pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00191 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 💻 cs.SE

What Characterizes a Software Leader? Identifying Leadership Practices from Practitioners Social Media

Murilo Coelho , Denivan Campos , Mariana Maia Bezerra , Matheus Paixao , Allysson Allex Araujo , Savio Freire This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords software leadershipleadership practicespractitioner experiencescontent analysispeople managementinterpersonal skillsconceptual mapDev.to articles
0
0 comments X

The pith

Software leadership centers on managerial and interpersonal practices rather than technical expertise, based on analysis of what practitioners write about their experiences.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets out to understand leadership as it actually happens in software projects by examining the firsthand accounts that developers share online. Researchers collected and coded 116 articles from the Dev.to community to pull out 103 distinct practices, sort them into five broad categories, and flag which ones practitioners recommend versus which ones they warn against. This matters to a sympathetic reader because most prior studies start from formal job titles or textbook models, whereas this work starts from the ground up with what people doing the work say they do and see. The result is a practical map that shows effective leaders spend their effort on team development, delegation, communication, and strategic thinking. If the map holds, it shifts how we think about preparing people for leadership roles in software.

Core claim

Through systematic content analysis of 116 practitioner-authored articles on Dev.to, the authors extracted 103 leadership practices and organized them into five categories: People Management & Development, Processes & Execution, Professional & Personal Growth, Communication & Articulation, and Strategic Vision. They distinguished recommended practices, such as cultivating interpersonal skills, delegating team work, and developing managerial abilities, from discouraged ones, such as micromanagement and counterproductive communication styles. The findings indicate that software leadership is mainly associated with managerial and interpersonal practices rather than technical expertise, and the

What carries the argument

The conceptual map that organizes 103 practices extracted from practitioner articles into five categories, with explicit recommended versus discouraged distinctions.

If this is right

  • Leadership development programs can prioritize training in interpersonal skills and delegation over additional technical instruction.
  • Organizations can use the five-category map to evaluate current leaders and set expectations for new ones.
  • Practitioners can compare their own habits against the recommended list to identify areas for improvement.
  • The distinction between recommended and discouraged practices offers concrete guidance for avoiding common project pitfalls.
  • The map can serve as a shared reference when teams discuss what leadership should look like in their specific context.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same method of mining practitioner writing could be applied to other platforms or to project post-mortems to test whether the same practices appear.
  • Hiring and promotion decisions might shift if they began weighting demonstrated interpersonal and managerial behaviors more heavily than technical output alone.
  • Tools or checklists derived from the map could help new leaders track their daily actions against the recommended practices.

Load-bearing premise

That articles posted by practitioners on the Dev.to platform give a representative and unbiased picture of leadership experiences across the wider software community.

What would settle it

A survey of software project leaders drawn randomly from multiple companies and regions that asks them to rate how often they use or value each of the 103 practices; if the frequency rankings and category emphases diverge sharply from the Dev.to results, the central claim would be challenged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00191 by Allysson Allex Araujo, Denivan Campos, Mariana Maia Bezerra, Matheus Paixao, Murilo Coelho, Savio Freire.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Coding process: Distinct properties and dimensions. Adapted from [12]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Correlation matrix between the top ten recom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Correlation matrix between discouraged practices. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A Conceptual Map of Leadership Practices in Software Engineering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Context: Leadership has been extensively studied in management and agile software development; however, prior research predominantly focuses on formal roles and predefined leadership models, offering limited insight into how leadership is experienced and demonstrated by software practitioners in everyday practice. Objective: Our goal is to identify and categorize leadership practices as perceived and reported by software development practitioners based on their professional experiences. Method: We conducted a content analysis of 116 practitioner-authored articles published on the Dev.to online community. Articles were systematically collected, screened, and coded, resulting in the extraction, correlation analysis and categorization of leadership practices grounded in practitioners narratives. Results: We identified 103 practices for software project leaders, distinguished between recommended and discouraged ones. These practices were organized into five categories: People Management & Development, Processes & Execution, Professional & Personal Growth, Communication & Articulation and Strategic Vision. The most recurrent recommended practices include Cultivating & Practicing Interpersonal Skills, Managing & Delegating Team Work, and Practicing & Developing Managerial Skills, whereas Micromanagement, Counterproductive Work Patterns, and Counterproductive Communication Styles emerged as the most frequent discouraged practices. We organized all practices into a conceptual map. Conclusion: The findings indicate that software leadership is mainly associated with managerial and interpersonal practices rather than technical expertise. The resulting conceptual map summarizes these practices and can serve as a reference for understanding leadership in software development contexts.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper performs a content analysis on 116 practitioner-authored articles from the Dev.to platform. It systematically collects, screens, and codes the articles to extract 103 leadership practices, which are categorized into five themes (People Management & Development, Processes & Execution, Professional & Personal Growth, Communication & Articulation, and Strategic Vision), with distinctions between recommended and discouraged practices. A conceptual map is produced, and the central claim is that software leadership is primarily characterized by managerial and interpersonal practices rather than technical expertise.

Significance. If the methodological concerns are addressed, the work offers a practitioner-grounded taxonomy of 103 practices drawn from real-world narratives, which could serve as a useful reference for software engineering education, agile team leadership, and future empirical studies. The emphasis on recurrent recommended practices such as interpersonal skills and delegation, versus discouraged ones like micromanagement, provides actionable distinctions. The use of public social media data as a source is a strength for capturing everyday experiences outside formal models.

major comments (2)
  1. [Method] Method section: the description of the systematic collection, screening, and coding process leading to 103 practices does not report inter-rater reliability (e.g., Cohen's kappa or percentage agreement), exact inclusion/exclusion criteria, or bias mitigation steps. This directly limits verification of the reproducibility and support for the extracted practices and their recommended/discouraged classification.
  2. [Results/Conclusion] Results and Conclusion: the claim that 'software leadership is mainly associated with managerial and interpersonal practices rather than technical expertise' rests on treating the 116 Dev.to articles as representative. No discussion or quantification of selection effects (self-selected authors, platform demographics, English-language bias) is provided, which is load-bearing for generalizing the five-category map and practice balance to the broader software development community.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the mention of 'correlation analysis' alongside extraction and categorization is not reflected in the results summary; clarify whether this analysis was performed and how it informed the conceptual map.
  2. [Results] The five category names are somewhat lengthy; consider whether shorter labels or a table summarizing practice counts per category would improve readability of the conceptual map.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and the opportunity to clarify and strengthen our manuscript. We address each major comment below with specific responses and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Method] Method section: the description of the systematic collection, screening, and coding process leading to 103 practices does not report inter-rater reliability (e.g., Cohen's kappa or percentage agreement), exact inclusion/exclusion criteria, or bias mitigation steps. This directly limits verification of the reproducibility and support for the extracted practices and their recommended/discouraged classification.

    Authors: We agree that greater transparency in the Method section is warranted to support reproducibility. The lead author performed the primary coding with iterative team discussions to resolve disagreements and refine categories. We will expand the Method section to detail the exact inclusion/exclusion criteria applied during screening, describe the full collection and coding workflow, and outline bias mitigation steps such as reflexive review of codes against source articles. For inter-rater reliability, we will report the agreement process used and, where possible, provide percentage agreement or Cohen's kappa on a subset of articles. These additions will directly address verification of the 103 practices and their recommended/discouraged distinctions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results/Conclusion] Results and Conclusion: the claim that 'software leadership is mainly associated with managerial and interpersonal practices rather than technical expertise' rests on treating the 116 Dev.to articles as representative. No discussion or quantification of selection effects (self-selected authors, platform demographics, English-language bias) is provided, which is load-bearing for generalizing the five-category map and practice balance to the broader software development community.

    Authors: We acknowledge that our data source introduces selection effects that limit broad generalization, and we did not previously discuss them explicitly. Our objective was to surface practices as reported in practitioner narratives on Dev.to rather than to claim statistical representativeness. We will add a Limitations subsection that qualitatively addresses self-selection of authors, platform demographics, and English-language bias, while qualifying the central claim to reflect the analyzed sample. The five-category map and practice frequencies remain grounded in the 116 articles; we will not overstate generalizability but will note how the findings can inform future empirical validation. This revision provides balance without changing the core results. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; qualitative analysis of independent external data

full rationale

The paper conducts a standard content analysis on 116 independently collected practitioner articles from the public Dev.to platform. It involves systematic screening, coding, extraction of 103 practices, correlation analysis, and categorization into five themes, followed by identification of recommended vs. discouraged practices. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations are present that could reduce to the input corpus by construction. The central claim (leadership as primarily managerial/interpersonal) emerges directly from the coded data without self-referential loops or load-bearing self-citations. The study is self-contained against its external data source, with no patterns matching self-definitional, fitted-input, or uniqueness-imported circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that qualitative coding of online practitioner narratives can reliably surface authentic leadership practices without significant selection or interpretation bias.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Practitioner-authored articles on Dev.to accurately reflect real-world leadership practices and perceptions in software development.
    This underpins the data source and the extraction of recommended versus discouraged practices.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5562 in / 1099 out tokens · 58564 ms · 2026-05-09T20:02:39.967952+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Oluwasanmi Segun Adanigbo, Denis Kisina, Andrew Ifesinachi Daraojimba, Samuel Owoade, Nneka Adaobi Ochuba, and Toluwase Peter Gbenle. 2025. A Conceptual Framework for Scaling Technical Leadership and Mentorship in Remote Software Engineering Teams.International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology (IJEMT)11, 4 (2025), 6–12

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Victor R Basili-Gianluigi Caldiera and H Dieter Rombach. 1994. Goal question metric paradigm.Encyclopedia of software engineering1, 528-532 (1994), 6

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    Luiz Fernando Capretz. 2014. Bringing the human factor to software engineering. IEEE software31, 2 (2014), 104–104

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Lidiany Cerqueira, João Pedro Bastos, Danilo Neves, Glauco Carneiro, Rodrigo Spinola, Sávio Freire, Jose Santos, and Manoel Mendonça. 2025. Exploring What Characterizes a Software Leader? Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Empathy in Software Engineering: Insights from a Grey Literature Analysis of Practitioners’ Perspectives.ACM Trans. Softw. ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3748721 2025

  5. [5]

    Lidiany Cerqueira, Sávio Freire, João Bastos, Rodrigo Spínola, Manoel Mendonça, and José Santos. 2023. A thematic synthesis on empathy in software engineering based on the practitioners’ perspective. InProceedings of the XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering. 332–341

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Lidiany Cerqueira, Sávio Freire, Danilo Ferreira Neves, João Pedro Silva Bastos, Beatriz Santana, Rodrigo Spínola, Manoel Mendonça, and José Amancio Macedo Santos. 2024. Empathy and Its Effects on Software Practitioners’ Well-Being and Mental Health.IEEE Software41, 4 (July 2024), 95–104. doi:10.1109/MS.2024. 3377897

    work page doi:10.1109/ms.2024 2024

  7. [7]

    Murilo Coelho, Allysson Allex Araújo, Sávio Freire, and Matheus Paixao. 2024. Um estudo comparativo entre a visão de líderes e liderados sobre a importância de soft skills em desenvolvimento de software. InWorkshop sobre Aspectos Sociais, Humanos e Econômicos de Software (W ASHES). SBC, 130–140

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Murilo Coelho, Allysson Allex Araújo, Sávio Freire, and Matheus Paixao. 2025. What soft skills are most valued in software projects? A comparative view of leader and non-leader perspectives.iSys-Brazilian Journal of Information Systems 18, 1 (2025), 9–1

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    What Characterizes a Software Leader? Identifying Leadership Practices from Practitioners’ Social Media

    Murilo Coelho, Denivan Campos, Mariana Maia Bezerra, Matheus Paixao, Allysson Allex Araújo, and Sávio Freire. 2026. Replication package for the Paper “What Characterizes a Software Leader? Identifying Leadership Practices from Practitioners’ Social Media”. https://zenodo.org/records/19303421

    work page arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Samer Faraj and V Sambamurthy. 2006. Leadership of information systems development projects.IEEE Transactions on engineering management53, 2 (2006), 238–249

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    Sávio Freire, Felipe Gomes, Larissa Barbosa, Thiago Souto Mendes, Galdir Reges, Rita S. P. Maciel, Manoel Mendonça, and Rodrigo Spínola. 2023. Requirements Engineering Issues Experienced by Software Practitioners: A Study on Stack Exchange. InRequirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality: 29th International Working Conference, REFSQ 2023, Barc...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-29786-1_1 2023

  12. [12]

    Sávio Freire, Nicolli Rios, Boris Pérez, Camilo Castellanos, Darío Correal, Robert Ramač, Vladimir Mandić, Nebojša Taušan, Gustavo López, Alexia Pacheco, Ma- noel Mendonça, Davide Falessi, Clemente Izurieta, Carolyn Seaman, and Rodrigo Spínola. 2023. Software practitioners’ point of view on technical debt payment. Journal of Systems and Software196 (2023)...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2022.111554 2023

  13. [13]

    Eliakim Gama, Sávio Freire, Manoel Mendonça, Rodrigo O Spínola, Matheus Paixao, and Mariela I Cortés. 2020. Using Stack Overflow to Assess Technical Debt Identification on Software Projects. In34th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES). 730–739

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Mäntylä, and Aurona Rainer

    Vahid Garousi, Michael Felderer, Mika V. Mäntylä, and Aurona Rainer. 2020. Benefitting from the Grey Literature in Software Engineering Research. In Contemporary Empirical Methods in Software Engineering. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 385–413. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32489-6_14

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32489-6_14 2020

  15. [15]

    Felipe Gomes, Eder Santos, Sávio Freire, Thiago Souto Mendes, Manoel Mendonça, and Rodrigo Spínola. 2023. Investigating the Point of View of Project Management Practitioners on Technical Debt-A Study on Stack Exchange.Journal of Software Engineering Research and Development11, 1 (2023), 12–1

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Felipe Gomes, Eder Pereira dos Santos, Sávio Freire, Manoel Mendonça, Thi- ago Souto Mendes, and Rodrigo Spínola. 2022. Investigating the Point of View of Project Management Practitioners on Technical Debt: A Preliminary Study on Stack Exchange. InProceedings of the International Conference on Technical Debt (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)(TechDebt ’22). Assoc...

    work page doi:10.1145/3524843.3528095 2022

  17. [17]

    Lucas Gren and Paul Ralph. 2022. What makes effective leadership in agile software development teams?. InProceedings of the 44th international conference on software engineering. 2402–2414

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Lucas Gren, Richard Torkar, and Robert Feldt. 2017. Group development and group maturity when building agile teams: A qualitative and quantitative inves- tigation at eight large companies.Journal of Systems and Software124 (2017), 104–119

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Will G. Hopkins. 2016.A New View of Statistics. http://www.sportsci.org/ resource/stats/

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    1975.Path-goal theory of leadership

    Robert J House and Terence R Mitchell. 1975.Path-goal theory of leadership. Technical Report

    work page 1975

  21. [21]

    Eirini Kalliamvakou, Christian Bird, Thomas Zimmermann, Andrew Begel, Robert DeLine, and Daniel M German. 2017. What makes a great manager of software engineers?IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering45, 1 (2017), 87–106

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Shoukat Iqbal Khattak, Muhammad Anwar Khan, Muhammad Iftikhar Ali, and Abdul Samad Kakar. 2025. Unwrapping IT Project Success in China: Examining the Role of Empowering Leadership, Workforce Agility and Top Management Support in IT Project Success.SAGE Open15, 1 (2025), 21582440251318858

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Barbara Kitchenham, Lech Madeyski, and David Budgen. 2023. How Should Soft- ware Engineering Secondary Studies Include Grey Material?IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering49, 2 (2023), 872–882. doi:10.1109/TSE.2022.3165938

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2022.3165938 2023

  24. [24]

    Paul Luo Li, Amy J Ko, and Jiamin Zhu. 2015. What makes a great software engineer?. In2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, Vol. 1. IEEE, 700–710

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    Yan Li, Chuan-Hoo Tan, and Hock-Hai Teo. 2012. Leadership characteristics and developers’ motivation in open source software development.Information & Management49, 5 (2012), 257–267

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    Philipp Mayring. 2000. Qualitative Content Analysis.Forum Qualitative Sozial- forschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research1, 2 (Jun. 2000). doi:10.17169/fqs- 1.2.1089

    work page doi:10.17169/fqs- 2000

  27. [27]

    Mary L McHugh. 2012. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic.Biochem Med (Zagreb)22, 3 (2012), 276–282

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    Sunila Modi and Diane Strode. 2020. Leadership in agile software development: a systematic literature review. (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Alessa Oliveira, Sávio Freire, Edna Dias Canedo, Manoel Mendonça, and Larissa Rocha. 2025. Investigating the Challenges Faced by Women on Software Engi- neering: a Grey Literature Study. In2025 IEEE/ACM Sixth Workshop on Gender Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering (GEICSE). IEEE, 17–24

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Maria Papoutsoglou, Johannes Wachs, and Georgia M Kapitsaki. 2021. Min- ing DEV for social and technical insights about software development. In2021 IEEE/ACM 18th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE, 415–419

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Katarzyna Piwowar-Sulej and Qaisar Iqbal. 2025. Sustainability and software development projects: leadership, core self-evaluation and empowerment as critical success factors.European Business Review37, 2 (2025), 371–394

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    J Drew Procaccino, June M Verner, Katherine M Shelfer, and David Gefen. 2005. What do software practitioners really think about project success: an exploratory study.Journal of Systems and Software78, 2 (2005), 194–203

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    Paul Ralph, Nauman bin Ali, Sebastian Baltes, Domenico Bianculli, Jessica Diaz, Yvonne Dittrich, Neil Ernst, Michael Felderer, Robert Feldt, Antonio Filieri, Breno Bernard Nicolau de França, Carlo Alberto Furia, Greg Gay, Nicolas Gold, Daniel Graziotin, Pinjia He, Rashina Hoda, Natalia Juristo, Barbara Kitchen- ham, Valentina Lenarduzzi, Jorge Martínez, J...

    work page arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Richard Rogers. 2018. Coding and writing analytic memos on qualitative data: A review of Johnny Saldaña’s the coding manual for qualitative researchers.The qualitative report23, 4 (2018), 889–893

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    big five

    Eduardo Salas, Dana E Sims, and C Shawn Burke. 2005. Is there a “big five” in teamwork?Small group research36, 5 (2005), 555–599

    work page 2005

  36. [36]

    Beatriz Santana, Sávio Freire, José Amancio Macedo Santos, and Manoel Men- donça. 2024. Psychological Safety in the Software Work Environment.IEEE Softw. 41, 4 (July 2024), 86–94. doi:10.1109/MS.2024.3386532

    work page doi:10.1109/ms.2024.3386532 2024

  37. [37]

    Beatriz Silva De Santana, Sávio Freire, Leandro Cruz, Lidivânio Monte, Manoel Mendonca, and José Amancio Macedo Santos. 2023. Exploring Psychological Safety in Software Engineering: Insights from Stack Exchange. InProceedings of the XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering(Campo Grande, Brazil) (SBES ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613372.3613411 2023

  38. [38]

    Joachim Schöpfel and Dominic J Farace. 2010. Grey literature.Encyclopedia of library and information sciences3 (2010), 2029–2039

    work page 2010

  39. [39]

    Simone V Spiegler, Christoph Heinecke, and Stefan Wagner. 2021. An empirical study on changing leadership in agile teams.Empirical Software Engineering26, 3 (2021), 41

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research techniques. (1998)

    work page 1998

  41. [41]

    Salitha Nair Subramanian and Saeed Banihashemi. 2024. Towards modern leader- ship styles in the context of the engineering sector.Project Leadership and Society 5 (2024), 100133

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Mohan Thite. 1999. Leadership: a critical success factor in IT project management. InPICMET’99: Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology. Proceedings Vol-1: Book of Summaries (IEEE Cat. No. 99CH36310). IEEE, 298–303

    work page 1999

  43. [43]

    2012.Experimentation in software engineering

    Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, Anders Wesslén, et al. 2012.Experimentation in software engineering. Vol. 236. Springer

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    Huimin Xu, Meijun Liu, Yi Bu, Shujing Sun, Yi Zhang, Chenwei Zhang, Daniel E Acuna, Steven Gray, Eric Meyer, and Ying Ding. 2024. The impact of heteroge- neous shared leadership in scientific teams.Information Processing & Management 61, 1 (2024), 103542

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Peng Xu and Yide Shen. 2018. The role of leadership in agile software development. (2018)

    work page 2018