11 Comments

1. 

   Laura on October 26, 2011 at 2:11 pm

   I would love to print this out and leave it on a few people’s desks. Sigh.

   In addition to your points, another thing that comes to mind is it seems to me that most software engineers are relatively quiet, introverted types who don’t promote themselves or reach out to others from a social angle very much. I am speaking generally, not inclusive of all SW engineers. If a person’s “rank” is weighted by social interaction or interpersonal skills, again as you mention above, harm is done. This time by way of potentially blocking interaction from a key player who may feel slighted or even invisible. I have seen younger devs especially experience this.

   I have also seen flagrant suck-ups who promote the pecking order system. Not sure where I got this, because my parents aren’t like this, but you will never see me giving a Happy Boss’s Day card or giving them gifts when I get back from vacation. On purpose. Any compliments, raises, promotions, etc will be the result of consistently high quality, high integrity output on my part.

   I wish I could say we don’t have this issue where I work. People have to want to change mindsets. More than that, they have to realize there is an issue or problem that needs to be changed. Until the realization and desire to improve happen, an organization & it’s employees are stuck in a broken paradigm.

   Reply
   • 

     Esther Derby on October 26, 2011 at 2:40 pm

     Sigh.

     I’ve seen the same sort of thing. An obvious pecking order is a sign there is a serious problem.

     As coaches and managers, we need to pay attention how we amplify difference on a team. Some differences make a positive difference–but emphasizing status difference in the way you describe seldom leads to effective team work and excellent results.

     Reply
2. 

   Jason on October 27, 2011 at 3:34 pm

   There’s also the issue of expertise in a subject matter.

   Depending on the topic, people will defer to a different person. Even when the team has a great dynamic, and everything is working perfectly, there will be 3 people who are top dog when the topic is testing, three others for security, and yet another three for localization.

   So what’s your pecking order now?

   Reply
   • 

     Esther Derby on October 27, 2011 at 5:09 pm

     There’s nothing wrong with deferring to expertise…unless the deference is enforced or it limits other team members from contributing, learning, and growing their skills. In a well-functioning team, people make the best use they can of all the expertise in the team–which isn’t a pecking order at all.

     I do see groups where people defer to faux expertise because status differences are amplified. Might be years with the company, expertise by repeated assertion, dominating personality, academic background or some other mechanism. And that doesn’t serve anyone.

     Reply
3. 

   YvesHanoulle on October 28, 2011 at 12:42 am

   very recognisable.
   I even see companies doing this at team or department level.
   y

   Reply
4. 

   Dean Goodmanson on October 28, 2011 at 10:13 am

   Is it a pecking order the pattern and dismantling practices appropriate when 80%+ of the communication from the manager is between them and a right-hand-man? (pattern, not gender)

   Reply
   • 

     Esther Derby on October 28, 2011 at 10:23 am

     Well, it is an odd pattern. Seems like it would create a power difference, especially if the “right hand man” is also a contributor on the team. What effects are you seeing from this pattern?

     Reply
5. 

   Jyrki Puttonen on October 28, 2011 at 12:02 pm

   (I published this also in http://softwarefromnorth.blogspot.com/2011/10/pecking-order-and-crane-flogs.html, might be easier to read)

   Even though you say that software teams aren’t like sport teams or flocks, I want to share a view from one ice-hockey coach, Hannu Aravirta. He described his management style to be flying in V-formation, like flock of cranes. The person who is in the front of the formation is changed regularly to give breathing time for everyone. Even though in ice-hockey team (in this case, national team of Finland) there is a formal ranking given by the organization, everyone will take turns in the front of the flock. And everyone must lead the flock in the same direction.

   In real world, the rotation is not random, though. The stronger birds might be in the front for a longer time (I’m not sure if this is true). This happens also in the context of software development. The flock, or team, will face variety of problems and issues. Some of those are technical, some are business related, and so on. So it should be the person who has the best capabilities to resolve the current issue who is in front of the flock, giving the direction where to go.

   Like all analogies, this isn’t complete. It gives an impression that the current leader of the flock will make all decisions alone, which is not the case.

   Reply
6. 

   Dean Goodmanson on October 28, 2011 at 4:13 pm

   Thank you for your response. I don’t have any definitive effects beyond the feelings that outside a chain of delegation, it feels like communication will further defines a pecking order, with similar effects. In arbitrary terms I have been wondering if it (or how) qualifies as a teamwork anti-pattern or teamwork-smell.

   Reply
   • 

     Esther Derby on October 28, 2011 at 4:21 pm

     It doesn’t seem like it would be very helpful. If nothing else, it creates the perception of a special relationship. From there its easy for people to project all sorts of motivations and interpretations onto actions and utterances.

     Reply
7. 

   Agile Scout on October 28, 2011 at 9:24 pm

   Spot on.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.