A Case Study of Onboarding in Software Teams: Tasks and Strategies

I. INTRODUCTION

• Onboarding combines adjustment to a new team with acquiring the behaviors, attitudes, and skills needed to fulfill a role; developers may face cognitive overload, social challenges, and pressure to prove themselves.The paper notes that these pressures are associated with happiness, retention, and productivity, and argues that improving onboarding is important.Source: §I · p. 1
• The study addresses the lack of a systematic understanding of how tasks influence new developers’ onboarding experiences.It also asks which task-assignment strategies can facilitate a positive onboarding experience.Source: §I · p. 1
• The exploratory case study examines tasks and onboarding without an existing theory, treating task choice as a situational design decision with multiple outcomes.Onboarding can extend beyond six months, and task needs may shift as a developer learns.Source: §I · p. 1

II. METHODS

• The researchers interviewed 32 developers who had recently joined a team and 15 managers who had recently onboarded a developer, then surveyed broader audiences about interview findings.The paper offers practitioners recommendations and compares the strategies’ pros and cons to help them select an approach suited to their circumstances.Source: §I · pp. 1–2

I. INTRODUCTION

• Interviews identified learning, confidence, and socialization as themes through which software-development tasks shape onboarding, while uncovering three commonly used manager strategies.Surveys of 189 developers and 37 managers suggest the interview findings are representative and the strategies cover a majority of onboarding practices.Source: §I · p. 2

A. Subjects and Research Site

• The study sampled two US Microsoft divisions with distinct businesses, cultures, and onboarding practices, including software-development teams in both.One division focused on service and software development; the other included software and hardware businesses.Source: A. Subjects and Research Site · p. 2, Table I · p. 3
• The study treats a typical team task as scoped to one to four weeks, while exploratory tasks may be time-boxed to one to two weeks.Some tasks were customized for onboarding, including fixing or updating documentation.Source: A. Subjects and Research Site · p. 2
• For interviews, developers had joined a team within the previous three months and managers had onboarded someone within six months; survey eligibility used a six-month threshold.Researchers sampled from Microsoft employee records and limited participants to software developers or managers at the US headquarters.Source: A. Subjects and Research Site · p. 2

B. Interviews

• The researchers piloted six developer interviews and used the resulting onboarding-related constructs to design the interview guides.In this study, “constructs” include artifacts, processes, mental feelings, and metrics.Source: B. Interviews · p. 2, 1) Design · p. 2

1) Design:

• Interview questions covered onboarding context, task characteristics, and constructs such as learning and confidence that tasks may influence.Developers described tasks and their perceived effects; managers described task assignment, expectations, and evaluation.Source: 1) Design · p. 2

2) Administration:

• Interviews lasted 30–60 minutes, were audio/video recorded, and were conducted by at least two researchers, with one leading and another transcribing most interviews.Researchers consolidated interview notes immediately afterward.Source: 2) Administration · p. 3

3) Analysis:

• Initial coding grouped transcript lines into topics, tasks, and constructs, with task-related lines labeled using descriptors such as priority and complexity.The initial descriptors drew on prior reports, expert suggestions, and pilot interviews, and were revised during coding.Source: 3) Analysis · p. 3
• After coding, the researchers created surveys to gather broader feedback on selected interview findings and practice recommendations.The survey response counts were 189 developers and 37 managers.Source: 1) Design · p. 4, Table II · p. 4
• Focused coding characterized tasks with a reduced set of codes, and theoretical coding examined learning, confidence, social interactions, and three onboarding strategies.Researchers consulted domain experts on the themes and analyzed the strategies’ pros and cons.Source: 3) Analysis · pp. 3–4, 1) Design · p. 4

C. Surveys

• The developer survey asked respondents to select the strategy that best described their recent onboarding, then rate statements about learning, confidence, social interactions, and mentors.The questions included open responses, and background information was collected before the survey sections.Source: C. Surveys · p. 4
• The manager survey asked which strategy managers used for junior and senior developers and how likely they were to use the practice recommendations.Managers could explain their choices and indicate when a recommendation was already in practice.Source: C. Surveys · pp. 4–5
• Two rounds of in-person pilot studies with five recently onboarded developers and managers were used to revise survey questions for ambiguity and bias.The pilot participants did not take part in the actual survey, and important terms were defined before questions.Source: C. Surveys · p. 5

2) Administration:

• 189 developers and 37 managers replied to surveys sent to 1,629 developers and 754 managers.Source: 2) Administration · p. 5

III. INTERVIEW FINDINGS

• The interviews identified 15 onboarding constructs, with learning, confidence, and social interaction highlighted as especially critical.Source: §III · p. 5

A. Learning, Confidence, and Social Connections

• Ten managers treated independence—such as answering customer questions or driving complex features—as a final onboarding checkpoint.Source: A. Learning, Confidence, and Social… · p. 5

1) Learning:

• 41 of 61 task items (67%) led to learning about team repositories, customers, tools, processes, and responsibilities.Source: 1) Learning · p. 5
• Clear, complete, updated, well-organized task documentation helps new developers find information and avoid inaccurate or incomplete answers.Source: 1) Learning · p. 5
• Task-support mentors help new developers solve problems, learn tools and processes, find resources, and reach other teammates.Source: 1) Learning · p. 5
• Technical meetings expose new developers to team work, workflows, and responsibilities; they can also answer task questions, but may overwhelm some attendees.Source: 1) Learning · pp. 5–6
• Explaining a task’s context and team connections before assigning it helps developers filter details and avoid information overload.Source: 1) Learning · p. 6

2) Confidence:

• Finishing tasks can build confidence by showing new developers they can deliver value, while slow progress can lower confidence and create pressure.Source: 2) Confidence · p. 6
• Positive feedback and signs of team trust support confidence; senior developers in the interviews received that confirmation faster and reported better onboarding experiences than junior developers.Source: 2) Confidence · pp. 6–7
• Learning about the team and clarifying task requirements can improve confidence, so managers are advised to set clear expectations about learning gains.Source: 2) Confidence · p. 7
• Accessible support from a manager, mentor, or paired senior teammate helps new developers feel confident while working on tasks.Source: 2) Confidence · p. 7

3) Socialisation:

• Mentors were helpful to 14 of 18 participants who had one, and can reduce help-seeking barriers by providing an accessible first contact.Source: 3) Socialisation · p. 7
• 29 of 38 task items involving social interaction strengthened connections, but hesitation to ask for help can reduce interaction; low-cost help channels can ease that barrier.Source: 3) Socialisation · p. 7
• Collaborative tasks can establish new connections, but cross-team work and delays awaiting feedback may harm motivation and confidence, so such tasks warrant caution.Source: 3) Socialisation · p. 7

4) Answering RQ1.:

• The interviews characterize onboarding as long-term and context-dependent: uncertain tasks may support learning and social interaction with team support, but hinder onboarding without it.Source: 4) Answering RQ1 · p. 7

B. Onboarding Strategies

• The three strategies were summarized from interviews as approaches managers use to assign onboarding tasks.Source: B. Onboarding Strategies · p. 7
• Priority-First follows task priority, while Exploration-Based assigns under-defined and uncertain tasks.Source: B. Onboarding Strategies · p. 7

1) Simple-Complex:

• Simple-Complex was used by 12 managers and applied to 14 developers in the interviews.Source: 1) Simple-Complex · p. 7
• In Simple-Complex, task complexity increases over time, from introductory bugs or configuration tasks toward domain expertise and feature design.Source: 1) Simple-Complex · pp. 7–8
• The example progression starts with simple tasks in week one, codebase bugs or features over the next two or three weeks, and domain expertise over the next three to nine months.Source: 1) Simple-Complex · p. 7
• Managers use Simple-Complex tasks to meet learning goals; completed tasks can build confidence, while expectations in the examples progress toward independent work.Source: 1) Simple-Complex · p. 8
• After three to nine months, Depth-First develops expertise in one domain before expanding, whereas Breadth-First exposes developers to multiple areas first.Source: 1) Simple-Complex · p. 8
• Depth-First is more common in the interviews and is linked to domain ownership, confidence, and social interaction; Breadth-First supports exploration and a broader team network.Source: 1) Simple-Complex · p. 8

2) Priority-First:

• Priority-First gives developers the highest-priority backlog task, and twelve developers in the interviews onboarded this way.Two managers described assigning tasks in backlog order rather than reserving projects for new hires.Source: 2) Priority-First · p. 8
• Under pressure, Priority-First can generate immediate team value, and focused coworkers helped one developer feel safe learning through urgent work.Four of six developers reportedly in pressured teams were onboarded this way.Source: 2) Priority-First · p. 8
• Eight developers described Priority-First tasks as challenging, and early difficulty could lower confidence, while pairing with experienced developers offered support.One developer reported zero confidence about an urgent task; two managers used pair programming or paired new hires with experienced developers.Source: 2) Priority-First · p. 8

3) Exploration-Based:

• Exploration-Based assigns loosely defined tasks and was used for both senior and junior developers, including technical spikes and tool prototyping outside the core product.The outside-core-product tasks were intended to permit exploration without production-code risk or time pressure.Source: 3) Exploration-Based · p. 8
• Exploration-Based may create pressure when delivery is slow, but new-team settings can make it more comfortable through shared learning, help, and broad social connections.Five of nine developers from reportedly new teams used this strategy; two interviewees described learning together and building broad connections.Source: 3) Exploration-Based · p. 8

4) Answering RQ2.:

• Simple-Complex gradually prepares junior developers, Exploration-Based suits experienced developers seeking learning and ownership, and Priority-First fits teams with particular needs.The paper identifies Agile teams, new teams, and teams with tight schedules as contexts that may use Priority-First.Source: 4) Answering RQ2 · p. 8

IV. SURVEY RESULTS

• The surveys received 189 developer responses from 1,629 invitations and 37 manager responses from 754 invitations.These corresponded to response rates of 11.6% and 4.9%, respectively.Source: §IV · p. 9

A. About experiences and recommendations

• On average, 88.9% of developers agreed with experience statements, while 81.9% of managers not using a recommended practice considered it useful.An average of 36.8% of managers already used recommended practices; the authors interpret the survey as supporting representativeness and actionability within Microsoft.Source: A. About experiences and recommendations · p. 9

B. About the three strategies

• The three strategies covered 96.3% of reported onboarding experiences, and 94.4% and 85.7% of managers identified one of them as their strategy.The authors conclude the categories explain the design intention of most onboarding experiences.Source: B. About the three strategies · p. 9
• Managers reported using Simple-Complex for junior developers more often than senior developers, while Exploration-Based was more common for senior developers.The reported comparisons were 86.1% versus 48.6% for Simple-Complex, and 27.6% versus 5.5% for Exploration-Based.Source: B. About the three strategies · p. 9

V. DISCUSSION AND RELATED WORK

• Unlike broader onboarding research, this study emphasizes software-specific task properties and notes that its findings concern collocated teams, not distributed teams.The authors identify distributed-team task assignment as requiring further consideration.Source: §V · p. 9
• The study extends prior onboarding and community-entry work by treating onboarding as a multi-stage path toward independent contribution and identifying Priority-First alongside other task strategies.It also distinguishes industry roles and responsibilities from those in open-source communities.Source: §V · p. 9
• The findings offer guidance for designing onboarding task-selection tools, including attention to negative code-review feedback that may hurt confidence.The paper points to existing work on detecting negative interpersonal interactions in code reviews as a possible support for onboarding.Source: §V · p. 9

VI. THREATS TO VALIDITY

• Survey agreement serves as an indirect validity measure, based on the assumption that agreement reflects consistent experiences or perspectives.The authors describe using clear, concrete, neutral survey wording and allowing explanations to address concerns about this measurement.Source: §VI · pp. 9–10
• Interview recall may be biased, although the researchers used recent participants, multiple researchers, recordings, and expert feedback to address bias.The authors suggest longitudinal observation of developers onboarding as a future direction.Source: §VI · p. 10
• The study sampled two Microsoft divisions, but its single-company setting limits the scope of external-validity evidence; distributed teams are also outside its focus.The divisions differed in products, businesses, and cultures, which the authors say improves generalizability within the study.Source: §V · p. 9, §VI · p. 10

• This first study of software developer onboarding tasks links tasks to learning, confidence, and social interactions, and summarizes three strategies managers use.Source: §VII · p. 10
• Microsoft practitioners validated the study’s onboarding recommendations as useful and practical.Source: §VII · p. 10
• Future experiments comparing the three onboarding strategies could provide quantitative perspectives on onboarding.Source: §VII · pp. 10–11
• The study’s task measurements are subjective because they are based on interviews; future work could develop objective measures.Source: §VII · p. 11
• The authors envision a theory that captures how onboarding shapes teams and teams reshape onboarding, given its correlation with productivity, job satisfaction, retention, and creativity.Source: §VII · p. 11