--Mitch, Author of The Scrum Field Guide -- Follow me on twitter
Mitch Lacey wrote:Then I say I can speak 10 languages, they name them and I say yes, then I continue speaking in English and ask "how was my Afrikaans?" when I'm done. The point is made.
Now, do we need agile reform? Yes. Can we do it in a big movement? Maybe. My approach is to start one (or 10) at a time and just help them understand why the way of thinking is of far more value then the way of doing. Ownership and accountability is a funny thing, and I don't think we can help the people that have been burned unless they want to come back to the fire.
Thoughts?
Junilu Lacar wrote:I think I got the point of the 10 languages thing but just to make sure I didn't totally miss it, it's that it doesn't matter that you say you do something if that's not actually what you're doing. Just saying that you do something doesn't necessarily make it so.
Junilu Lacar wrote:I agree, don't DO Agile, BE agile. That's why in my own circles, I tend to promote principles and values more than practices and prescriptions. Even with things like TDD, I talk more about principles of design and development more than anything else.
Junilu Lacar wrote:There's a spectrum that Ahmed Sidky shows in one of his presentations where you have a few principles on one end and a bunch of practices on the other end. I definitely tend to start on the principle side of that spectrum. For me there's longevity and depth of understanding when you start with principles move towards adopting various practices even though it takes longer to see tangible benefits from them. When you start with the practices, there might be some short term tangible results but without deeper understanding of principles, the practices become cargo cultish and are not sustainable or very effective in the long term.
One last thing, my former manager, current manager, and I were relatively successful in promoting a healthy agile mindset on our teams. One of the things we used was Christopher Avery's Responsibility Framework. We thought that the idea of ownership and responsibility over accountability aligned well with our own personal values and working relationships and that's what we tried to instill in the rest of our team members.
--Mitch, Author of The Scrum Field Guide -- Follow me on twitter
Mitch Lacey wrote:
Junilu Lacar wrote:I agree, don't DO Agile, BE agile. That's why in my own circles, I tend to promote principles and values more than practices and prescriptions. Even with things like TDD, I talk more about principles of design and development more than anything else.
You got it! BE agile is the key. It's the mindset, not the action, that drives the change.
--Mitch, Author of The Scrum Field Guide -- Follow me on twitter
Junilu Lacar wrote:A good team can work together to figure out what can be done to make it less onerous and still keep norms and standards effective in motivating people towards the right behavior.
No more Blub for me, thank you, Vicar.
Junilu Lacar wrote:I find it difficult to wrap my head around the idea that your cultures wouldn't have some kind of notion around "work ethics" though. To me, there still a kind of value system involved. I mean if you don't value quality, timeliness, and efficiency, and customer satisfaction, and are only doing the work to put food on the table and clothes on your children's backs, it seems like that kind of work would not be enjoyable at all to me. In fact, it would seem quite dreary and depressing.
No more Blub for me, thank you, Vicar.
chris webster wrote:Another common problem with any ideology that insists on people internalising a particular dogma is the risk of group-think (white Oscars) and exactly the kind of hostility to non-believers that Jan and I have seen emerging from the less enlightened end of the Agile spectrum. The Agile movement likes to present this ideal of common "values", so it needs to deal with this common problem instead of insisting that any problems are the fault of unbelievers for not drinking the Kool-aid with sufficient enthusiasm.
chris webster wrote:The difference is that I generally assume that those basic ideas are shared with most other professionals I encounter in the workplace - even the ones who don't work under an "Agile" regime - so I don't need to insist they share my "values", follow my religion or drink my Kool-Aid. It's all this pseudo-religious nonsense around Agile that really gets up my nose. If the ideas and practices are effective (and I'm willing to accept they often are), that will be evident from putting them into practice it: you should not need to brain-wash people first. It's the brainwashing and sheer volume of evangelical BS around Agile that I find truly dreary and depressing.
Junilu Lacar wrote:Chris, I really appreciate your honest responses about this subject. It can be challenging to separate feelings and perceptions from reason and logic in these types of discussions but I think we've managed to find a balance here. I really do want to figure out how to resolve some of these issues you have highlighted or at least make them more tolerable and less oppressive.
--Mitch, Author of The Scrum Field Guide -- Follow me on twitter
Mitch Lacey wrote:FWIW, I am in Europe once a month. I have been having these value conversations for years and every now and then I see someone get frustrated, calling it religious zealotry, often referring back to history on how certain cultures thought they had all the right answers and forced solutions on people. Changing my wording from "values" or "mindset" to "work ethic" or "ethos" might be good. We'll see what tomorrow holds.
Thanks for the dialog guys.
No more Blub for me, thank you, Vicar.
Junilu Lacar wrote:I mean if you don't value quality, timeliness, and efficiency, and customer satisfaction, and are only doing the work to put food on the table and clothes on your children's backs, it seems like that kind of work would not be enjoyable at all to me.
Mitch Lacey wrote:
In particular, I have an exercise I do around the agile practices that my friend Simon Bennett introduced me to years ago. Basically, we map the agile principles to quadrants. The left side is "we see this in our company" and the right side is "we don't see this in our company". Top to bottom is "we value this" to "we don't value this." Maybe value is the wrong word, and that's where our dialog will come into play. I'll time box the conversation after we do the exercise, as I'm sure it could run all day long, but we'll see.
....Changing my wording from "values" or "mindset" to "work ethic" or "ethos" might be good. We'll see what tomorrow holds.
--Mitch, Author of The Scrum Field Guide -- Follow me on twitter
Mitch Lacey wrote:A few people had said they heard the concerns Jan shared, but they themselves did not share those concerns.
Jan de Boer wrote:Yes. But people like me probably won't go to a Scrum course, Mitch.
--Mitch, Author of The Scrum Field Guide -- Follow me on twitter
Junilu Lacar wrote:Also, if I were consultant or even an internal coach, I would think twice about coming in to try and turn a hostile audience around. The really tough part, and I have seen and experienced this, is judging just how hostile the audience is. It could range from simple apathy to skepticism to passive-aggressive to jaded cynicism to outright dislike and open defiance. I think it could be worth a shot and even a fun challenge up until you get to passive-aggressive. At some point you just have to accept the fact that you can only lead a horse to water or open the door of the burning barn.
--Mitch, Author of The Scrum Field Guide -- Follow me on twitter
No more Blub for me, thank you, Vicar.
Hang a left on main. Then read this tiny ad:
Smokeless wood heat with a rocket mass heater
https://woodheat.net
|