{"id":3738,"date":"2019-06-02T20:16:11","date_gmt":"2019-06-02T18:16:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/silta.es\/juantatay\/?p=3738"},"modified":"2019-06-07T00:09:52","modified_gmt":"2019-06-06T22:09:52","slug":"empathy-driven-development-by-andreagoulet-via-firstround","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/silta.es\/juantatay\/empathy-driven-development-by-andreagoulet-via-firstround\/","title":{"rendered":"Empathy-Driven Development by @AndreaGoulet via @FirstRound"},"content":{"rendered":"

Following the interesting Andrea Goulet article\u00a0about technical debt<\/a>, First Round brings another surprising and indeed very interesting interview with Andrea Goulet.<\/p>\n

Origen: Empathy-Driven Development: How Engineers Can Tap into This Critical Skill | First Round Review<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\n

FIRST, DISPEL THESE EMPATHY MYTHS<\/h2>\n

Myth #1: Empathy is just a feeling.<\/h3>\n

\u201cAnd it definitely involves\u00a0<\/em>feelings. However, that conceptualization of empathy is really limiting.\u201d<\/p>\n

In her quest to build a case for empathy, Goulet stumbled upon Indi Young\u2019s Practical Empathy<\/em>, in which the author, a researcher who started her career as a programmer, delineates not one, but six types of empathy. \u201cThat sub-categorization really struck me. I thought if something could be divided into six subsets, then it must be pretty dense and technical,\u201d says Goulet.<\/p>\n

\u2026also dives deep on one of those subtypes called cognitive empathy<\/strong>, which is a rational<\/em> process that\u2019s used to uncover another person\u2019s beliefs, values, preferences, and points of view. This process is already ingrained in the work of marketers, UX researchers, writers, designers, even many front-end engineers,\u201d says Goulet. \u201cMy goal was to really study Indi\u2019s work, that\u2019s so well established in the UX community, and then find a way to extend it for people who operate more on the back-end.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

Empathy is not this abstract, metaphysical enigma. It\u2019s a skill we need to respect and a muscle we need to flex.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

Myth #2: Empathy is irrelevant to building software.<\/h3>\n

\u201cFor example, I hate the \u2018Are you technical or nontechnical?\u2019 question. It\u2019s not binary. You can be technical and know how to be a skilled, empathetic communicator. I would argue that if you want to be an excellent engineer, you should<\/em> know how to communicate, in addition to knowing how to make a machine work the way you expect it to.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWith commit messages, pull requests, naming, tests, error messages, those are all fundamentally about communicating with empathy,\u201d she says.\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you don\u2019t take the future reader into consideration by clearly communicating your reasoning, you\u2019re creating problematic legacy code,\u201d says Goulet. \u201cOperating without empathy is directly linked to one of the biggest problems that plagues engineering teams. So don\u2019t tell me that it\u2019s not relevant to your day job.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

Coding is all about delivering messages to people, as well as machines.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

Myth #3: Empathy can\u2019t be taught.<\/h3>\n

\u201c\u2026there\u2019s a misconception that empathy is either something you have or don\u2019t have, and that it can\u2019t be developed\u201d, says Goulet.<\/p>\n

Acknowledging that empathy is a trainable skill is the first step in improving on it. \u201c\u2026<\/b>with a practical breakdown of what empathy is, how to apply it, and how to cultivate it, there\u2019s a path forward\u201d, she says.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe need to dispense with the incredibly damaging and limiting stereotype of the \u2018socially inept engineer.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

The technical skills gap may very well be real, but consider the other side of the coin: Most computer science students aren\u2019t developing the communication and empathy skills they need to collaborate and successfully build products that work for everyone.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

<\/h3>\n

THE STARTER KIT FOR EMBEDDING EMPATHY INTO YOUR ENGINEERING PRACTICE<\/h2>\n

Goulet shares three guiding principles you can lean on as you start to sharpen your aptitude for empathy:<\/p>\n

1. Swap blame for honor.<\/h3>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

You can\u2019t begin to solve problems, much less modernize an entire code base, without empathy. Analyzing problems through another engineer\u2019s perspective is hard, sophisticated work that\u2019s rooted in understanding why someone made the choices they did.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

2. Consider your project like an archeological dig.<\/h3>\n

While she\u2019s long argued that communication artifacts give you an operational advantage when you\u2019re \u00abre-architecting legacy code and pulling out from a mound of technical debt\u00bb\u00a0(excerpts linked at the beginning of this blog post)<\/em>, Goulet has since realized that the act of producing them is also, at its core, an exercise in empathy.<\/p>\n

\u201cYes, if I leave communication artifacts behind, that\u2019ll save the next person time. But these breadcrumbs of my thinking also serve a dual purpose that\u2019s deeply rooted in empathy. It really goes back to that definition of empathy, that proactive perspective-taking and problem-solving.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

Many software luminaries have invoked the old Scouting rule by saying, \u201cLeave the code better than you found it.\u201d When you practice empathy, you\u2019re supercharging that motto.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

She identifies three touchpoints where engineers can leave communication artifacts that make an impact on code, and leave a legacy of trust.<\/p>\n