f3yourmind

I got a tweet from Clive Seebregts which pointed me to an InfoQ article that made reference to an old Hanselminutes podcast that I did.  It’s nice to see that diversity is not being left in the wilderness and that other people are thinking about it again.  It seems like some people are trying to promote diversity and others are trying to manage the challenges of diversity.  Hmmm, somewhere there is point of brutal contact, but it will be for the good.

BTW, digging around on material diversity in agile teams I came across this video.  I didn’t know it existed at all.  Suddenly, the references to the FIFA 2010 World Cup seem sooooo dated.

I shared by thoughts on people dynamics and how it affects success of software development projects with Yuanfang Cai yesterday.  In particular, I was explaining my thoughts on how diversity in a team affects the performance of a team.  When I talk about diversity I mean a lot more than just culture, language, and timezone.  I also view diversity in terms of value systems, political affiliation, economic position, overlapping worlds (such as work world overlapping with home world).  But my weirdest interpretation of diversity is that of diversity based on team boundaries.

Traditionally, each team has a boundary.  This boundary determines whether you are included or excluded from the team.  Sometimes, the inclusion and exclusion rules are clear, which is a good thing.  Sometimes, it is not.  Regardless, the boundary exists to eliminate diversity.  But, there are too many edge cases of people being brought into the team for a short while, then leaving.  The position taken is often “Joe is not part of the team, but sometimes we need him to join in so that we can …”.  Well, teams don’t work like that.  Let me rephrase: GOOD teams don’t work like that.

What I explained to Yuanfang was that I don’t think a team should have boundaries at all.  Instead, everyone is part of the team.  However, some people have a strong force that attaches them strongly to the team and others are attached by much weaker forces (like Joe’s part-time involvement).  When, you think of the team constructed via these forces, then the team can still work from one value system.  Why?  Because the degree of adoption of the value system is independent of the strength of the team forces.

Try it out and, maybe you will get greater harmony in the team and increased collaboration too.

I read an article on the strength of the Finnish schooling system yesterday.  It’s considered as the best in the world with a 4% variance between the best school and the worst school.  How did they achieve that?  They give a lot of focus on the bottom 99% of kids in the classroom and not the top 1%.

I have a fear that as a community we promote the top 1%.  I hear developers being labeled such as rock stars and ninjas.  It’s no different to junior developers and senior developers.  We find all sorts of measures to be in the top 1%:  Twitter follower-count, Facebook friends, LinkedIn connections.  I think such labels and measures create an air of exclusivity and elitism to the detriment of 99% of the people.  NINETY NINE PERCENT !!

My 1% rankings have always been nothing more than a fleeting moment.  Once I won a book prize at school and I got an award for some design in university and meal voucher or two for a job well done.  It was meaningfully great in that context, relative to the others in that context.  But it was perceived as such by a few at that moment in time.

Looking back, I feel sad.  Not because of the scarcity my top 1% ranking, but by the reflection that those fleeting moments did not have lasting value to those that were in that context with me.  I should have made it count more significantly.  These days, I want to do things that touch others meaningfully.  Is my my code worth reading and from which you can learn?  Did our conversation over coffee move us closer to understanding each other?  And I want to be affected similarly too, by 100% of the people, not just the 1%.

Sometimes you’re in the top 1% and sometimes you’re in the bottom 99%.  But you will always be part of the 100%.  I am nothing, yet I am everything.

A few of nights ago I had chat with Scott Hanselman about diversity in teams.  This experience and the .NET Rocks experience were really important learning moments for me.  Although you have the opportunity to “rewind” and be edited, I decided not to do that and just let me be heard as I am – unedited.

As usual, we all tend to be our own worst critics and I know I have some bad habits.  These are the ones of which I am most aware.  (a) I ramble on a bit before getting to the point and I miss the point sometimes, (b) I tend to interrupt people when they speak, and (c) I unconsciously complete people’s sentences.  Have a listen to the Hanselminutes podcast and please give me your feedback, good and bad.

The show could have gone in any number of directions but Scott did an amazing job of keeping it on a particular path.  There were some things that I thought about after the show and just want to elaborate a little bit.

The code that you write affects people on your team. Although we glossed over this and it felt like a weird application of Ubuntu, I really believe that your code impacts other people on your team.  I always joke about not carrying code to your grave.  Seriously, your code will be visited by the “second” team because your project is never complete until the “second” team comes into play after your first production release.  So writing code that is a positive experience for someone else is important.  Anyway, your code is collectively owned, and read more than written, right?

Greetings and introductions should be meaningful. The words that Scott used to describe me are nothing more than tangled mess of words that are superficially meaningful.  From that description, all you can do is categorise me by your previous stereotypes associated with those words.  Knowing people and learning how they feel at that moment in time and making that meaningful is all about discovery focused conversations.  Most people know that I really look for simple solutions to everything.  Having a conversation is easy, but choosing the right words to say is tough, especially if you are protecting yourself with a personal space wall or probing through someone’s personal space wall.

Learning is more important than being the best. I now really believe that just learning to be better for yourself is the most important thing.  It is a personal thing only.  It is not about being the top dog.  Aiming for top dog is an ego trip and power positioning becomes a vehicle for the journey.  Power destroys lives and spirits.  I have been down that road, practiced it, hated myself and been a subject of it as well.  I call it power oriented architecture.

Values and behavior compromises are contextual. We spoke a bit about clashing of value systems and I said that it is about compromise.  I think compromises only work in a context.  I have a  friend and it bothered me that he was, on occasion, a snob.  After a long time, I made peace with his snob-mode.  He was a snob in certain contexts and I acknowledged that and looked passed that and realised that the value systems and derived behavior we exhibit changes as we shift through contexts.  Ideally, it shouldn’t but we are humans and are fallible.  (Sure, we do have core values that are consistent across contexts.)  Knowing when people are applying altered values and behaving accordingly can help you create contextual compromises that can lessen the possibility of conflicts in teams.

Soft skills do not have hard recipes. Scott kept pushing me about techniques that we can use to work through these challenges in our teams.  I really did not have any.  After we stopped recording we both said that these are soft issues and there are no hard techniques.  Soft is soft. Period. It is really about becoming a better person – for yourself – and in so doing you become a better person for others.  I can’t coach this or teach this.  I can just share my experiences and thoughts on this.  And I am so very far away from not “being a jerk” as Scott politely put it.  The one thing I have seen consistently is that your “jerkness” is inversely proportional to your humbleness.

Voting for the first time in 1994 was significant. I opened the discussion about the important junction in time when apartheid was abolished and we voted freely for the first time.  This was significant because it divided our search for identity into two distinct eras.  It’s hard to manage diversity if we don’t have own identity.  Secondly, it was the most harmonious, collective experience of my life.  We stood in a queue from 8am to 6.30pm in Yeoville in Johannesburg.  In the queue we had old, young, black, white, Rastafarians, Muslims, Jews, almost every categorisation you could think.  But it was peaceful and celebratory.  It proved to me that human beings are capable of living together when we share a common ideal that we all believe in … even for one single moment.

If the real me is not Scott’s intro, then who am I? I am Aslam Khan.  I am a software developer.  I am a father, a husband, a brother and a son.  I am a neighbour, a friend and nice guy and a jerk. I am 40 and I am looking for balance.  I have two kids aged 8 and 5.  My thoughts are pre-occupied by the challenge of being a parent. I treasure my time with my family immensely but suffer serious guilts by not doing so.  My 5 year old child has a terminal disease and is classified as cerebral palsy which changed my view on many things.  My 8 year old child amazes me at his simplistic maturity and makes me realise that I am unnecessarily complicated.  I am a citizen of this world.  I wonder how many people will come to my funeral – it’s my measure of meaningful engagements.  I question whether writing software is a good way of becoming a better person.  I am hopeless at character assessments and my wife is my Deanna Troi.  I exist.