Your Code is not Yours
But our tools make it easy to think it is
As humans, we have a deep, instinctive sense of ownership over things we create. This manifests in many different ways, some of them beneficial (if you have children, you’re probably very invested in them!). However sometimes these instincts are counterproductive, and especially in any situation where we are creating things collaboratively.
Many successful companies codify their approach to collective creativity, for example one of Pixar’s rules for fostering collective creativity (go read that article, everything in it applies to your engineering culture!) is the concept of ‘plussing’:
…you may only criticize an idea if you also add a constructive suggestion.
This and many other techniques ensure that the focus of the creative people working together is on the work rather than the individuals creating it.
As I’ve written about before on this blog, it’s time that we start treating programming—as in the fundamental work that software engineers, developers, data analysts, etc. all do—as creative work.
One of the core concepts with doing creative work as a team is that once ideas are in public are no longer owned by the individual who submitted them, but rather a part of the body of work that the whole team is working on. This is an important part of creating an environment that’s psychologically safe - and that’s an essential part of a team that can be creative.
Of course, as programmers, our ideas are often rendered in code when we submit a PR or document like a spec., ADR or RFC. We are working together not in a writers’ room, but in PRs, documents and sprint ceremonies. It is in these forums that sometimes our attachment to our work can get the better of us. We can fall into disruptive patterns of behaviour that serve to prove the validity of our own ideas first, rather than engage in a dialogue about how to get to the best outcome.
Our Tools Foster Ownership
The tools we use don’t help, especially for those of us working remotely. In a room where people are talking, an idea can come up, and be shaped by the collective, each person adding their perspective until the concept loses any sense of who owns it. Participants in a creative meeting may struggle even immediately afterwards to identify who exactly contributed what to the finished plan.
With digital tooling we are not so lucky. Every line of code can spew up a name with git blame, every Slack message is archived forever with your name against what you wrote. Every comment on a document has your name and profile picture next to it. The train of thought and each individual’s contribution is written in stone, to be pored over as required.
Since being creative effectively means being ‘wrong’—or at least not neccessarily ‘right’—a lot of the time, this means having your name and probably face attached to an essentially indelible record of all of these statements.
I’m not saying these tools should change, but it is good to be aware of the way that they don’t make it easy to detach yourself from the work you do, and to consider the tools you do use when working collaboratively. What tools help blur the boundaries of who did what? Do you need to use a tool at all?
The Pain of Cognitive Dissonance
To do creative work collaboratively without losing our minds, we must disassociate ourselves from our work. It’s easier said than done! Often the hardest part can be recognising when problematic instincts are in play.
Cognitive dissonance is the unpleasant situation that occurs when the brain must hold two contradictory truths side by side. This can happen when we receive feedback because the brain almost axiomatically believes itself to be competent, correct, and most importantly consistent. Therefore when faced with the realisation that perhaps we made a mistake, or that we didn’t think through a particular scenario, or that we need to make some corrections, our brain is forced to go on the defensive to deal with this.
To admit that we made a mistake challenges the brain’s idea that it’s competent and correct, and to change course runs the risk of inconsistency. So instead we go on the attack: trying to figure out how to change the field of play so that we were right all along, that the proposed changes are not required after all, that the person making the suggestions is wrong, that communication was at fault, resulting in our misunderstanding, etc.
This all happens—unless you’re well practiced at spotting it—without realising that this is going on at all.
Getting the Better of your Instincts
Fostering a safe, supportive creative environment relies on a strong group dynamic and a shared understanding of what the pitfalls lie when working collaboratively. This means achieving a good collaborative creative environment cannot be something that can be achieved through individual action alone (unless, perhaps, you’re managing said team).
Above all it requires deep trust. One person falling into a defensive stance about their idea can trigger a cascade as others adopt a similar stance in response, or get locked into discussion of that one suggestion rather than moving on.
However, mastering your own instincts is still an important part of the battle, but if you are aware that your team is falling into bad patterns of behaviour, take the time to focus on fostering a creative environment that feels safe for everyone.