Posts by grimalkina@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #B7LOsxzWG24zVjhVJI by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
The MGP has gone on to be studied in many permutations in psychology. Mere assignment to groups at all is enough to start in-group bias, and in-group bias shows up across a wide range of behaviors. We evaluate in-group intentions more charitably, attribute greater morality to our in-group, work harder to accomplish goals for our in-group, are more likely to cooperate with in-group members when it conflicts with our own personal needs, and expect greater reciprocity from our in-group.
(DIR) Post #B7LOsyJj2uF6WP9do0 by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
All of this is central, not just a "nice to have," when we need groups of knowledge workers to build immensely complex technology. We'll learn more in the next week! This is the COUNTDOWN to preorders for THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SOFTWARE TEAMS on June 23! In celebration, I'm sharing a new piece of evidence every day from the book and how it helps us understand our minds and build more thriving, joyful communities in technology ❤️ Sign up for a preorder reminder here: https://www.routledge.com/The-Psychology-of-Software-Teams/Hicks/p/book/9781032963389
(DIR) Post #B7LOsyU0QgSx2HxqpU by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
But there are strategies that break the in-group bias, and create unexpected coalitions. To learn more.....you'll have to check back tomorrow! Because we are now in the COUNTDOWN to preorders for THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SOFTWARE TEAMS opening on June 23! In celebration, I'm sharing a new piece of evidence every day from the book and how it helps us understand our minds and build more thriving, joyful communities in technology ❤️ Sign up for a preorder reminder here: https://www.routledge.com/The-Psychology-of-Software-Teams/Hicks/p/book/9781032963389
(DIR) Post #B7LOsyjxTNE5plQah6 by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
Every single chapter in the book has its own FULL reference list, so if I'm calling out interesting scientists and studies you want to learn more about, trust that you will have a guide in your hands with this book!
(DIR) Post #B7LOubQz5x3s8AKMds by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
POST is also already available at many local bookstores and at amazon, and a DRM free ebook format will go up closer to publishing date (I wish it were up already too!)
(DIR) Post #B7tuv5gqK5Mk8REkts by grimalkina@mastodon.social
1 likes, 0 repeats
If you're a high performing person doing technical work, I bet you've seen a pattern in how software organizations diagnose and explain the drivers of underperformance. I am making this bet because as a psychologist for technical teams my inbox is just BURSTING with stories of this pattern!
(DIR) Post #B7tuv63WxjVvGnqsGO by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
When a developer struggles, the organization frames its question as something like this: is this person missing skills? Or a team misses its targets, so it asks...who do we need to move out? A project fails....well who owns that and didn't work hard enough?
(DIR) Post #B7tuv6Njkbg2HTJ0l6 by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
Despite a lot of conversation about context and large effects that drive our outcomes (changing technology, changing markets...), when it comes to telling a story about WHY we got an outcome, many organizational narratives swirl almost inevitably down to telling stories about fixed traits of individuals. The conditions themselves are everywhere, but are more difficult for us to keep in mind in that moment of decision than a story about an individual ability.
(DIR) Post #B7tuv6jiQtG3NdaZ16 by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
Correspondence bias is one name for a bias pushing us to do this. This is the robustly documented tendency people have to think someone's actions reflect fixed individual traits, even when the situation is equally or much more explanatory (Gilbert & Malone, 1995). When we see behavior we infer *character.*
(DIR) Post #B7tuv74z9oGuRbXYAa by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
Organizations doing this will see a moment of underperformance and infer fixed ability. This can be baffling when you're a practitioner and you can point to a whole history of competent performance and see the environmental driver more clearly. To you, close to the actual work, it seems *obvious* that many moments of underperformance aren't dispositional.
(DIR) Post #B7tuv7OTzJrrQ4f7Ym by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
Bigger social trends pushes us toward this too. Behavioral scientists Chater and Loewenstein (2023) described a bias that's shaped how we think about behavior across policy, the economy, education and businesses: the i-frame or the s-frame. The i-frame focuses on individual choices and traits, while the s-frame treats behavior as a result of structural conditions. Many organizations default to the i-frame and they can't even see themselves doing it.
(DIR) Post #B7tuv7pQN9Q0ldGdYO by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
But what the s-frame reveals, in software especially, is that the conditions are vital. In my own research with 15,000+ developers, environmental factors can radically predict capacity: technical people's judgments that an org provides learning culture, agency, belonging, self-efficacy, cumulatively helpful review culture, organizational justice. These are conditions organizations build, or don't, not personality traits they can hire once for and be done with.
(DIR) Post #B7tuv8GMkyyA7Bs9Y0 by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
In my experience, the technical teams that move forward rapidly right now aren't asking "do we have the right people?" but rather "have we built conditions where people can show us what they can do? Where people can be their best selves?" In The Psychology of Software Teams, I unpack empirical evidence behind why and how all of this works; you can get your copy now! 🚀https://www.drcathicks.com/#book
(DIR) Post #B86ZIDfNHZTg3ba0wa by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
Can you, as one person, possibly make a difference in whether an unusual, creative, category-breaking book (a book without a marketing department or a budget behind it) succeeds?Yes you can, and I'm going to tell you why it's a hell of a lot more attainable than you think.
(DIR) Post #B86ZIDuyLZxEpysTFw by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
There's a stat that went viral claiming half of all books sell fewer than a dozen copies. It's actually not as bad as all that (the analyst later walked back her claims), but a general benchmark you can keep in mind is that roughly two-thirds of books from major publishers won't crack 1000 copies in their first year. 1000 copies...hang on, that's a low threshold. The amount of signal it takes to stand out from it is *tiny* But there's even more: *when* you do it matters
(DIR) Post #B86ZIE9VTXa3Z3g4uW by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 1 repeats
You will see authors like your girl here start to sound a little bit unhinged when we talk about "preorders." But WHY. It's because a book that sells 500 copies spread over six months looks, mathematically, like a failure to most "is this book something we should show people" systems. The same 500 copies concentrated into one week, especially the preorder windows, can trip thresholds.Thresholds like: this book lands in retailer algorithms. This book lands in a purchaser's consideration
(DIR) Post #B86ZIEzcLnGSAg3h8S by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
These systems around creative work can feel overwhelming, I get it. Cold and brutal algorithms. But lord, is it easy to tip some of them over at the right time. I mean, it's also FUN to know you help. The difference between 0-1 is immense for: - having real, tangible reviews online - selling copies in preorders You don't need to actually move a mountain. You don't even need to imagine that thousands upon thousands of copies need to move. Real human actions actually do matter here.
(DIR) Post #B86ZIG3YOe0VTAuLuS by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
Here's where it gets personal for Psychology of Software Teams specifically.This is a research-grounded, traditionally published book without a marketing department behind it — the only path is finding its way into a technical audience mostly through word of mouth and community trust.Which means: for a book like this, the real human signal is the marketing plan. There's no ad budget compensating for a slow start.
(DIR) Post #B86ZIH6mU8BOjTQRZw by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
POST's book proposal, the one that got me the book deal, already had your voices in it. I highlighted: - specific social media posts from technical people about my research- the times I've given talks and the type of resonance I've seen - times people shared about using my work in their orgsSo not just for me, but for EVERY future "weird author" with their passion project labor of love book, your voice can matter. You can create the evidence that our work matters. You already did it.
(DIR) Post #B86ZIJ2bIe1kj5U8LA by grimalkina@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
So how do you help the authors you want to help?- Preordering, if you were going to buy it anyway, from wherever's easiest, doesn't need to be a specific retailer- Telling one specific person "you'd like this book" — this converts at a far higher rate than anything!- If you're on a team or in a reading group, suggesting it there - Requesting it at your local library; this counts as a real signal too, and costs the end reader nothing! https://www.drcathicks.com/#book