When we first proposed pair programming, the reaction was... cautious. A few people were excited. A few were visibly nervous. Most had questions:

“Isn’t it going to slow us down?”

“Do we have to do this every day?”

“Isn’t this just micromanagement in disguise?”

And honestly? Fair questions.

We didn’t introduce pairing to chase a trend. We did it because we were seeing:

• PRs that were technically fine but contextually wrong

• New engineers struggling to ramp up

• Knowledge bottlenecks that slowed everyone down

After some early missteps, we built a system that actually works — and doesn’t kill velocity.

Why We Tried Pairing in the First Place

Pairing is Opt-In, Not Mandatory

We don’t pair by default. We pair with purpose. When we do, it’s usually for:

• Spiking a new feature or idea

• Navigating complex or risky code

• Debugging hairy production issues

• Onboarding someone to an unfamiliar area

Time-Boxed Sessions (90 Minutes Max)

We run most sessions in 60–90 minute blocks, once or twice a day. After that, people break off and work solo, then re-sync later if needed.

This avoids “pair fatigue” and keeps the process sustainable.

We Rotate Roles — But Loosely

We follow a lightweight driver/navigator approach. One person types, the other asks questions, pushes on edge cases, and watches for architectural drift. Then we swap.

What Didn’t Work

• “Let’s pair all day” culture — People burned out fast, especially remote.

• Pairing without a goal — Sessions with no scope just wandered.

• Forcing juniors to pair — It backfired. Some preferred quiet time to read and explore before jumping into live sessions.

We killed the “mandatory pairing week” idea within the first two months.

Tools That Made It Smoother

• Tuple (for low-latency pairing)

• VS Code Live Share (when we need quick debugging sessions)

• Slack pairing board — Engineers can post “want to pair on X?” messages, like dev office hours.

We also have a “pair parking lot” in each sprint retro. If someone felt like a task would’ve gone better with a partner, they drop it there. It’s not for blame — it’s for learning.

What Got Better

PR review times dropped — because the real review already happened during pairing

Onboarding improved — new hires got context in days, not weeks

Fewer bugs escaped to prod — more eyes on code meant fewer assumptions

People volunteered for harder work — they knew they didn’t have to go it alone

Final Thoughts

Pair programming isn’t about two people writing the same code. It’s about two brains pressure-testing the same decision.

Done well, it doesn't slow teams down — it accelerates trust, learning, and code quality.

If your team is hitting friction with handoffs, silos, or inconsistent quality, pairing could help. Just don’t make it dogma. Start small. Let it evolve. And make sure it works for your people, not just your process.

Want a copy of the playbook we use to kickstart pairing? Happy to share. Just reach out.