Programmer Confidence and Arrogance

At SpeakerConf 2009, one of the speaker's wives asked me: Why is it that most speakers are confident, and some are simply arrogant. The question was also in the context of "software is nerdy, how can you speakers be so cocky". I pondered for a minute and replied: When no one knows what's "correct", people with confidence generally win the discussion.

Imagine the early days of medicine. Three different doctors give you three different surgery options. There's not enough experience in the industry to show which is the correct choice. Who do you trust? Probably the doctor who managed to be the most confident without being overly aggressive or cocky.

As I've said before, we're still figuring this stuff out. I constantly try to improve my processes for delivering software. I share those processes via speaking and blogging. However, I'm definitely aware that I could be doing it entirely wrong.

In general, I'm weary of developers who speak in absolutes. Most solutions I've seen are contextual, and even in context they tend to be fragile. We simply don't have the heuristics to determine what true best practices (for our field) are.

When pondering the original question I remembered when I wrote about Despised Software Luminaries. At the time I blamed passion; however, I'm guessing confidence and arrogance probably also weigh heavily on the source of animosity.

There's a direct correlation between being a luminary and your compensation package. Therefore, luminaries are enticed to gain as much market share as possible. Your luminary status is determined by the speed at which your ideas are adopted. And, without absolute proof of correctness, the speed at which your ideas are adopted can largely based on your confidence. I'm sure some luminaries see this situation and walk the line between confidence and arrogance.

Of course, not all luminaries are in it for compensation. I truly doubt Martin Fowler does what he does for money. But, the people who are looking to take market share from Martin may be motivated by a compensation package. Therefore, it's pretty hard to escape the the effects of confidence and arrogance.

The confidence and arrogance discussion is also interesting if you've ever met a luminary who you found to be completely incompetent. Perhaps they truly don't know what they were talking about, and they've just been confident enough to fool the majority of people they've met so far.

The Fowler Effect

ThoughtWorks does its best to attract smart developers. It's no easy task. How do you convince the smartest developers in the world to join a company that requires 100% travel (in the US anyway) and become consultants. It's a tough sell. I've always believed that people join because of the other people they'll be working with. And, of the ThoughtWorks employees that people want to work with, Martin Fowler is generally at the top.

I, like so many other people, found ThoughtWorks because of Martin Fowler. I followed a link from his website, read about the company, and decided I wanted to give it a shot. After interviewing I did a bit more research about ThoughtWorks. I was definitely put off by the travel and the thought of being a consultant, but I found blogs by Jim Newkirk, Mike Mason, and several other ThoughtWorks employees. They were saying the things I wanted to hear and they seemed like people I wanted to work with. I definitely joined ThoughtWorks for the people, but Martin was the original reason I applied.

Not everyone joins ThoughtWorks because of Martin, but a large majority of people do. Employing Martin Fowler guarantees ThoughtWorks enjoys a steady stream of talented applicants. I've always jokingly referred to this as the Fowler Effect.

I wonder if other companies could benefit from employing a luminary.

The first obvious question is: what would the luminary do? I expect the answer would vary based on the luminary.

In Martin's case, he doesn't do a lot of project work, but he is very involved in ThoughtWorks and it's projects. Martin actively participates in public discussions, visits projects, offers advice and solicits input all the time. I'm sure employing Martin also helps ThoughtWorks sell projects. The cost benefit analysis is pretty easy for ThoughtWorks and Martin, but I'm not sure how that translates to non-consulting organizations.

If your recruiting budget is the size of a luminary's salary, it might make more sense to hire a luminary that embodies the type of team you want to build. That luminary will probably be able to bring friends with similar philosophies and attract other candidates who are on the same page. In that case it would be fairly simple, you consider the luminaries salary spending part of the recruiting budget.

Other luminaries may be interested in splitting their time between project work and luminary activities. Depending on the knowledge that the luminary brings, 50% of their time might provide enough value when combined with their recruiting contributions to justify their salary.

Luminaries can also justify their employment with their network. Luminaries are often connected to people who are looking for feedback on bleeding edge technology. For example, a luminary could gain early access to something such as Microsoft's upcoming DSL solutions, MagLev, or some other type of game changing software. Getting access to game changing software before your competition could yield great benefits.

Universities can also use luminaries to attract students the way organizations use luminaries to attract employees.

As an example, many universities "employ" well known luminaries to lecture for them, yet those luminaries don't base themselves out of their campus 100% of their time, coming in to teach, perhaps one class a year. -- Pat Kua

It's clear that ThoughtWorks benefits from the Fowler Effect, but I think other organizations could also benefit more than they expect by employing a luminary. Luminaries not only bring networks, publicity, and experience, but they also attract other talented developers. The net result of employing a luminary and all the people they attract could be the difference between being good and being great.

Despised Software Luminaries

This morning I spent some time thinking about how software luminaries are generally loved or hated.

I've always been confused by people who really dislike Martin Fowler. Personally, I find Martin to be quite nice, but even if I didn't I would find it hard to disregard his passion for improving software development.

Obie Fernandez is another luminary who generally evokes love or hate. I'm friends with Obie as well as people who dislike Obie. Obie detractors often ask: How can you put up with him? The question is mostly targeted at Obie's passionate communication style. I've always thought that what Obie has to say is what's important, so I don't really care how he chooses to communicate it.

As I've gotten to know an increasing number of luminaries I noticed that things don't change at the top either: several of the luminaries seem to love and hate each other.

Why is it that software luminaries elicit such passionate feelings? I believe it's because software development (at an advanced level) is art. It's hard to find developers who can agree on architecture and it's hard to find artists who can agree on the best painting of all time. There is no right answer, it's contextual and subjective.

I also believe that luminaries (unconsciously) perpetuate the disdain with their passionate personalities. For example, a Martin Fowler averse developer once told me that Martin lives in a Java only world. If you read Martin's material you know that isn't the case; however, Martin does use Java examples very often. I don't think Martin uses Java because he prefers Java, I believe that Martin is passionate about reaching as many people as possible and therefore must use a widely known language. Unfortunately, the developer didn't see it from that perspective (I believe) because he was so focused on Ruby being better than Java that he was ready to dismiss anything pertaining to Java.

Software is an art and luminaries are passionate, I don't expect either of these things to change in the near future. Thus, I expect the disdain to remain as well, but perhaps being aware of the origin of the dislike can lead to a bit more tolerance within our passionate, artistic communities.