Re: "Winning" the pair programming discussion

On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 12:10:35AM -0000, [email protected] wrote:
> seems to more intent on winning the argument than understanding what 
> he came learn from these concepts and I have told him that was the 
> impression I had.

So when he states an issue/objection, do you think it is the real issue he has with Pairing, or is the real issue perhaps something deeper that you might need to address first before trying to tackle the "surface" issues?

> One complaint is pair programming is inefficient since you have less 
> parallel task being worked on.

Is he a proponent of inspections? Because opponents of inspections used to say the same thing regarding all the time wasted in inspection meetings. And yet there is all that data to suggest finding and fixing bugs earlier in the lifecycle ends up saving you a lot more time/effort in the long run. If he is a proponent of that kind of thinking, might the same principle apply here too?

Regarding his assumptions about which kinds of people to pair or not pair, will the data in the book "Pair Programming Illuminated" help at all?

For each objection he has, is there something about his objection that is rooted in thinking that is perfectly valid? If so, would it help to begin your response with "You are right that <...>, and ..." (note the use of "and" instead of "but") show how the underlying thing he believes is supported by the practice rather than contradicting?

> Second complaint results from collective code ownership.  In this 
> cas, knowledge is "too spread out" and you will get no "experts" in 
> any one area.  Also, if somehow you became an expert, you could lose 
> that knowledge as another pair "aggressively refactored" the code you 
> knew.

To me, the above sounds like a fear associated with loss of power/influence/job-security/control due to not being the only/dominant expert. Why can't it end up that everyone is expert? Is it that he thinks no one will have enough knowledge, or that no one person will be able to lord it over others? Does "expert" imply that it must be relative to everyone else, or is there room for more than one expert at a time? 

I mean, the data I know contradicts his assumption (which he seems to state as if it were proven fact), and yet if he were shown the data, that might not address the real issue. How might the real issue be addressed?

> to people who will NOT try it and they are CONVINCED they are right.  

Why are they convinced of it? Next time they give a reason, keep asking why they think that at least 2-3 more times to get at the deeper issues/reasons. I have a feeling that is where you need to start, and addressing the initially raised surface issues won't do much to combat the ways in which Pair Programming poses a threat to their comfort-level or perceived self-esteem/competency

If someone is determined not to "get it", they usually won't. They may have good reasons too. They just may not be the reasons that they initially say. So working on the reason why they are determined not to is a prerequisite. Sometimes the persistent Green-Eggs-and-Ham approach will eventually work. But if the change threatens them somehow (loss of control, competency, connection, comfort, etc.), then try to find out how and "dissipate" the perceived threat in a way that improves their comfort/esteem.

Sometimes, it may be how they perceive you - and getting a different person to tell them the same thing you were gonna say can make the difference. Some people develop certain biases about how open/receptive they are to ideas from specific individuals. And changing the speaker changes their willingness to hear and consider what is being suggested. Or maybe find someone who has success communicating with that person and ask how they would go about it in your case.

Logic isn't always the best route - some folks (including pointy-haired types) aren't persuaded by logic. They might be more persuaded my an impassioned plea, or perhaps simply a lot of bubbly energy and enthusiasm, or something else. A few times, I've been able to motivate a certain person to do something I thought was important by making it appear to them as an opportunity to "one up" me or "prove me wrong" (not as a dare, but by a little bit of acting dumb/ignorant ;-)

-- 
Brad Appleton <[email protected]> www.bradapp.net
  Software CM Patterns (www.scmpatterns.com)
   Effective Teamwork, Practical Integration
"And miles to go before I sleep." -- Robert Frost

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/LIgTpC/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/nhFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/