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.
Jan de Boer wrote:Yes. But people like me probably won't go to a Scrum course, Mitch.
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.
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.
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.
meenakshi sundar wrote:
What if I mix and match some best aspects of other Agile process tools like XP and Kanban and still can i run my project in Scrum majorly? Or would that completely become a Hybrid model?
Would you recommend that scenario?