Skip to main content

Their Art's in the Right Place


Mike Brearley was a professional cricketer for around 20 years and was England captain for 31 of the 39 test matches that he played.  His book, The Art of Captaincy, was recommended to managers by participants at both of the last couple of CEWTs, so it's been on my reading list for a while.

The book is, as you might expect, heavily biased towards the role of the cricket captain and some of the examples given in it require a bit of cricketing knowledge. Despite this, it has a lot to say to anyone with an interest in interpersonal relationships, particularly those in the workplace, particularly about manager-managee interactions. Here, I've collected and grouped a few of the passages that resonated with me.

Professionals should not rely only on practice during their day job

Compton was a genius and thus a law unto himself. But the general belief was then and continued to be that fitness for cricket was achieved simply by playing the game. (p. 54)
All cricketers can enhance their performance by better all-round fitness ... Injuries can be avoided, and an extra foot of speed, an extra inch of suppleness that avoid a narrow run-out or turns a half-chance into a chance can be achieved. (p.54-5)

Professionals, and those who advise, manage, train, lead, mentor, and encourage them, need to think carefully about the timing and context of learning

Most professional cricketers, myself included, have been unwilling to learn ... We distrust theory, and are apprehensive lest change bring catastrophe in its train. (p. 64)
If we define a good coach as "One who enables the potentialities of others to flower", Tiger Smith certainly qualifies: his advice helped me to my best season yet. It came from the right man ... at the right time ... The horse may not want to drink — or he may be unable to. (p. 68)
Excellent advice — but was this the moment for it? ... I felt that he should try to change at a less critical period in his career. The three of us talked this out throroughly. (p. 70)

Professionals recognise that there are different roles and responsibilities in their field, and that with them come different challenges

Gale's role in this process was typical of a good chairman of any committee. He had listened to the discussion, and was able to help the participants to see what it was that we were wanting. He did not, in this instance, need to be closely in touch with the facts on which our views were based in order to have this effect. (p. 84)
My own experience of vice-captaincy was in India, in 1976-7 ... I enjoyed the job, and was struck by how simple it is compared with being the man who has to act and "take the can". (p. 95)
In order to find all the evidence he needs a captain must watch the play. (p. 154)

The captain must be considerate, collaborative, and above all congruent

Some might argue that the captain should act like the junior officers in the First World War and never ask of another what he is not prepared to do himself ... However, such a policy may be simply silly. (p. 162)
The captain should expect the fielders to keep their positions, and not wander. He will demand that they are tidy in their work ... even when sloppiness does not cost runs. (p. 166)
I am often struck by the extent to which bowlers earn their attacking fields, and thus their wickets. Too often they deplore their bad luck when the edged shot misses the solitary slip; they forget that if they had bowled fewer half-volleys and long-hops they could have had a whole ring of slips. (p. 167)
... an important aspect of the captain's job: to remind, or even teach, bowlers that they have more resources than they give themselves credit for: they they have more strings to their bow. (p. 168)
... the captain should encourage all the team to think about the game from a tactical point of view; he must also insist that each member of his side plays a part in enouraging and motivating the others. (p. 170)
Bowlers expect their captain to give them a chance to perform at their best, be being aware of their capacities and preferences. They also have a right to a fair chance. The captain should avoid favouritism ... Yet true fairness is hard to assess. It is simply foolish not to give your best bowlers the first chance on a helpful pitch. (p. 172)
Certainly the captain can never please all his bowlers all the time. (p. 174)  
... it was recognised that the captain is likely to get the best out of those he values highly. (p. 88)

The captain needs to maintain perspective

The captain's arc of attention will constantly oscillate between the short-term and other needs: between changes or schemes that concern the next ball or the next over, plans for the disposition of bowlers in the next hour ... or for the rest of the session, and indeed some outline of strategy for the whole day. (p. 182)
There was once a lionkeeper at the Dublin Zoo called Mr Flood, who was remarkable in that over the years he had bred many lion cubs but never lost one. When asked his secret he replied, "No two lions are alike." No doubt he had strategies and general lines of policy. But like a good cricket captain, he responded to each situation afresh. (p. 201)
Bob Paisley has said of managing Liverpool FC, "A manager has to cut his coat according to the cloth — he has to mould his team's style to the players available. The same applies to the individual player. None of them is perfect ... " The illusion of omnipotence is a particular trap for the captain with a well-developed sense of responsibility. (p. 273)
Image: Amazon

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Ideal Test Plan

A colleague pinged me the other day, asking about an "ideal test plan" and wondering whether I could suggest something. Not without a bit more information, I said. OK, they said. Who needs the plan, for what purpose? I asked. Their response: it's for internal use, to improve documentation, and provide a standard structure. We work in a medical context and have strict compliance requirements, so I wondered aloud whether the plan is needed for audit, or to show to customers? It's not, they replied, it's just for the team. Smiling now, I stopped asking questions and delivered the good news that I had what they were looking for. Yes? they asked, in anticipation. Naturally I paused for dramatic effect and to enhance the appearance of deep wisdom, before saying: the ideal plan is one that works for you. Which is great and all that, but not heavy on practical advice. --00-- I am currently running a project at the Association for Software Testing and there is a plan for

Notes on Testing Notes

Ben Dowen pinged me and others on Twitter last week , asking for "a nice concise resource to link to for a blog post - about taking good Testing notes." I didn't have one so I thought I'd write a few words on how I'm doing it at the moment for my work at Ada Health, alongside Ben. You may have read previously that I use a script to upload Markdown-based text files to Confluence . Here's the template that I start from: # Date + Title # Mission # Summary WIP! # Notes Then I fill out what I plan to do. The Mission can be as high or low level as I want it to be. Sometimes, if deeper context might be valuable I'll add a Background subsection to it. I don't fill in the Summary section until the end. It's a high-level overview of what I did, what I found, risks identified, value provided, and so on. Between the Mission and Summary I hope that a reader can see what I initially intended and what actually

69.3%, OK?

The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter ,  LinkedIn ,  Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "What percentage of our test cases are automated?" There's a lot wrapped up in that question, particularly when it's a metric for monitoring the state of testing. It's not the first time I've been asked either. In my

Why Do They Test Software?

My friend Rachel Kibler asked me the other day "do you have a blog post about why we test software?" and I was surprised to find that, despite having touched on the topic many times, I haven't. So then I thought I'd write one. And then I thought it might be fun to crowdsource so I asked in the Association for Software Testing member's Slack, on LinkedIn , and on Twitter for reasons, one sentence each. And it was fun!  Here are the varied answers, a couple lightly edited, with thanks to everyone who contributed. Edit: I did a bit of analysis of the responses in Reasons to be Cheerful, Part 2 . --00-- Software is complicated, and the people that use it are even worse. — Andy Hird Because there is what software does, what people say it does, and what other people want it to do, and those are often not the same. — Andy Hird Because someone asked/told us to — Lee Hawkins To learn, and identify risks — Louise Perold sometimes: reducing the risk of harming people —

Testing is Knowledge Work

  The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter ,  LinkedIn ,  Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "We need some productivity metrics from testers" OK. I'd like to help you meet your need if I can but to do that I'll need to ask a few questions. Let's start with these: Who needs the metrics? Is there a particular pr

My Favourite Tool

Last week I did a presentation to a software testing course at EC Utbildning in Sweden titled Exploring with Automation where I demoed ways in which I use software tools to help me to test. Following up later, one of the students asked whether I had a favourite tool. A favourite tool? Wow, so simple but sooo deep!  Asking for a favourite tool could make a great interview question, to understand the breadth and depth of a candidate's knowledge about tools, how they think about an apparently basic request with deep complexity beneath (favourite for what task, on what basis, in what contexts, over what timescale?  what is a tool anyway?) and how they formulate a response to take all of that into account. I could truthfully but unhelpfully answer this question with a curt Yes or No. Or I could try and give something more nuanced. I went for the latter. At an extremely meta level I would echo Jerry Weinberg in Perfect Software : The number one te

Trying to be CEWT

I attend, enjoy, hopefully contribute to, and get a lot from, the local tester meetups and Lean Coffee  in Cambridge. But I'd had the thought kicking around for a long time that I'd like to try a peer workshop inspired by MEWT , DEWT , LEWT and the like. I finally asked a few others, including the local meetup organisers, and got mostly positive noises, so I decided to give it a go. I wrote a short statement to frame the idea, based on LEWT's: CEWT ( Cambirdge Exploratory Workshop on Testing ) is an exploratory peer workshop. We take the view that discussions are more interesting than lectures. We enjoy diverse ideas, and limit some activities in order to work with more ideas. and proposed a mission for an initial attempt to validate it locally on a small scale. Other local testers helped to refine the details in usual the testing ways - you know: criticism, questions, thought experiments, challenges, comparisons, mockery and the rest - and a list of potential at

Fail Here or Fail There

The First Law of Systems-Survival, according to John Gall, is this: A SYSTEM THAT IGNORES FEEDBACK HAS ALREADY BEGUN THE PROCESS OF TERMINAL INSTABILITY Laws are all-caps in Systemantics . Not just laws, but also theorems, axioms, and corollaries. There are many of them so here's another (location 2393-2394): JUST CALLING IT “FEEDBACK” DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT HAS ACTUALLY FED BACK There was a point when I realised, as the capitalised aphorisms rolled by, that I was sinking into the warm and sweetly-scented comforting foamy bathwater of confirmatory bias. Seen, seen, seen! Tick, tick, tick! I took the opportunity to let myself know that I'd been caught in the act, and that I needed to get out of the tub and start to challenge the content.  Intervening at that moment was congruent: I was in a context where I would accept it and prepared to change because of it. Of course, I enjoyed the deep irony of nodding along with Gall when he talked about

Testing and Words

  The other day I got tagged on a Twitter thread started by Wicked Witch of the Test about people with a background in linguistics who’ve ended up in testing. That prompted me to think about the language concepts I've found valuable in my day job, then I started listing them, and then realised how many of them I've mentioned here over the years .   This post is one of an occasional series collecting some of those thoughts.  --00-- In The Complete Plain Words , Ernest Gowers notes, acidly, that: What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use of words may well be a completely correct use of words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas. It surely sounds trite to say it but our choice of words can make a significant difference to how well our message is understood, and how we are judged. We choose from amongst those words we know, our lexicons . The more my lexicon agrees with yours, the greater our chance of us achieving a shared understanding when we converse. But lexic

Use the Force Multiplier

On Fridays I pair with doctors from Ada 's medical quality team. It's a fun and productive collaboration where I gain deeper insight into the way that diagnostic information is encoded in our product and they get to see a testing perspective unhindered by domain knowledge. We meet at the same time each week and decide late on our focus, choosing something that one of us is working on that's in a state where it can be shared. This week we picked up a task that I'd been hoping to get to for a while: exploring an API which takes a list of symptoms and returns a list of potential medical conditions that are consistent with those symptoms.  I was interested to know whether I could find small input differences that led to large output differences. Without domain knowledge, though, I wasn't really sure what "small" and "large" might mean. I prepared an input payload and wrote a simple shell script which did the following: make a