This content originally appeared on Level Up Coding - Medium and was authored by Andrew Winnicki
Dealing with ambiguity is a hot topic in many workplaces. I have seen this personality trait mentioned very often in job descriptions. We don’t usually think about what it really means, maybe except for typical software engineering challenges like projects not being defined too well, too much BS and not enough details, a massive amount of uncertainty and a general feeling that nobody knows what the hell is going on, but we are all required to deliver something. It could also be a red flag as this is probably the correct interpretation of such a requirement in a job spec. Next, other traits like “great multitasker” and “self-starter” just paint a picture, and it’s not a nice one.
TL;DR: Both types are important!
Only recently, I realised that whilst I understand the importance of flexibility and being able to accept ambiguity within any software engineering (and not only) role, I never really thought about what is on the other side of the scale. It felt like this trait is the “right one”, the positive one, whilst on the other side, whatever that is, is harmful and nobody should even think about it. Discovering the opposite led me to ask myself questions about team balance and reminded me of something I always said — there are no bad personality traits. It’s all about understanding and putting them to work in the right context within complex organisations. Finding the right balance is hard, but having a team of similar people who think, speak and work the same way is unhealthy for everybody. This is what diversity is about, the word that has been recently hijacked to serve a different purpose.
I can deal with ambiguity and uncertainity.
These people are generally very comfortable in situations where not everything is defined, there are a lot of loose ends, and things are evolving and constantly changing. Flexibility is vital in fast-moving organisations, especially when talking about startup environments. There is a close correlation between visionaries and their ability to comfortably deal with little to no information to create amazing things. This shouldn’t surprise us, as part of the creative work is making something different, whether designing, building apps, or finding attractive solutions to complex problems.
I love working with people who have a high acceptance of ambiguity, as it’s easy to bring them into conversations on any topic early in the process. By giving them problems that are not well defined and the freedom to bring ideas forward, they can get through an issue efficiently and make well-educated assumptions to find answers. In that case, they will make enough high-level guesses to be able to draw some conclusions, rather than being obsessed with every detail and rejecting the idea of these premises.
They thrive in chaos, feeding themselves with opportunities for every undefined detail, allowing them to come up with better ideas, ask more questions, and generate creative but sometimes poorly defined ideas. They are good candidates for leaders, where ambiguity is one of the major challenges in every decision and stakes are often high.
I want well-defined things, now.
People with a strong sense of closure, because that’s who we are talking about, want things to be well set in stone so they can do the job, complete it the best they can and move to another project. That’s why they always raise concerns about not having enough information. These “open ends” don’t make sense, and they are unhappy that many details should still be refined before their work commences. I fully understand and agree with their needs. I used to be the same and was very unhappy when not everything was answered. I had to build a solution with a high probability of change, and that’s just a potential to generate waste. It can especially become a challenge in the startup environment where direction changes quickly, and sometimes, it feels like engineers are the first babies to cry about it. That’s, of course, on the assumption that they are just horribly bad at dealing with ambiguity.
Whilst it might sound like a bad trait, I really can’t imagine any company really moving forward with confidence without people who want to get shit done the best they can, fast and efficiently. They deliver what is expected because everybody knows the scope of work in detail. Their unique attitude to completing tasks ahead of them brings structure and execution efficiency. Not wanting to spend their time building something forever with ever-changing requirements is critical. Projects can be executed smoothly.
Engineers don’t like waste. Thus, they don’t enjoy requirements that still need polishing.
Making order out of chaos is not easy, and not everybody can pull it off. They ask hard questions and expect their work to have structure, order, and explanation. It all helps to keep rules and processes in place and sometimes keep things from falling apart.
Most software engineers say they would like to be involved in discussions about projects very early so they can bring their knowledge and perspective and impact the direction. I always agreed with that in general, but I realised my view was skewed through my bias in how I worked as an engineer. These people are often upset that a project is a mess, that nothing is certain, and leadership needs to make up their minds before putting it into execution. A contradiction comes from the lack of understanding of how good they are in dealing with ambiguity and how their need for closure and well-defined goals stands in the way of achieving good outcomes for the company.
Strenghts & weaknesses
Both sides of the coin have strengths and weaknesses. Fortunately, not everybody is stuck at the edge of one side. It’s a spectrum on which people find one side more accessible than the other. However, I think it is easier to guide people with a strong sense of closure to accept ambiguity more quickly than vice versa.
People with a high need for closure might naturally be high on the neuroticism spectrum; there is often a correlation between these two traits. They will get more upset and emotionally attached when things are not going their way, and the level of uncertainty they expect hasn’t been met. They balance those who are totally chilled and take slow action because they feel no urgency to solve a problem, which is especially important when critical issues arise, like software outages.
Interestingly, people who are highly accepting of ambiguity often also have a high need for cognition. They enjoy thinking for the sake of thinking and are less likely to be persuaded by emotional influence. They are more keen to challenge non-logical explanations and require evidence-based arguments to change their minds.
I said that initially and will repeat it — we need both types.
Seniors are good at both!
What I’ve noticed throughout the years is that people who tend to be more senior and experienced a higher level of personal development and growth tend to come more often from the “need for closure” camp and have learnt how to deal with ambiguity, understanding that the world is not perfect and the only things change. Their need for closure and solid answers makes them very efficient at work. They don’t like to waste time and know how to ask questions about the most essential topics without derailing conversations and going into too much detail. They balance a thin line between learning and having everything they need in front of them, but accepting some things can stay open for a while, and answers will come a little later. It’s an excellent motivation to build flexible solutions without overengineering and overthinking, often a weakness of less experienced colleagues.
If you find a very senior person who has a massive problem dealing with ambiguity and just staying away “until shit gets sorted out,” it means it’s something is horribly wrong. One of the most essential things software engineering projects teach us is that absolutely nothing is certain. If somebody has not learnt that after years, they have made zero progress, and their self-awareness doesn’t exist.
My journey with ambiguity
I wouldn’t say I liked ambiguity until I joined Discovery team, and my boss made me aware of how poorly I react to a lack of structure and solidly defined requirements. I realised I’m good at bringing order in chaos. Still, I had an emotional attachment to what I considered “a lack of competency of people around me”. It was nothing about them, yet all about me. That was a hard pill to swallow, but it changed my life. Working in a startup environment, I genuinely enjoy ambiguity, but for different reasons. When things are not well defined, I can influence the direction and implement my ideas. I’ve managed to change something I dreaded into an opportunity to be creative, make a difference, and improve things. None of that would have been possible if someone had not made me aware of that years before.
How do we look for these two traits?
Understanding the team’s current structure and personalities can help us bring better candidates and create balance. I conduct my interviews with a big focus on personality traits to understand how each candidate fits in their future team context and how their openness, conscientiousness, extrovertism, agreeableness and neuroticism enrich the culture. I have also added the ambiguity aspect to find a better balance in teams and ensure we’ve got the right mindset for the different types of work we do as a tech team.
What might give an idea of where someone sits on the scale?
- If they enjoy abstract art, painting that feels it makes no sense, doesn’t clearly show reality, and is open to interpretation, they are likely better with ambiguity.
- Are they men of their habits, liking very predictable working hours, straightforward tasks, and everything else well organised? While it doesn’t automatically mean they are more on the “closure” side, it will help you to determine it with more questions you ask.
- They may enjoy stories and books with clear endings, where all different threads are answered, and nothing is left to interpretation. They like things to be closed, obviously.
- The type of music they enjoy might also say a lot about their personality traits. Pop music is more predictable in structure and sound than, for example, jazz.
One thing worth mentioning is that the more senior people you interview, the more likely they are on both sides and in none at the same time. That’s just their experience talking.
There are more examples you could use, but basically, it is all about finding how much structure and predictability someone expects. You can read some of that from the questions they ask during the interview. However, this can be easily misleading since many people have no questions about the role they applied. If you see someone asking about the tech stack, processes, product decisions, team structure, etc., it might give you some idea.
Ps. if they ask such questions, it likely also means they are very experienced and care about their next role, and that’s a totally different topic. You want people who know how to ask specific and detailed questions because they likely understand how it will impact their role.
Thriving in Chaos or Seeking Certainty: The Key Traits for Successful Teams was originally published in Level Up Coding on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
This content originally appeared on Level Up Coding - Medium and was authored by Andrew Winnicki
Andrew Winnicki | Sciencx (2024-10-06T17:55:10+00:00) Thriving in Chaos or Seeking Certainty: The Key Traits for Successful Teams. Retrieved from https://www.scien.cx/2024/10/06/thriving-in-chaos-or-seeking-certainty-the-key-traits-for-successful-teams/
Please log in to upload a file.
There are no updates yet.
Click the Upload button above to add an update.