Is Pair Programming a Dead Practice in Modern Teams?

Despite the buzz, pair programming isn’t some kind of silver bullet for all your development problems. Like any collaborative technique, it’s only as good as the context, the people, and the way it’s applied. And in real-world teams, it doesn’t always go as smoothly as the playbooks suggest.

Here’s why many teams find it challenging:

1. Mismatch in Skill or Experience: Pairing works best when both developers feel they’re contributing equally. But when one is significantly more experienced than the other, the dynamic can skew. The junior developer may feel like a passive observer, too intimidated to ask questions or contribute ideas. Meanwhile, the senior may get impatient or feel like they’re babysitting.
In theory, it should be a great learning opportunity. In practice, it can turn into a one-sided lecture if there’s no intentional effort to include, encourage, and create a safe space for learning.

2. Some People Just Don’t Click: Let’s be real: chemistry matters. Not every developer will naturally collaborate well with every other team member. Differences in work pace, communication styles, patience levels, or even energy levels can cause friction.

One person might prefer to talk through every idea before writing a line of code, while the other just wants to dive in and experiment. That tension can lead to awkward silences, micro-conflicts, or general discomfort—none of which are helpful for writing good code.

3. It’s Mentally Tiring: Pair programming is cognitively intense. You’re not just writing code, you’re constantly thinking aloud, listening, explaining your decisions, and staying aligned with someone else’s thought process. For introverts or deep-focus developers, this can feel draining after a while.

Even for social developers, pairing for hours without a break can lead to mental fatigue, decision fatigue, and a dip in performance. Like anything intense, it needs to be paced.

4. It Can Feel Slower (At Least at First): From a pure efficiency standpoint, pairing can seem counterintuitive. Why put two developers on one task when they could be completing two separate ones?

To managers focused on short-term output metrics, it might feel like a productivity hit. And in some cases, especially with simple or routine tasks, it probably is. The payoff comes in quality, fewer bugs, and long-term knowledge transfer. But that return isn’t always immediately obvious or measurable, which makes it a harder sell.

5. If It’s Forced, It Fails: This is the killer. If pair programming is something teams are told they must do without clarity, without context, and without flexibility, it almost always falls flat.

“Because Agile says so” is not a good enough reason. Developers need to understand why they’re pairing, when it’s appropriate, and what success looks like. If it feels like a mechanical requirement rather than a thoughtful choice, it becomes just another checkbox activity and eventually gets ignored or resented.