Rousseau: Damaging others is more beneficial than helping them
I heard that Rousseau - while believing that humans are born as good beings - claimed that humans can not be good in society. Society´s rules are made in a way that damaging others always brings more benefit than helping others. I wonder whether this is also true for one section within human society: a software project.
The word "team" is in fashion not only for project teams but also replacing other terms like the department. Nevertheless, most so-called teams are no teams according to the definition of Humphrey. According to Humphrey, a team is made up of at least two persons who work towards a joint goal, where each person has a defined responsibility and defined tasks.
However, project success is not always the main objective of all team members and even less of all stakeholders. Competition is very high in German enterprises. People do not aim at team success, but always their own success, according to their own criteria. This can mean they want to get home at a defined minute. Then, it is better for them that tasks are not clearly defined and not clearly attributed to the persons. Then, they can "forget" some work and still are not responsible for it. Helping others causes them extra work but no profit. Arranging misunderstandings and forgetting tasks helps them to work slowlier and go home earlier.
Others want to show that they are better than the colleagues and must therefore be promoted faster than these. For these, helping others can also cause damage. If they help someone, this makes him look more competent and efficient than he is. Therefore, it is important for them to help others only under the condition that everyone knows it. Like this, they can establish as an expert AND can establish the other as an idiot by telling everyone how stupid he is. He would never have managed to do his work, without help. I have experienced colleagues telling me simple truths which I already knew and then they ran around and told everyone that I did not even know such simple things. Damaging others is beneficial in software development.
There should be mechanisms and rules which make that it is more profitable for each individual to help the others than damaging them. Team success is not made up of successful sub-projects but of synergy effects, of using all the knowledge available in the team. Damaging a colleague finally means damaging the project and damaging the company. When I was a project manager, I tried to establish such a team culture. Especially, the company culture demanded that at each error the person had to be found who is guilty and must be punished. I refused to do so because I said that in a team, an error is not made by one person alone, but by several. For instance if someone forgets to tell a fact to someone, this someone also might have asked. Who works, makes errors. This is a well-known truth. However, in this company I was told that we want to achieve that no-one makes errors. This is an interesting statement in a company where people get no training for being competent enough for working error-free. They seemed to believe that publicly punishing those who made an error makes them work better, more efficiently than a training. Well, cheaper at least. When an error happened, I looked for causes and solutions. I often said "we". "If you help X, then work package Y finishes earlier and we can deliver earlier all together." (This proposal was the result of a critical path analysis of our network plan.)
Of course, I was not successfull with this strategy. It did not fit into the company culture. I was called a person who avoids conflicts and strives for perfect harmony. Well, yes, avoiding unnessary and destructive conflicts is not so bad, but adds to efficiency. Struggling and fighting detracts energy and time from the productive work. As for the perfect harmony: Solving real problems is fun, therefore I liked the management job. But it is no fun to see adults behave like kindergarden children!
Even the reproach that I avoid conflicts speaks in favour of my assumption that a software project and software company is also made in a way that damaging others is more beneficial than helping others.
Source of the team definition:
W.S. Humphrey: Introduction to the Team Software Process, Addison-Wesley 2000
The word "team" is in fashion not only for project teams but also replacing other terms like the department. Nevertheless, most so-called teams are no teams according to the definition of Humphrey. According to Humphrey, a team is made up of at least two persons who work towards a joint goal, where each person has a defined responsibility and defined tasks.
However, project success is not always the main objective of all team members and even less of all stakeholders. Competition is very high in German enterprises. People do not aim at team success, but always their own success, according to their own criteria. This can mean they want to get home at a defined minute. Then, it is better for them that tasks are not clearly defined and not clearly attributed to the persons. Then, they can "forget" some work and still are not responsible for it. Helping others causes them extra work but no profit. Arranging misunderstandings and forgetting tasks helps them to work slowlier and go home earlier.
Others want to show that they are better than the colleagues and must therefore be promoted faster than these. For these, helping others can also cause damage. If they help someone, this makes him look more competent and efficient than he is. Therefore, it is important for them to help others only under the condition that everyone knows it. Like this, they can establish as an expert AND can establish the other as an idiot by telling everyone how stupid he is. He would never have managed to do his work, without help. I have experienced colleagues telling me simple truths which I already knew and then they ran around and told everyone that I did not even know such simple things. Damaging others is beneficial in software development.
There should be mechanisms and rules which make that it is more profitable for each individual to help the others than damaging them. Team success is not made up of successful sub-projects but of synergy effects, of using all the knowledge available in the team. Damaging a colleague finally means damaging the project and damaging the company. When I was a project manager, I tried to establish such a team culture. Especially, the company culture demanded that at each error the person had to be found who is guilty and must be punished. I refused to do so because I said that in a team, an error is not made by one person alone, but by several. For instance if someone forgets to tell a fact to someone, this someone also might have asked. Who works, makes errors. This is a well-known truth. However, in this company I was told that we want to achieve that no-one makes errors. This is an interesting statement in a company where people get no training for being competent enough for working error-free. They seemed to believe that publicly punishing those who made an error makes them work better, more efficiently than a training. Well, cheaper at least. When an error happened, I looked for causes and solutions. I often said "we". "If you help X, then work package Y finishes earlier and we can deliver earlier all together." (This proposal was the result of a critical path analysis of our network plan.)
Of course, I was not successfull with this strategy. It did not fit into the company culture. I was called a person who avoids conflicts and strives for perfect harmony. Well, yes, avoiding unnessary and destructive conflicts is not so bad, but adds to efficiency. Struggling and fighting detracts energy and time from the productive work. As for the perfect harmony: Solving real problems is fun, therefore I liked the management job. But it is no fun to see adults behave like kindergarden children!
Even the reproach that I avoid conflicts speaks in favour of my assumption that a software project and software company is also made in a way that damaging others is more beneficial than helping others.
Source of the team definition:
W.S. Humphrey: Introduction to the Team Software Process, Addison-Wesley 2000
AndreaHerrmann - 8. Jul, 10:18
