Like you, I have been doing this awhile, and it really depends on the person. When hiring programmers, I look for these skills as I agree that it makes everything go more smoothly. But I haven't always been able to find them. And I coach those who don't, but communication skills are hard to acquire. Sometimes, I can include a developer without the skills in the meeting, but mostly to listen and answer questions, with someone more skilled leading.
Not long ago I moved to a position where I am only developer in the team, and I have direct contact with the client.
I've never worked better and client was never happier. So many times during a discussion with them I realized they really have different problem than they're describing, and that there is a better solution.
Many times clients and project management/analysts don't know what is possible in tech and ask for worse solution, when a better solution exists and is easier to implement.
As a developer I know what are the limits and can propose something better. Though sometimes client questions show me the limits are further than I thought.
Some people grow up in environments with good communication; some don't, some specialize in problem-solving, and some don't. But anyone can learn new things, even if initially difficult or awkward.
I am concerned about this comment, not because it claims that "Neckbeard Types" and autistic folks aren't (are never? are not typically?) worthy of being trusted to talk directly to a customer, but rather because it seems to do the reverse. It seems to label the people they don't trust to talk to a customer as "y'know... like Neckbeard Types and people with ASD". That's where the stereotype thinking seems to enter the picture and where I see discrimination and even contempt.
It is true that some folks should probably not be left alone with a high-value paying customer. Some of those folks are programmers and some of those folks are sales trainees or recent marketing graduates.
It is debatable whether we deliver a better product by routinely hiding customers from programmers. I believe Kent and I and some other people here bet on the opposite as a better strategy, all other things being equal.
Those are terrible comments. For what it's worth, all serious product people I know love having engineering in the room with customers for collaborating, creative problem-solving, etc. I'm aware there's those that don't, which usually says more about the company/culture/leadership than the individual. As this was the CTO podcast, and being limited to the context you gave, in my mind this specific case belongs on that CTOs plate instead of a product person?
The misunderstanding is that he wasn’t advocating that every request should be filtered by product people. They were talking about engineers interacting with customers. He said he’s “often shocked at how often the product and technology team don't have any interaction with support at all” so he spoke positively about companies where engineers sometimes take on some of the support team’s functions to involve everyone in direct conversations with customers.
The host pointed out that some engineers prefer deep work and don’t like meetings, don’t like talking to external people. Which is true, they do exist. Them she said that the company focus on the customer first, on the value of the product, is a kind of mindset or culture, “and then engineering comes as something that serves that purpose instead of being the purpose on its own.”
The interviewee agrees with this, that engineering comes as something that serves the product and the customer, but he points out that some engineers are not comfortable interacting directly with customers, including some autistics, which is also true, and he would not implement something like engineers taking on the task of supporting talking to customers as something that has to be done, acknowledging differences in skills, strengths and difficulties.
The comment about autism was not ignorant or condescending. The first criterion for diagnosing autism is "persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction" (DSM V), so it is not a just lack of communication skills that can be learned. Communication skills can be improved with hard work, but it is not as simple as learning a skill.
Autism is about different cognitive style. "The hyper-systemizing theory argues that the [autistics] excellent attention to detail is directed towards detecting ‘if p, then q’ rules" (Baron-Cohen, S. et al. 2009. Talent in autism: hyper-systemizing, hyper-attention to detail and sensory hypersensitivity), which is why some autistics love programming and also why they struggle with social skills. "Strong systemizing is a way of explaining the nonsocial features of autism: narrow interests; repetitive behaviour; and resistance to change/need for sameness. This is because when one systemizes, it is best to keep everything constant, and to only vary one thing at a time. That way, one can see what might be causing what, and with repetition one can verify that one gets the very same pattern or sequence (if p, then q) every time, rendering the world predictable" (Baron-Cohen, S. et al. 2009). Autistic people are also more uncomfortable with face-to-face conversations (Meredith Ringel Morris et al. 2015. Understanding the Challenges Faced by Neurodiverse Software Engineering Employees: Towards a More Inclusive and Productive Technical Workforce). Therefore, an environment where face-to-face conversation is considered “the most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team” is indeed stressful, so “protect programmers from customers” can sometimes, on some level, make sense, while the autistic programmer is supported to develop some skills, necessary accommodations are made, and the environment becomes more autistic-friendly.
Based on the merely the quoted text, it seems to be you who is misunderstanding.
The central point of that quoted statement is "some engineers aren't customer-facing ready". Which is just factually true. It doesn't mean all engineers lack this readiness. It doesn't mean those that lack this readiness cannot develop it. And it doesn't mean that there isn't value in putting engineers in front of customers. But that lack of readiness does have to be dealt with, and sometimes it is better to work around it than to fix it.
There's also nothing ignorant or condescending about what they said about people with ASD.
The strong implication in the quoted text is that the speaker doesn't think "neckbeard types" or "autists" cannot even become "customer-facing ready" -- which is ignorant, arrogant, and extremely condescending. I'm inclined to trust Kent's interpretation of that because I've also encountered those same sentiments expressed very clearly, several times throughout my 45-year career. It's very old-fashioned thinking, and it's often used as an excuse to justify one (or often several) layer(s) of middle-management communication between customers and the engineers who are then tasked with building what they are told the customer wants.
Well, no. You can infer that they think that, but that is not strictly implied by what they actually said.
And whether or not some engineers can ever become "customer-facing ready" (and to be clear, that is an open question) the point is that there is a place in our industry for those engineers who presently aren't. That is actually a rather inclusive message and in my experience why many people are actually drawn to the field (even if they become "customer-facing ready" later on).
This is an example of ignorant arrogance thinking and harmful hurtful communications. Very old school ideas. We are trying to build a culture of diversity, equality, and inclusion. That includes neurodiverse people and people with disabilities like lack of sight and speech. Communication is a two way highway and the listener has specific responsibilities and human accountability to actively listen.
Personally, I get a huge emotional boost talking with people who use the stuff I’ve built or I am building. I love to see them use it and hear their feedback.
Also please note that there is at least one other episode of the CTO Insight Podcast that might be worth listening to. ;)
Like you, I have been doing this awhile, and it really depends on the person. When hiring programmers, I look for these skills as I agree that it makes everything go more smoothly. But I haven't always been able to find them. And I coach those who don't, but communication skills are hard to acquire. Sometimes, I can include a developer without the skills in the meeting, but mostly to listen and answer questions, with someone more skilled leading.
Preach, brother. 🙌
Not long ago I moved to a position where I am only developer in the team, and I have direct contact with the client.
I've never worked better and client was never happier. So many times during a discussion with them I realized they really have different problem than they're describing, and that there is a better solution.
Many times clients and project management/analysts don't know what is possible in tech and ask for worse solution, when a better solution exists and is easier to implement.
As a developer I know what are the limits and can propose something better. Though sometimes client questions show me the limits are further than I thought.
The three rules of creating a self-management team applies here:
- give clear goals
- give clear boundaries
- give clear accountabilities
And with any growing team:
- know your team skills and weaknesses, highlight the firsts and give support on the second.
👏I really wanted to post a gif of an applauding crowd here!
Very well said and observed.
For myself, I've always done better work when I've spoken, interacted, etc, directly with users/customers.
Some people grow up in environments with good communication; some don't, some specialize in problem-solving, and some don't. But anyone can learn new things, even if initially difficult or awkward.
I am concerned about this comment, not because it claims that "Neckbeard Types" and autistic folks aren't (are never? are not typically?) worthy of being trusted to talk directly to a customer, but rather because it seems to do the reverse. It seems to label the people they don't trust to talk to a customer as "y'know... like Neckbeard Types and people with ASD". That's where the stereotype thinking seems to enter the picture and where I see discrimination and even contempt.
It is true that some folks should probably not be left alone with a high-value paying customer. Some of those folks are programmers and some of those folks are sales trainees or recent marketing graduates.
It is debatable whether we deliver a better product by routinely hiding customers from programmers. I believe Kent and I and some other people here bet on the opposite as a better strategy, all other things being equal.
Those are terrible comments. For what it's worth, all serious product people I know love having engineering in the room with customers for collaborating, creative problem-solving, etc. I'm aware there's those that don't, which usually says more about the company/culture/leadership than the individual. As this was the CTO podcast, and being limited to the context you gave, in my mind this specific case belongs on that CTOs plate instead of a product person?
👏👏👏
This all seems like a big misunderstanding
Who would you say is misunderstanding what? I've heard exactly the same sentiments expressed in earnest many times.
The misunderstanding is that he wasn’t advocating that every request should be filtered by product people. They were talking about engineers interacting with customers. He said he’s “often shocked at how often the product and technology team don't have any interaction with support at all” so he spoke positively about companies where engineers sometimes take on some of the support team’s functions to involve everyone in direct conversations with customers.
The host pointed out that some engineers prefer deep work and don’t like meetings, don’t like talking to external people. Which is true, they do exist. Them she said that the company focus on the customer first, on the value of the product, is a kind of mindset or culture, “and then engineering comes as something that serves that purpose instead of being the purpose on its own.”
The interviewee agrees with this, that engineering comes as something that serves the product and the customer, but he points out that some engineers are not comfortable interacting directly with customers, including some autistics, which is also true, and he would not implement something like engineers taking on the task of supporting talking to customers as something that has to be done, acknowledging differences in skills, strengths and difficulties.
The comment about autism was not ignorant or condescending. The first criterion for diagnosing autism is "persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction" (DSM V), so it is not a just lack of communication skills that can be learned. Communication skills can be improved with hard work, but it is not as simple as learning a skill.
Autism is about different cognitive style. "The hyper-systemizing theory argues that the [autistics] excellent attention to detail is directed towards detecting ‘if p, then q’ rules" (Baron-Cohen, S. et al. 2009. Talent in autism: hyper-systemizing, hyper-attention to detail and sensory hypersensitivity), which is why some autistics love programming and also why they struggle with social skills. "Strong systemizing is a way of explaining the nonsocial features of autism: narrow interests; repetitive behaviour; and resistance to change/need for sameness. This is because when one systemizes, it is best to keep everything constant, and to only vary one thing at a time. That way, one can see what might be causing what, and with repetition one can verify that one gets the very same pattern or sequence (if p, then q) every time, rendering the world predictable" (Baron-Cohen, S. et al. 2009). Autistic people are also more uncomfortable with face-to-face conversations (Meredith Ringel Morris et al. 2015. Understanding the Challenges Faced by Neurodiverse Software Engineering Employees: Towards a More Inclusive and Productive Technical Workforce). Therefore, an environment where face-to-face conversation is considered “the most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team” is indeed stressful, so “protect programmers from customers” can sometimes, on some level, make sense, while the autistic programmer is supported to develop some skills, necessary accommodations are made, and the environment becomes more autistic-friendly.
Based on the merely the quoted text, it seems to be you who is misunderstanding.
The central point of that quoted statement is "some engineers aren't customer-facing ready". Which is just factually true. It doesn't mean all engineers lack this readiness. It doesn't mean those that lack this readiness cannot develop it. And it doesn't mean that there isn't value in putting engineers in front of customers. But that lack of readiness does have to be dealt with, and sometimes it is better to work around it than to fix it.
There's also nothing ignorant or condescending about what they said about people with ASD.
The strong implication in the quoted text is that the speaker doesn't think "neckbeard types" or "autists" cannot even become "customer-facing ready" -- which is ignorant, arrogant, and extremely condescending. I'm inclined to trust Kent's interpretation of that because I've also encountered those same sentiments expressed very clearly, several times throughout my 45-year career. It's very old-fashioned thinking, and it's often used as an excuse to justify one (or often several) layer(s) of middle-management communication between customers and the engineers who are then tasked with building what they are told the customer wants.
Well, no. You can infer that they think that, but that is not strictly implied by what they actually said.
And whether or not some engineers can ever become "customer-facing ready" (and to be clear, that is an open question) the point is that there is a place in our industry for those engineers who presently aren't. That is actually a rather inclusive message and in my experience why many people are actually drawn to the field (even if they become "customer-facing ready" later on).
This is an example of ignorant arrogance thinking and harmful hurtful communications. Very old school ideas. We are trying to build a culture of diversity, equality, and inclusion. That includes neurodiverse people and people with disabilities like lack of sight and speech. Communication is a two way highway and the listener has specific responsibilities and human accountability to actively listen.
How much of that responsibility do you place on your customers?
By giving them a more satisfying product?
I don't understand what you are trying to say or how that is a response to my question.
Personally, I get a huge emotional boost talking with people who use the stuff I’ve built or I am building. I love to see them use it and hear their feedback.