Navigating Defensive Code Reviews: Strategies for Constructive Collaboration

Code reviews are a critical part of the software development process, allowing team members to ensure that work is of the highest quality and aligns with best practices. However, it's not uncommon for developers to become defensive during these reviews, which can disrupt the collaborative environment and impact productivity. This article explores strategies for handling defensive code reviews and transforming them into opportunities for learning and growth.

Understanding the Dynamics of Defensive Behavior

Developers often become defensive during code reviews when they perceive the criticism as personal or overly critical, rather than as constructive feedback aimed at improving the code. It's essential to recognize that defensive behavior may stem from assumptions or lack of context in the feedback provided. By understanding the root causes of defensive behavior, you can take steps to mitigate its effects and foster a more productive review process.

Tips for Avoiding Defensive Code Reviews

By adopting a more thoughtful and respectful approach, you can reduce the likelihood of defensive reactions during code reviews. Here are some strategies to consider:

1. Start with Compliments and Gratitude

Begin the code review with positive feedback and expressions of gratitude. This can help set a positive tone and reduce feelings of defensiveness. Acknowledge the developer's effort and any positive aspects of the code. By starting with recognition, you demonstrate respect and kindness, making it easier to have a constructive conversation.

2. Focus on Specifics and Avoid Generalizations

Provide specific and actionable feedback rather than making broad, generalized statements. Instead of saying 'this function is complicated,' break it down into specific issues such as 'this function has a high cognitive load due to multiple parameters.' This helps the developer understand the specific challenges and encourages them to address the issues more effectively.

3. Use 'I' Statements and Avoid 'You' Statements

Frame your feedback using 'I' statements to express your own observations and feelings without placing blame. For example, instead of saying 'You should use a single object with keys,' say 'I think using a single object with keys would make the function easier to read and maintain.' This approach demonstrates respect for the developer's choices while clearly articulating your concerns.

4. Provide Context and Explain Assumptions

Clarify any assumptions you may be making during the code review. Make sure the developer is aware of the context and reasoning behind your feedback. This transparency can help prevent misunderstandings and reduce defensiveness. For example, if you think the function is difficult to work with due to argument order, explain why you think this might be a problem and ask if this was intentional or if there are other reasons for the current implementation.

5. Encourage Collaboration and Brainstorming

Involve the developer in the review process by inviting them to discuss potential solutions and improvements. This collaborative approach can generate a more positive and productive conversation. Instead of presenting feedback as a final judgment, treat it as a starting point for discussion and exploration of alternatives. For example, if you suggest simplifying the function, you might ask, 'How do you think we could structure this function to make it more maintainable?' This invitation to participate can help the developer feel more invested in the process.

A Personal Experience: Case Study in Code Review

During a recent code review, I encountered a function that read:

function formatAddress(street, number, zip, state, firstName, lastName) {... // does some stuff}

I was tempted to write:

'This function has too many arguments'

However, upon reflection, I realized that this feedback made two key assumptions:

There was no explanation or context for the choice of function parameters, suggesting they were unintentional. The assumption that simplicity equates to fewer arguments.

I addressed these assumptions by crafting a more constructive feedback:

'This feels awkward. Could we pass in a single object with keys instead?'

This rephrased feedback questioned the current structure without assuming it was incorrect, and invited a discussion on a potential improvement. The developer appreciated the respectful andSolution-driven approach, and we were able to collaborate on a more maintainable function design.

Conclusion

Dealing with defensive behavior during code reviews is a challenge, but by adopting thoughtful and respectful communication strategies, you can create a more positive and productive environment. Remember that code reviews are cooperative efforts aimed at improving the quality and maintainability of code. By focusing on collaboration and respect, you can foster a culture of continuous improvement and mutual support within your development team.