Are Managers Killing Their Golden Geese?

Cognitive Function Rules

Cognitive function encapsulates the mental processes needed for problem-solving, abstract thinking, and quick decision-making. In the realm of software development, high cognitive function is indispensable for understanding complex algorithms, creating efficient code, delivering quality, and solving intricate problems.

Why Does Cognitive Function Matter?

When cognitive function is at its peak, developers can perform their tasks not just quickly but also effectively. It enables them to come up with innovative solutions, debug issues proficiently, and contribute meaningfully to a project’s success.

How Do Managers Disrupt Cognitive Function?

Routine managerial practices like frequent check-ins, status reports, micromanagement, and unclear objectives can negatively impact a developer’s cognitive function. Added to this, loaded work schedules and harsh deadlines contribute to stress, which further degrades cognitive performance.

What About Toxic Behaviour?

Abusive and toxic conduct from managers goes beyond disrupting cognitive function. This behaviour often leads to severe emotional stress, causing long-term harm – including brain damage – that manifests as burnout, poor performance, and staff turnover.

What’s the Consequence?

When cognitive function suffers, the ripple effect is felt throughout the team and the organisation. There’s a decline in product quality, an increase in mistakes, and a noticeable lag in delivery timelines. In such a scenario, managers are essentially killing the very geese (developers) that lay the golden eggs (software).

Is There a Remedy?

Creating a more nurturing work environment can help. Managers might choose to adopt practices that allow for focused work, respect individual needs, and most importantly, eliminate toxic and abusive behaviours.

Will Change Happen?

The ball’s in the managers’ court. The cognitive well-being of their software developers—and by extension, the quality and success of their own wellbeing—depends on how they choose to adapt their management styles.