How To Be More Productive As A Developer

Imagine two identical software development teams. Clones let’s say, each being assigned the same task and the same resources to accomplish it — the only difference is in how each group will be asked to approach the task. Each member of team A will be instructed to simply “do their best,” while team B will go through the more familiar process of getting together, establishing goals, and reviewing them until completion. Which team would you bet on being more productive?

Of course, it’s team B. And yes, it’s because, when asked to do their best, people don’t usually do so.

Is that your best?

Edwin Locke, Dean’s Professor of Motivation and Leadership at the University of Maryland, is an American psychologist that pioneered Goal-Setting Theory. His research goes back decades, and his papers are still some of the most cited works in the field. In a 2002 overview of 35 years of research (1), Locke et al. conclude that specific and difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance than do easy goals or no goals. There are a couple of key takeaways here:

• First off, any goal-setting approach will generally outperform just “doing your best.” This fact is a consequence of the intrinsically volatile nature of the “best-effort” concept:

Do-your-best goals have no external referent and thus are defined idiosyncratically. This allows for a wide range of acceptable performance levels, which is not the case when a goal level is specified. (1)

• Second, the nature and individual attitude towards goals seem to also play a role in performance output, with specific, challenging, and attainable goals being preferred.

From the beginning, goal-setting theory recognized goal commitment as a critical factor in the relationship between setting objectives and performance, and in his seminal 1968 paper “Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives” (2), Locke specifies that commitment to goals is a necessary condition for the effectiveness of goal setting. In his 2002 paper, he and Latham note:

Commitment is most important and relevant when goals are difficult. This is because goals that are difficult for people require high effort and are associated with lower chances of success than easy goals. (1)

What’s “commitment”?

But how do you measure commitment? What is “commitment”? In “The Clean Coder” (3), Robert C. Martin offers a simple, three-step recipe which is also possibly the best definitions of commitment out there:

1. You say you’ll do it.
2. You mean it.
3. You actually do it.

There’s a level of self-determination implied in the concept that makes committed individuals likely to exert more effort and be more persistent toward goal attainment, than individuals who are less committed to the goal.

The elements that factor into goal commitment have also long been researched. In “The determinants of goal commitment” (4), Locke and Latham propose a model where the interaction between external, internal, and interactive factors comes into play.

External influences are related to the project environment, and include:

• Legitimate authority and trust. Goal setting has no effect if leaders are perceived as indifferent to or not directly involved in the goals that were set, or are perceived as not trustworthy.
• Peer influence. Each team member can positively affect performance by acting as a role model and a keeper and promoter of standards.
• Goal content. Goal clarity and goal specificity are positively related to goal commitment. (5)
• Goal interdependence. Commitment drives performance better in the case of goals set at a group level than in the case of individual goals. (6)

Internal factors reflect individual cognitive processes, and include:

• The expectancy of Success, Self-Efficacy, or Attainability. Goal attainability is an important concept that can drive performance. Results of several studies indicate that commitment declines as the person’s perceived chances of reaching the goal drop.
• Conscientiousness. In 2011, Bipp and Kleingeld showed that employees with a high value on conscientiousness (one of The Big Five personality traits that refers to the self-control capacity of people in terms of planning, organization, and task accomplishment) are more likely to commit themselves to the goals that are set, independent of how they perceive the quality of content, process, and environment. (7)
• Internal rewards. These are particularly interesting, and we’ll come back to them in a moment.

Finally, the interactive factors address the quality of team processes, and include:

• Participation. In general, goals that are set collaboratively, with the whole team pitching in, lead to higher performance than goals that are simply assigned by management.
• Competition. A competitive setting drives individuals to set significantly higher goals and perform substantially better than those who are not in a competitive condition.

Commitment Etiquette Tips

Let’s look at some simple commitment etiquette tips that can help you and your team boost productivity. Most of these were coined in two must-read books for any technology professional: “The Clean Coder” (3) and “The Pragmatic Programmer” (8), by Robert C. Martin and Andy Hunt, respectively.

Use the proper language of commitment.

The words that people use when talking about their goals can be excellent indicators of the real level of commitment behind any statement. Here are some negative examples:

• Phrases containing “need” or “should”: “We need to make this happen.”; “Someone should fix this bug.”
• Phrases containing “hope” or “wish”: “I hope to get this done by tomorrow.”, “I wish this metric was documented.”
• Phrases starting with “let’s”: “Let’s brainstorm about that thing sometimes.” “Let’s start emailing customers on signup.”

The statements above make implicit the idea that things are out of your control, or not within your responsibility.

To enforce commitment, use statements like “I will… by…” instead. For example: “I’ll get the login functionality done by Thursday.”

Don’t try — do.

When you say, “I’ll try to get this done by tomorrow,” you’re implying there’s an extra pool of emergency resources you can tap into to accelerate work, and that’s false. “I’ll try” may sound softer but think of it this way: if your “trying” does not lead to the desired outcome, it won’t be labeled as a “successful try” — you will still have failed.

Say no.

Professionals know their limits. They’re always aware of how much effort they can sustainably output without compromising on quality, and what the costs are.

Accept responsibility.

When you’re committed to an outcome, you should expect to be held accountable for it. When you make a mistake, admit it honestly: don’t blame others, don’t make excuses, provide options.

Gently exceed expectations.

When setting goals, always consider the last mile. Give users, stakeholders, or teammates that little bit more than they were expecting.

Use a framework.

One framework often referenced is S.M.A.R.T., created by George T. Doran in 1981 (9), in which a goal is commonly designed to be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound. As you can tell, most determinants of commitment we listed earlier are effectively baked into goals that are defined using this method.

Another popular framework was developed by Andy Grove at Intel, between 1968 and 1997, and was initially named Intel’s Management by Objectives. It was later popularized by Google and became known as O.K.R. — an Objective (a clearly defined goal) and one or more Key Results (specific measures used to track the achievement of that goal).

Finally, and possibly the most effective hack you can apply to drive your commitment: Align goals with your values. When goals become the embodiment of things you believe in, pursuing them will become the reward — an internal, natural, and powerful reward. That’s when goals become self-fulfilling prophecies of high performance. In the words of Ntoumantis et al. (10):

When faced with an increasingly difficult goal, individuals with high autonomous goal motivation view the situation as a challenge, use task-focused coping, and display increased persistence. Autonomous goals are self-endorsed; therefore, goal challenges are seen as opportunities for personal mastery and not as threats to self-worth.

If you enjoyed this article, press the “Follow” button below to get more content that will help you become a better technology professional. You can also subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Telepat North is an invitation-only club for outstanding coders, offering members free books, courses, learning resources and swag! If you’re interested, you can learn more by visiting north.telepat.io.

References

(1) Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American psychologist, 57(9), 705.https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d8ce/8388b61cddd6acd793aacdb77865c61de6f6.pdf

(2) Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational behavior and human performance, 3(2), 157–189.

(3) https://www.amazon.com/Clean-Coder-Conduct-Professional-Programmers/dp/0137081073

(4) Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment. Academy of management review, 13(1), 23–39.

(5) Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of applied psychology, 84(6), 885.

(6) Aube, C., & Rousseau, V. (2005). Team Goal Commitment and Team Effectiveness: The Role of Task Interdependence and Supportive Behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(3), 189.

(7) Bipp, T., & Kleingeld, A. (2011). Goal-setting in practice: The effects of personality and perceptions of the goal-setting process on job satisfaction and goal commitment. Personnel Review, 40(3), 306–323.

(8) https://www.amazon.com/Pragmatic-Programmer-Journeyman-Master/dp/020161622X

(9) Doran, G. T. (1981). “There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives.” Management Review. 70 (11): 35–36.

(10) Ntoumanis, N., Healy, L. C., Sedikides, C., Duda, J., Stewart, B., Smith, A., & Bond, J. (2014). When the going gets tough: The “why” of goal striving matters. Journal of Personality, 82(3), 225–236.