Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday September 24 2017, @03:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-need-a-thousand-monkeys dept.

[The] main problem here is that software development is not an individual sport. Assessing technical traits means that we are looking at candidates as individuals. At the same time, we will put them in a team context and the project's success will depend on their teamwork. A person's resume or LinkedIn profile says close to nothing about their team skills.

What's more, we know quite a lot about what makes teams effective. Anita Woolley's research on collective intelligence [DOI: 10.1126/science.1193147] [DX] provides extremely valuable insight on the topic. First of all, how do we define collective intelligence? It's basically the skill of a group to solve complex problems. Well, it sounds like the definition of everyday work for software development teams if you ask me.

Why is collective intelligence so important? Exploiting collective intelligence, as opposed to going with the opinion of the smartest person in a room, is a winning strategy. To put in Anita Woolley's words: "Collective intelligence was much more predictive in terms of succeeding in complex tasks than average individual intelligence or maximal individual intelligence."

The power is in the team.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @05:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @05:01PM (#572715)

    And any detailed understanding of military history will actually show the touchy-feely stuff can make a real difference - e.g. the disastrous Charge of the Light Brigade was ordered in part because the guy ordering the Light Brigade to charge hated the commander of the Light Brigade and was probably hoping he'd get killed.

    Uhh... no. It may be that "touchy-feely" stuff makes a difference (and intuitively it must). However, you have failed to demonstrate it, let alone prove it, with your example.

    The Charge of the Light Brigade [wikipedia.org] disaster happened due to a "miscommunication in the chain of command, [and as a result] the Light Brigade was instead sent on a frontal assault against a different artillery battery..."

    Can more "touchy-feely" stuff stop all miscommunications? I doubt it.