replica planes from wood and straw. The cult which surrounded this sympathetic magic came to be known as a cargo cult.
What’s Cargo-Cult Agile?
As the Wikipedia author says, the islanders mistook a necessary condition for the planes arriving as being a sufficient condition for the planes arriving.
Teams and individuals sometimes make this same mistake with Agile. They believe that by following the practices of XP, Scrum or some other methodology, they’ll be successful in creating a culture which allows them to succeed.
Unfortunately, the islanders hadn’t realised that the soldiers created the airstrips because there were planes that wanted to land. The planes caused the airstrips – not the other way round! Without the planes, there would have been no desire for control towers or signal fires, for radios or waving arms, or for headphones, coconut or otherwise. And although these artifacts made it easier for the planes to land, the soldiers could have experienced some success with just a bare strip of earth and a little caution.
Agile values
In World War II, the leaders who wanted to win the war realised that planes were necessary. The air-strips helped them to use the planes effectively.
In Agile, the Agile practices that we know have emerged from teams that wanted to deliver valuable, working software, and who had discovered certain personal values that were effective in delivery. The practices they used allowed them to leverage those personal values effectively, but really, a bare strip of dirt – or any kind of process that reminded them what they were trying to achieve – would have enabled them to experience some kind of success.
I’ve found lots of different names for the values that allow teams to be successful – collaboration, trust, responsibility, innovation, camaraderie, rapport, honesty, transparency, helpfulness, forthrightness, motivation, responsiveness, agility, idealism, pragmatism, curiosity… the list goes on. They’re all wonderful ways of expressing those personal values, and I’ve seen or heard of teams succeeding with these values, regardless of which methodology they use. Partly this is because the values they’ve adopted allow them to try things out, to feel safe in questioning the processes they follow, to recognise better ways, and to be pragmatic in balancing the adoption of new ways of doing things with the responsibility for delivery.
I’ve also found that the following five values encompass pretty much everything that I’ve written in the list above, either alone or in combination:
- respect – the belief that other people are valuable, able to teach you something and amaze you, able to succeed given experience and support, interested in others’ well-being and success, and motivated by the desire to make the world a better place; and that any behaviour to the contrary is caused by external pressures or ordinary, forgivable human frailty
- courage – willingness to try new things which might not work, to accept personal risk for professional gain, to make oneself vulnerable in order to learn, and to lead others to do the same
- communication – the art of making oneself clearly understood, understanding others and feeding back any lack of understanding so that it can be corrected, listening and imagining, being aware of the impact of communications (verbal and otherwise), and finding other ways to communicate when required.
- simplicity – the ability and desire to reduce complexity, mitigate or isolate it where it’s inevitable, and avoid introducing it; to start, where it’s possible to start, without worrying about how or where it will end.
- feedback – knowing that our perception of our world and the ways in which we model it may be inaccurate, actively seeking out those inaccuracies (which may require courage!), trusting any existing mechanisms which can inform us of those inaccuracies, and listening to them when they do.
These are the five values of Extreme Programming, as outlined by Kent Beck (the poor definitions are my own).
As a coach, I’ve run competitive workshops in which these values formed the basis of the point-scoring. I’ve seen companies, especially Screwfix, adopt Agile using these values as a backbone, and seen them successfully release projects with previously unimagined scope and resource constraints. I’ve seen Scrum adoptions that were failing take on these values and begin working out the kinks, and XP adoptions that were rigidly bound by their processes, but whose employees lived by these values, become more fluid and successful as they aligned themselves accordingly.
I’ve also seen methodologies adopted without these values, leading to rebellion and the quick return to known, established practices that don’t leverage them. I’ve seen mailing lists on Agile topics become cliques – at least, I don’t feel I can post in them because of the lack of respect shown by some participants to others. And Kent Beck himself had to add that value – Respect – because it turned out not to be as obvious as he would have liked.
Measuring values
I’ve used the Dreyfus Model of Skills Aquisition frequently to measure how well the adoption of particular practices is progressing. I’ve found it useful to map the levels to these values as well, where:
- Novice: still shows anti-patterns, behaviours which are not aligned with the values
- Beginner: behaves like a normal human being, and would be pleasant to work with
- Practitioner / Competent: is a model for these values, has few “off-days” and is forgiving of others on theirs
- Knowledgeable: maintains these values intuitively, not only as part of their work-life, and can lead others in adopting them; has become a better person as a result of adopting these values
- Expert: maintains these values in the face of adversity and in environments where these values create vulnerability; can articulate the benefits of holding these values both personally and professionally; can teach others and provide constructive feedback to help them adopt the values and leverage them more effectively.
That “Practitioner / Competent” level, 3, is in my experience the average that a team needs to achieve in each of these values in order to successfully adopt any Agile or Lean methodology. They also appear to lead to more enriched, fulfilling lives at work.
Landing planes
The great thing about these values is that it’s hard to introduce perverse incentives when using them as a metric. One participant in a workshop asked, “What if we just pretend?” Well, you can’t pretend to communicate better without actually communicating better. You can’t pretend to make things simpler without reducing complexity. You can say that you don’t believe in these values, or that you don’t think they’re helpful – but in my experience, teams who’ve tried them have discovered that they’re so much more fun than not maintaining them, they haven’t looked back. Even pretending to value these values leads to good habits, and the reaction of co-workers has often been positive enough to cause them to be subconsciously ingrained.
So, give it a try, and if you’re thinking of adopting Agile or Lean, land those planes first. The practices will follow, and make a lot more sense.
I just read Matt Amionetti’s thoughtfully worded response to the reaction he’s got from his presentation, “CouchDB: Perform like a Pr0n star”.
Indeed, reading the response, it seems almost inconceivable that anyone could possibly be offended by his presentation. Matt warned people beforehand that there would be potentially offensive images, I believe in his stated intentions, and I heed his call that we should be contributing something useful to the discussion.
So, I’d like to give you, the reader, a little bit of insight into the human brain, how it makes connections and comparisons, and help you to understand your power over other people and their perceptions.
I’d like to start by telling you another story.
The Tale of the T-Shirt
On one dress-down Friday, a colleague came in wearing a beach T-shirt, featuring a topless woman coming out of the surf. It was just a black and white image, and the focus was on the scene as a whole, but nonetheless some of us felt that it was inappropriate. So I asked him not to wear it again.
“Why?” our colleague said. “I didn’t think it would offend anyone.”
“It’s not really that it’s offensive,” I said, “but think about this. I’m pair-programming with you, sitting next to you at a table. Someone else comes along to talk to both of us. They see your T-shirt, with that image, and then they scan across from that image to me. Can you see the comparison they’re making in their mind? Even subconsciously? That’s why I would prefer you not to wear that T-shirt – so that people don’t think about topless women while they’re talking to me, and while I’m trying to work. At worst, the comparison is offensive. At best, the t-shirt is distracting.”
Our colleague took the feedback very well, and agreed not to wear the t-shirt again.
How the brain makes associations
The human brain consists of a bunch of neurons, between which connections and pathways are built. Those pathways form associations. There are associations of which we’re conscious, associations of which we’re not conscious, and a blurred space in between.
Here’s a conscious association. If I want to remind myself to pick up my dry-cleaning after work, I can hide my handbag. Sound strange? Well, as soon as I go to pick up my handbag, and it’s not where I left it, I’ll remember why I hid it. I’ve built myself a conscious association between the absence of the handbag, and the task I had to remember.
For a subconscious association, watch yourself thinking of all the things you remember about Germany, when I say the word “Germany”, or “Elephant”. The vast majority of our associations are not in, and often not available to, our conscious mind. They add to our personality, drive the learning we get from our experiences, and there are simply too many of them for us to be aware of them all.
For an example of the blurred space between, I offer my fiancé’s habit of driving directly home from the station, even though we agreed we’d stop at the Chinese takeaway on the way home. He associates the act of driving down a particular road with a particular route, and consciously manipulates the car to follow his subconscious association.
So what does this have to do with pr0n stars?
Human beings learn associations by – amongst other things – proximity; either in time, or in place. That is; they will build associations more easily if two or more things are experienced close together.
If you’ve watched Matt’s slideshow, and you find yourself using CouchDB on a project in the future, will you be thinking of his slideshow? It was very memorable. I think I will find it hard in the future to disassociate that slideshow from the featured product. That’s a conscious association I’ve built. I’m aware of it.
There’s a subconscious association going on in that show, too; another proximity which is harder to spot. We’ve just experienced words of technology – key phrases like scalability, REST, public interfaces – with images of women whom we’re told are available for visual sexual gratification. There are a few men in some of the images; they appear to me to be in positions of power and influence. The images of women, on the other hand, tend to be submissive. So we’re learning, subconsciously, that women associated with technology are also associated with sexual gratification and submissiveness. (The only strong women in the slideshow are associated with conflict, which we try to avoid.)
If you doubt this is true, look through the presentation (and bear in mind that it might be considered Not Safe For Work). At some point, Matt introduces a picture of a typical development team. To which team member are your eyes drawn, and why?
At the very least, we start making comparisons. No wonder she doesn’t look happy.
The power of people with influence
Earlier this year, I finished reading Robert Cialdini’s “Influence”. It’s a very readable, memorable book. It explains some of the ways in which associations are made. In particular, he describes these mechanisms for influencing other people (his titles, my poor definitions):
- Social proof – if other people do it, we should do it too
- Authority – if someone in a leadership position tells us to do it, we should do it
Examples which Cialdini uses to demonstrate these concepts include the mass suicide at Jonestown, and the Milgram experiment.
So, if a community is building associations, or you’re recognised as or portraying yourself as an authority telling people to build associations, those associations will be stronger than normal. People will be more likely to act on those associations. In the same way that my fiancé takes the turning for home, “routes” will be set which the brain naturally follows, and acts upon. And it will seem perfectly reasonable, or justifiable, to do so – at the time.
So what can you do now?
If you were sitting in Matt’s presentation, or have experienced similar presentations or associations in the past:
- you might consciously choose to wear a topless women on your t-shirt, because your brain subconsciously confirms that it’s acceptable.
- You might expect women to be more submissive; to accept delegated tasks more easily, or question process less, or accept lower pay.
- You might find it uncomfortable to have a female manager or team lead.
- You might cause the women around you start dressing in less feminine ways, to distance themselves from any association.
- You might erroneously think you have a chance of scoring with your female colleague (notwithstanding cases of genuine mutual attraction).
- You might not expect the woman on your team to be able to teach you anything new.
And, if you’re Matt, or one of the many commenters whose opinions I’ve read, you might not completely understand the backlash. Hopefully this post helps.
If you’re not suffering these or similar biases, trust my experience that others are, or have done, and start thinking about how you might have been influenced. The associations aren’t helpful for me, and I doubt they’re helpful for the people who have them. Recognising the influence of others will help you to consciously choose different paths.
Hopefully if you’ve found the presentation through this blog, you’ve now read through this post and are now better guarded against these associations. (That’s why I didn’t put the link at the top).
You can also strengthen more useful associations. Go find the women in your team and talk to them about their technical abilities; the things that brought them to IT; times when they’ve felt empowered and assertive. Find strong female role-models – I recommend Esther Derby, Desi McAdam, Sarah Taraporewalla, Johanna Rothman, Cyndi Mitchell, Rachel Davies, Angela Martin, and many others too numerous to list here. If you’re looking for something more entertaining to get into your subconscious, try Ellen Ripley, Buffy Summers, Alan Moore’s “Promethea” or Manda Scott’s “Boudica” series.
And, if you’re thinking of presenting something similar in the future, be aware of the power that you have.
On engendering subconscious reactions
Matt entitled his response, “On Engendering Strong Reactions“. I’m worried about the subconscious reactions; about the effect that it has on the people who see that presentation and the way in which they react to me, and to my other female colleagues, afterwards. Matt said, “I would have hoped that people who were likely to be offended would have simply chosen not to attend my talk or read my slides on the internet”. That doesn’t stop the associations being built, and I can’t necessarily avoid working with people who have built those associations.
So I’m not offended by the presentation – I can understand why some women might be – but I am concerned by it. Hopefully this provides some positive insight into why. Matt – I hope you find it useful and enlightening; please let me know.
Last week, the XtC London group met up with the SPA2009 attendees. Joseph Perline ran a panel session with Tim Mackinnon, Rachel Davies and others in which they discussed the weakening of the Agile brand.
One of the most interesting comments was Tim’s assertion that Agile “fails the purchase test”. That is; if someone won’t buy the opposite of what you’re selling, then the brand of what you’re selling has no value. In Agile terms, if no team will claim to be “not Agile” then the word “Agile” itself no longer has any value.
How many teams nowadays will actively claim to still be running Waterfall, for any flavour of Waterfall? Of course not. We’re all “Agile”, aren’t we?
At an Agile 2008 keynote, Uncle Bob asked everyone who was on an Agile project to raise their hands, then put them down if they failed any of certain criteria: no unit tests, no acceptance tests, iterations of more than two weeks, no showcases to the business, etc. By the end, hardly anyone had their hands up.
So, given that those of us who are on Agile projects are often less than perfectly Agile, how do you decide whether you’re actually in that space, or are merely one of the teams weakening the brand?
Do you know what “not Agile” looks like? And are you sure it doesn’t look a bit like you?
Comments