Agile Mentors Podcast from Mountain Goat Software

#115: Aligning Leadership for Success with Dr. Tess Thompson

Join Brian and Dr. Tess Thompson as they delve into the complexities of scaling Agile, highlighting the challenges of aligning leadership priorities, fostering transparency, and applying system-level thinking for successful organizational transformations.
Overview
In this insightful episode, Dr. Tess Thompson tackles the pressing challenges organizations face when scaling Agile, with a focus on the critical role of leadership alignment. Drawing from her extensive experience, she explains how misaligned priorities at the leadership level can stall progress and waste resources.
Dr. Thompson emphasizes the importance of system-level thinking, transparency, and communication between teams and leaders to resolve misalignments and ensure success. She also shares her holistic approach, blending practices from various Agile frameworks to meet the specific needs of different organizations.
References and resources mentioned in the show:
Dr. Tess Thompson
Scrum Inc.
Scrum.org
#68: The Pros and Cons and Real World Applications of SAFe with Mike Hall
#94: Connecting Teams and Leadership with Anthony Coppedge
Three Questions to Determine If an Organization Is Agile by Mike Cohn
Certified Scrum Product Owner® Training
Join the Agile Mentors Community
Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast
Want to get involved?
This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input.
Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one.
Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com
This episode’s presenters are:
Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work.
Dr. Tess Thompson is a visionary leader in Agile transformations, with over three decades of experience reshaping industries from energy to biotech across the globe. As a professor at St. Mary's University, her dedication to fostering Agile leaders has empowered countless individuals to embrace adaptability and forge their own path to success.
Auto-generated Transcript:
Brian (00:00)
Welcome in Agile Mentors. We're back for another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I'm with you as always, Brian Milner. And today I have a very special guest with me. I have Dr. Tess Thompson with me. Welcome in Dr. Thompson.
Tess Thompson (00:13)
Hi, I'm glad to be here.
Brian (00:16)
I'm so happy to have Dr. Thompson with us. And just for people who aren't familiar, let me make sure that I introduce her and give you the background a little bit. First of all, she's been in this business for almost 40 years now. She's been doing stuff in IT since the 80s. She is a principal consultant and RST fellow with Scrum Inc. Scrum .inc, I should say. She is a PST as well with scrum .org. So two different organizations from two different founders of Scrum. She has been a professor at St. Mary's University. So has that kind of educational background as well. And I was asking her beforehand if there's anything else I needed to say. And she said, well, make sure you say I've got nine grandchildren. That's kind of my claim to fame. I love that. So. Nine grandchildren, very happy for that. So that's who we're talking with. And we wanted to have Dr. Thompson because there's a lot of experience here that she brings to the table in the realm of scaling, obviously being connected so closely with those two organizations. So with all that out of the way, let's talk about scaling a little bit. And Dr. Thompson, what I want to start with is just
Tess Thompson (01:27)
I'm
Brian (01:40)
When you work with organizations today that have scaling issues, what are organizations really struggling with? What's kind of the main issues that you see organizations have with scaling today?
Tess Thompson (01:55)
I would say there's a lot of things, but I would say still the biggest problem is getting everybody to align on what the priority is. So at some point, like you get alignment with maybe people that are doing Scrum and they're the people that are above them, but then the people above them are out of alignment. like, for example, one of the clients I have right now brought some consultants in to work on a project.
Brian (01:59)
Yeah, right.
Tess Thompson (02:24)
And those consultants have been stuck now for four weeks. And where the alignment problem is, is actually up at the C -suite with this client. Because one of them says, nope, we were supposed to help. That was a priority in 2023. And the other one's like, no, this is a priority in 2024. And they're not helping each other. So in the meantime, this project is stuck for four weeks. And we're spending money on people that are sitting there doing nothing.
Brian (02:50)
So just when you say alignment, give us kind of a flavor. when leaders are misaligned, what kind of things are they, are there different ideas about priority or different ideas about why they're doing this? What are they misaligned on? Okay.
Tess Thompson (03:09)
Both, both, I would say both. The, you know, especially as the companies get bigger and bigger, we have a CEO who's got some priorities, but then all the C -suite under them have their own priorities and they're not always, and then they break down to the next level and these priorities start to get out of alignment because people start bringing in their own objectives and their own priorities and they often don't match what somebody else is doing. So part of it is the different incentives and just the organizations being so big, they have to get even these priorities aligned at different levels.
Brian (03:49)
So this is kind of an amazing thing, I think, for people to latch onto here, because I hear a lot of people in just regular base level classes talk about how there's a disconnect between them and the leadership on how they're going to do Scrum and how this fits into the overall structure of the organization. just understand, Dr. Thompson here is talking about organizations that The leadership has stated, at least in some way, or form, we're in alignment with this. We want to do this. We want to have Scrum throughout our organization. But even in those situations, we're seeing these misalignments of just priorities and what are the drivers really for what they're trying to do. So I find that fascinating that talking to so many people who just wish that their leadership could get on board. with what it is they're trying to do, that even in those organizations where they do, quote unquote, get on board, there's still these kind of fundamental disconnects.
Tess Thompson (04:51)
Yep, absolutely. In fact, I do very little work anymore on scrum specific. is many organizations, I mean, almost every organization I go into anymore has some shape or form of scrum going on or people with experience with it. Some people, you know, they're not, it's something that they're trying to do anyway, something agile. And they're... They're getting things done quicker. They're delivering with higher quality. They have better communication at that level. But then as you go up the chain, things start to break down and then teams are stuck. So organizations can only get product out the door with high quality as quick as possible. The more the organ... We have to really think the system. So most of the work that I do today is around the system, which is scaling. It's system agility. Otherwise you start having, you just run into optimization in areas, that local optimization problem.
Brian (05:58)
Yeah, yeah, not seeing the whole, right?
Tess Thompson (06:02)
Right, absolutely. So I think that over the years that Agile has been around, we're seeing more and more of it, but then it's, like I said, almost all my work now is system level and not down at the team level. So often I'm not even using Scrum language when I'm talking. It is about alignment. It is about prioritization. So yes, at a Scrum level, your product owner is putting the order of the product backlog, and then the team can pull out off that backlog. based on value from all the different stakeholders that the product owner is working with. But in a big organization, those stakeholders can be a manager, can be a director, it can be another department, it can be, it's from all over the place. And then at some point, how does that work coming into the product owner roll up to the priority of the department or a higher level? And then how does that roll up to the higher level? And that's where we start running into messes.
Brian (06:58)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. mean, it's like you said, with all these various priorities, with all these various drivers, I've always talked to product owners and say, it's a tough job. You're balancing the needs and desires of all these people into one product, and you're having to take them all into account. So yeah, it's not easy. It's not an easy job.
Tess Thompson (07:08)
You.
Brian (07:27)
Well, so I'm curious about, you say you don't really even use the Scrum language as much when you're talking to the leaders, because they're not really interested in that, right? They're not really interested in, we doing this exactly according to what the Scrum guide says? They're interested in the outcome, right? The results that you're getting from this. Yeah, so I'm kind of curious, especially since you're a fellow with Scrum Inc. And I know that the...
Tess Thompson (07:37)
No. Absolutely.
Brian (07:55)
a Scrum at Scale kind of strategy is very specific about how these things are implemented. There's practices and all sorts of stuff that Scrum at Scale kind of implements. Would you categorize yourself as sort of a Scrum at Scale implementation consultant? Or is it more of just, I take more of a holistic approach to the scaling.
Tess Thompson (08:19)
Holistic, absolutely. So actually, I'm certified in Nexus, Scrummit Scale, Less, and Safe. I mean, I have all of them. So I always think you need to bring the best tool to the job. One of the things I like about Scrummit Scale and Nexus is they're just so simple. Like if, hey, if these two teams are not, if we need to coordinate, let's get these product owners together and work together to figure out what is really the order. So whether we call it a meta scrum or we call it something else, I don't think that language matters as much as seeing the need and then bringing in a tool to help meet that need. If these teams are interdependent and they need to be chatting to help get rid of those interdependencies, well, let's spin up a scrum of scrums here.
Brian (08:58)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I've had someone on before that we've talked through kind of the safe model a little bit and talked about how, you know, there's so much additional overhead, there's so much additional roles and events and all these other things that get added from the safe perspective, that it can be very, very overwhelming for a lot of organizations to look at that and say, well, gosh, how are we ever going to, I mean, we're barely hanging on with it, trying to understand what Scrum is. And now we're going to layer in all these other things and,
Tess Thompson (09:22)
Thanks. Okay.
Brian (09:38)
It just seems like a recipe for disaster to try to understand all these things. So I guess one of the things that I had in that previous conversation was this dialogue about how you match the problem to the practice. You find the problem that is going on in the organization and you find the right practice that solves that, but not necessarily implementing the whole smorgasbord of practices because you may be trying to solve problems you don't have. Do you see that as kind of your approach when you work with organizations or how do you match the practices to what's actually going on on the ground?
Tess Thompson (10:18)
Yeah, I would say, you know, it's kind of similar to what happened with, so I'm also a PMP. So when we When we put together the PIMBOK over the years, it became this, know, it was supposed to be, these are best practices that you can have. And over time, it became very, big, thick book and people didn't understand they were only supposed to implement whatever tool from that book really helped solve the problems they were having. And started implementing the whole thing. And I think that's what happens too with like,
Brian (10:50)
Ha ha.
Tess Thompson (10:53)
safe or any of these agile practices, even though, know, Ken and Jeff went completely the opposite of PMI and said, hey, we're just going to roll out. This is the absolute minimum that you need for running, running a team or a project or product. And, but it's not enough. So you need to add in some more things to it. You got to bring in some additional tools to help depending on the organization, such as road mapping. I really believe that's one of the. I spend a lot of time helping organizations and product owners think about, we do need to plan ahead. And that is one of the pieces I do like about SAFE is that in their PI planning, have the getting some product owners and teams together to plan together to look out further, I think is pretty essential in most organizations. Now, do we need to do it on a regular cadence of every eight weeks? And do we need to have 200 teams together? I think
Brian (11:23)
Yeah.
Tess Thompson (11:49)
Sometimes it's, think organizations end up implementing all of SAFE, kind of like in the pin box, if you will, and it's way more than they need. So I think it's taking the elements of all of these and then using them to meet the need of the organization. I mean, if you're a 30 person organization, do you need a bunch of release trains and engineers and stuff? No.
Brian (11:59)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's very interesting to me with your background that you have all of these different scaling frameworks in mind. How much of what you do do you feel is aligned to a specific framework and how much of it is just piecemeal across the different frameworks?
Tess Thompson (12:34)
I would say I'm most aligned to, well, Scrum at Scale, never solely. It's always piecemeal. It is a piecemeal thing because I really do believe that teams do get to need to plan out in almost every company I go into. Teams do need to plan out more than one sprint.
Brian (12:44)
Hmm.
Tess Thompson (12:54)
Okay, we need to plan out and we're never delivering anything alone with one team. It seems like we're always need multiple teams. So we need that coordination and we need some of the scaling practices for sure. I really use a variation of safe of PI planning, but then I layer in, so we put together our plan for let's say the month, maybe we have a product goal for the month. And then I use the version of PI planning to get the teams together to plan out for sprints. weekly sprints to get to that product goal and try to get rid of the dependencies and problems that we see between the teams. And then we let it run. But then I pull in from Scrum at Scale, definitely the Metascrum. Like every sprint, let's still get the product owners together and revise our sprint plans because we've learned a lot in the last sprint or we learned a lot today. So we're not just going to let it ride for a month, for example, we're going to still get together at a regular cadence, like once per sprint. and realign our backlogs based on what we've just really happened. So it's using both, yeah.
Brian (13:55)
I love that. Yeah, taking the best of what these different practices offer,
Tess Thompson (14:04)
Absolutely.
Brian (14:06)
I love that. Well, one of the things that I wanted to talk to you about as well is sort of in working with scaling practices, I'm sure you already talked a little bit about how leadership has different ideas than the team level does. And the team level is kind of struggling with a certain layer of complexity. The leaders are struggling with another.
Tess Thompson (14:22)
Okay.
Brian (14:33)
I know there often appears to be sort of a disconnect between these two groups. I've talked to people who feel like they're speaking a different language. It's sort of like the leaders are, especially when teams, the team level will look and see, there's people in leadership who just, they want us to do Scrum, but then they want a lot of things in the same way that they always have, which is really hard for us to translate and put back into that old language. I'm just kind of curious your thought about that. Do you see leaders, the leadership layer as sort of speaking a different language than the team layer and how do you help them understand each other?
Tess Thompson (15:13)
Yeah, I mean, my most successful implementations is definitely when the leaders are on board. Leaders are really important to agility. We need their help and we need their support. What I always find super interesting is when I go into an engagement, I usually run an assessment, an agility assessment. And what I'm measuring is kind of where the organization is on culture, delivery, how well they're continuously improving or optimizing the system, how well they prioritize and how customer centric they are. Because I really believe agility is about those... It's those five dimensions, if you will, that you need to really focus on. And so I run this assessment and I always have them self -assess through a survey, interviews, and then observations. So often I see my assessments different than maybe how they self -assess and I'll compare both of them. But the leadership assesses so different than the teams do. And so at the end of the assessment, it's just interesting how different they are.
Brian (16:13)
Yeah.
Tess Thompson (16:21)
The teams are thinking they're delivering so well because they're getting all kinds of stuff done and leadership's like they're delivering, they're not delivering. And it's, like, how do we get so out of aligned it all the time at companies? Yeah.
Brian (16:35)
Yeah, yeah, we will do an assessment to it mountain goat. And one of the things that like became clear to me very early in doing that is that self perception versus, you know, perception of others is very different. And, you know, it was amazing to me, just like you said, to see things like the leadership might think that you have one opinion of something and the teams might have another or, you know, the other thing that I saw was was You know, like the Scrum Masters might think, yeah, our practices are great or they're going really well. And then you ask the developers and developers would say, no, it's horrible. We don't like the way this is working. so, you know, it kind of became apparent to me that you have to factor that human personal perception, right? We tend to be maybe individually more critical on ourselves, but
Tess Thompson (17:18)
Okay.
Brian (17:34)
you know, as a group, tend to give ourselves a little more grace in how we're performing, whereas others, when they look in from the outside, will kind of be more honest about it and say, it's not so great in this situation.
Tess Thompson (17:49)
But what I often find is they are delivering. The thing is they're delivering a bunch of things that the leadership doesn't even know about. So the leadership will have their priority list in their head of projects or things they want the teams to be delivering. But the team is getting hit with all kinds of other stuff that the leadership doesn't know about. So they are working hard and they're delivering. So in their head, they're doing it. It's just this.
Brian (17:56)
Yeah.
Tess Thompson (18:12)
the leader maybe not attending to a sprint review and really understanding what the teams got on their plate.
Brian (18:17)
Yeah, and that's kind of that transparency moment, right? mean, if they think they're not doing anything, they may be, they're just not seeing what they're doing and what they're actually spending their time on. And it's not that they aren't really working hard. As you said, they are working hard. It's just the work they're being asked to do is not really in align with what the leadership thinks the priorities should be.
Tess Thompson (18:22)
Yes. Absolutely, that's it. Yep. And then should the people be working on the stuff that they're working on? You know, is it the right thing? And often it may not be.
Brian (19:00)
Yeah. Yeah, I know I've had several instances where I've talked to people when I've been in working with teams where they will, the team level will say, you know, we have all the stuff that we're having to do in addition to the new work. And, you know, we know that that's just kind of a constraint we're under. The organization has asked us to do this as well. And, you know, my comment is always, well, Are you being really transparent about that when you get to something like a sprint review? Are you showing them where you're spending your time? Are you showing them kind of how much of this extra other work you're doing? And I've had situations where we've been in sprint reviews and we've shown them, for instance, like how much support time that they've had to spend. when the lead, right. And the leaders see that and think, my gosh, I didn't know they're spending 60 % of their time doing that kind of work. That's not good. We want them to do,
Tess Thompson (19:32)
right. Yep, eye -opening.
Brian (20:00)
new work. So I've had leaders who have actually spun up support teams when they've been confronted with that just because they didn't know what was going on.
Tess Thompson (20:09)
Yeah, absolutely. That is one of the things I love about sprint reviews is that transparency. And I have seen teams also go into sprint reviews thinking that they just want to show like some progress they made on an increment for a project and not talk about the support work that they did or some of the other buckets of work that come in. And I'm like, you. Part of transparency is seeing, hey, and it doesn't have to be that you show all the support tickets or anything like that. It's talk about something like 50 % of our time, of our capacity was spent on support tickets. Just throwing that in there to make sure leaders are aware.
Brian (20:45)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I want to go back to something you said earlier too, because you were talking about when we first started about how one of the biggest issues is alignment on priorities. And I want to just dig under the surface in that a little bit, because when we talk about that alignment of priorities, are we talking about more of the product area? Are we talking more about just a general overall? What's our company's priority? What kind of priorities are they misaligned on?
Tess Thompson (21:08)
All, I would say all, all priorities are misaligned. So it's been an interesting move to, for me, to Scrum Inc. Because Scrum Inc's clientele is very much
Brian (21:21)
Right.
Tess Thompson (21:35)
scrum mostly outside of IT. So it's been really fun for me because my career and background was all in IT. So I've been learning so much about all these other different domains out there. And we're doing full transformations of an entire company is doing a version of scrum, right? Or scrum at scale so that they're aligned on priorities. And anyway, so it's very... It's all, all the work tends to be a little out of alignment. And going back to the support, I really like to work companies to help them really understand that almost all support, whether it is support in a field that's doing some kind of drilling or it's or it's IT support or it's HR support, you know, taking phone calls from the employees that it tends to all be tech debt. All support is really some form of tech debt. And so getting that message out there, how much time we're spending on and how much money we're spending on support helps companies, leaders to agree to fund some of these.
Brian (22:44)
Yeah.
Tess Thompson (22:57)
projects around reducing tech debt.
Brian (22:59)
Yeah. Yeah. And there's always the having to overcome the kind of more traditional viewpoint of projects and these things based around projects and scope schedule, that sort of thing. How do you help leaders understand kind of this is a new way of doing things and not that we can't talk about schedules, but
Tess Thompson (23:07)
Okay.
Brian (23:29)
that we're kind of shifting our priorities a little bit, or we're trying to focus on what matters more than arbitrary dates. How do you have those conversations? How do leaders understand that?
Tess Thompson (23:38)
In some organizations it's easier than others. It depends how much the leader above those leaders is on board, to tell you the truth. So I feel like fundamentally they understand. And if we bring up two different priorities and it's two vice presidents, for example, and they're getting bonuses or something based on their performance in their area, we can see
Brian (23:50)
Yeah.
Tess Thompson (24:08)
They fundamentally will understand in a meeting together, they'll understand and then we'll leave and they'll still kind of do their own thing. But if I could get even though like the person, the CEO also, a person above them be like, nope, this is important. And for that person to see the two competing priorities and where there's a problem, I mean, it's really about if there's a problem, right? And then they'll agree and kind of one will give up a little bit on.
Brian (24:30)
Yeah.
Tess Thompson (24:37)
on their ambition towards getting their thing done, understanding that it's good for all of us, the whole company, we all, to get to work on maybe the other priority first.
Brian (24:50)
So a lot of negotiation involved, right? A lot of negotiation skills.
Tess Thompson (24:54)
Absolutely, and getting people in the same room so that they can have the conversation together. You know, it's not me talking to one and then going and talking to the other. I mean, there is some of that too, but then we have to get together here and decide. And yes, unfortunately, yeah, and yes, we will probably be working on these at the same time. However, if there comes into, you know, with an or,
Brian (25:10)
Yeah, it's amazing how much easier that is, right?
Tess Thompson (25:22)
With a large organization, when you've got hundreds of thousands of people, of course we're working on a ton of things at the same time. But when there is a conflict, like we need this skill set here and this, then we have to know which one is more important.
Brian (25:37)
Yeah. Yeah, and someone has to make that call, right? Someone has to be given that authority at some point. Well, this is fascinating stuff. I'm really interested in hearing your perspective of working with these organizations in today's world. So last little question here. From what you just see, especially most recently,
Tess Thompson (25:44)
Yep.
Brian (26:07)
from what you've seen in the organizations you've worked with. If you could just blanket, have one thing fixed before they start working with you, or one thing that they were in alignment with that would really give them a boost in their scaling before they start working with you, what would that be? What would be the thing that you think is most often missing in organizations before you work with them?
Tess Thompson (26:33)
Getting their goals, their strategy and starting to build out their backlog. based on those priorities. In fact, I usually do ask that. Start thinking about what are really your goals? What's your strategy to get there? And what kind of things are you doing to get there? What products are you creating? What services are you What projects you're creating for those products? Start thinking about that and start being a list together. And then when I get there, I'll help organize the list if you don't have it. But it's just starting to think about that ahead of time. Because what I see is leaders or people have multiple lists. They have a list over here of their projects. They have a list over here of stuff they're doing. They have all their emails that are coming in, their chats that are coming in, the phone that's coming in. And it's like, can we get it all kind of in one place so we can really look at it to make better decisions on really where we should be spending our time and our money?
Brian (27:14)
Yeah. Yeah, yeah, that's a great point. A friend of mine, David Hawks, used to say that organizations are swimming in a sea of opportunity. There's all these different things we could do and really trying to limit that scope and say, yeah, we could do all these things, but what makes the most sense for us to do? What's the most valuable thing for us to do?
Tess Thompson (27:58)
Yep, absolutely. And getting in touch with and constant feedback with your customer helps you figure that out. So many companies don't even, the people are like, have no, I always love when I get a group and I said, hey, let's name our customers. And they're sort of out of the line on who their customer is.
Brian (28:19)
Right, and if you don't know who it is you're trying to serve, how do you serve them? Yeah.
Tess Thompson (28:25)
Yeah, yeah. That's usually one of the first things I ask is, hey, who's your customer? Is it the shareholder? Is it this? Is it that? Let's agree. Yes, you will have multiple customers. Let's get it together and understand who are our customers. Let's all agree on that. Maybe even a priority on some of those customers to some degree.
Brian (28:30)
You Right, love that. Right. Yeah, yeah, this has been great. Well, I really appreciate you taking time out, Dr. Thompson, for coming on and helping us and to see things from your perspective. It's so great to talk to people that are, know, not just, you know, this isn't just theory or book learning. You're actually out there, you know, doing these in these large scale organizations and, you know, hearing from you what those real world problems are that you're seeing on a day to day basis.
Tess Thompson (29:18)
And I'm having amazing, amazing results. tell you, I'm, that's why I only had three hours of sleep last night and I'm still.
Brian (29:27)
Ha ha.
Tess Thompson (29:28)
woke up full of joy to be here with you today is I love what I do because I'm constantly getting phone calls after the factor during it and it's like, wow, this stuff really works. I'm like, yeah, it does. It really does.
Brian (29:41)
Amazing when that happens. Awesome. Well, thank you so much for coming on and I just appreciate you sharing your wisdom with us.
Tess Thompson (29:53)
Anytime. Thank you for having me.

#114: Is Agile Dead? with Scott Dunn

Is Agile really dead, or are we just doing it wrong? Tune in as Brian and Scott dive deep into the controversies and misconceptions surrounding Agile practices and what it really takes to make Agile work in today’s organizations.
Overview
In this episode, Brian and Agile Mentors Podcast regular, Scott Dunn, tackle the provocative question: "Is Agile Dead?" sparked by recent claims of Agile's high failure rates.
They discuss the validity of these claims, the common pitfalls of bad Agile implementations, and the importance of continuous improvement and experimentation in Agile practices. The conversation explores the shortcomings of current training approaches, the crucial role of effective coaching and leadership support, and how to overcome the widespread misconceptions about Agile.
Brian and Scott emphasize the need to focus on outcomes and ongoing learning rather than getting bogged down by methodology debates and rigid terminologies.
References and resources mentioned in the show:
Scott Dunn
#93: The Rise of Human Skills and Agile Acumen with Evan Leybourn
Are Agile and Scrum Dead? By Mike Cohn
Join the Agile Mentors Community
Mountain Goat Software Certified Scrum and Agile Training Schedule
Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast
Want to get involved?
This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input.
Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one.
Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com
This episode’s presenters are:
Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work.
Scott Dunn is a Certified Enterprise Coach and Scrum Trainer with over 20 years of experience coaching and training companies like NASA, EMC/Dell Technologies, Yahoo!, Technicolor, and eBay to transition to an agile approach using Scrum.
Auto-generated Transcript:
Brian (00:00)
Welcome in Agile Mentors. Welcome back for another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I'm with you as always, Brian Milner. And today, friend of the show, regular, you know him, you love him, Mr. Scott Dunn is with us. Welcome back, Scott.
Scott (00:13)
That's my new favorite intro ever. So thank you, Brian. Always glad to be and then glad to talk shop. So I appreciate you making me some space so that I get to work with you again.
Brian (00:16)
Ha ha ha. Yeah, we need like walkout music for you. know, like when the pitcher comes out to the mound, the relief pitcher or the wrestler comes out, you know, or whatever, they play the walkout music. We need walkout music. We wanted to have Scott back because there's a hot topic and this is your hot take alert because this show I'm sure is gonna be full of personal hot takes here on the subject.
Scott (00:30)
Yeah yeah, there you go.
Brian (00:50)
And that is, is Agile dead? There has been a lot of talk recently about this in the past few months. There's been a lot of blog posts written, a lot of armchair quarterbacks chiming in and trying to make sense of this. So before we dive in, Scott, I want to give a little bit of background to our listeners in case you're not aware of something that happened, where this came from, right? Because I think that there was In one sense, there's always an undercurrent. There's always people out there who are ready to say Agile's dead, right? And so they're waiting to pounce on anything that would back them up. And there was someone who was very happy to oblige about that. There was a company called Engprax, E -N -G -P -R -A -X. I couldn't find much out about them except they're a consulting company. And they put out an article that was announcing research they had done that said that 260 % higher failure rates for Agile software projects. That's what their study revealed. Yeah, 268%. So let's just start there, right? But the article is very thinly veiled in support. of another competing process, believe it or not, called Impact Engineering that is authored with a book that's just out, believe it or not, by a gentleman named Junade Ali. Now I have no idea, I have never crossed paths with this gentleman. I don't know his philosophy or his, much more about him. I did look him up on LinkedIn. He's been in the business for about 11 years. If I trace back to his first thing, it's about 11 years ago. He currently lists himself as the chief executive officer of a stealth startup. Well, I think I can remove the mask of what that stealth startup is because it is Ingeprax. So he is the head of that company. I found another article that did the research in support of his book.
Scott (03:03)
Hahaha
Brian (03:12)
announcing his new process that is a competitor, of course, to Agile. Now, there's been a lot of back and forth. He's tried to defend this and say, you know, the research is solid, but here's the thing I always say, without data, it didn't happen. If you're not showing me the actual methodology, if you're not showing me the scientific research paper behind it that says, here's the methodology of the research, here's how we conducted it, here's the... There are some details that are in the article, one of which is that the research was done over a period of about five days. So it was research over about five days. was interviewing a set of, I'm trying to scroll through and find the numbers. I think it was like 250 or so engineers from the UK and 350 from the US. It's something around those numbers. But it was interviews with engineers over a period of about five days.
Scott (03:50)
Wow.
Brian (04:11)
And so the numbers are based on these engineers' recall of what their idea of success was in projects, whether it was an Agile project or not an Agile project, by their definition of whether it was an Agile project or not. He doesn't really describe in the article what success is. So saying that it's 268 % failure, what is a failure? It doesn't really state that plainly. So again, where's the data, right? I'm not going to go on and on about the research and the fact, but I just want to give the background before we dive into it because that article is what now you will see quite a few blog posts and things crossing your desk on LinkedIn that say, wow, look, this new study says 268 % failure rate for agile projects. Well, anytime you see something like that, check the source. You have to check the source. I try to do this in any conference talk I do. I put the links to the sources. And I try to only list data that comes from scientific studies, where you can find the actual research paper and dive into it and get into the nitty gritty of it if you really want to. Otherwise, as I said, it didn't happen. He says in the article, hey, we had PhD people that looked over our work, unnamed PhD people. So you can't even question whether that person was someone legitimate who did it. Just trust him that they were legitimate. So I set that up because I don't mean to take so much time here at start of the episode, but I just wanted to set the foundation. If you weren't aware of that kind of thing or where that came from, you may not even been aware of the background of where that study came from.
Scott (05:46)
You
Brian (06:04)
And the fact that the person who kind of sponsored it is got an ulterior motive, right? They're trying to push their own methodology and they're publishing research that they collected, they are publishing, that just so happens to support their foregone conclusion that Agile's bad and their methodology is better. So, but Scott.
Scott (06:31)
I'm just trying.
Brian (06:32)
So let's get into the topic because what I really want to get into is, I'm sure you've seen people post things like this and there's been sort of this wave of things in the past year or so of people who are so quick and anxious to say Agile is dead. So what's your general impression there? What have you seen? What have you experienced and how do you respond if someone in class says, hey, is Agile dead?
Scott (06:43)
Mm Mm I great, great question. So for those listening, I want to just want to affirm that probably a lot of you had experiences like, well, certainly wasn't going great or we're not seeing what we thought and all those things. So part of this, Brian, is I think the ethos of why those things take off like that is I do think there's a general feeling of is this really working for us or not? That's that's fair. So I'm not going to pretend like, it's always goes great. It's, you know, be Pollyanna about that. I remember actually this year. of a CEO, a company saying, Agile absolutely does not work. We're going to go all the way back to just full waterfall. Right. That to me is kind of that harbinger of like, wow, it's built up enough for someone to say that. So a couple of thoughts I have, and I'm going to be pragmatic like you for my friends that are hearing this or maybe thinking this or people at your company are pushing back a bit, is I'm to go back and say, well, okay, let's just say that Agile is dead. So what are you going to do? Are you really going to go back to waterfall? Well, we already know that story. whole reason, for those listening, consider this, whole reason Agile took off was the option A wasn't working and very clearly wasn't working for complex projects like software. Now for this person to come and recommend XYZ, of course, not surprising for all the listeners out there. Obviously, there's a marketplace, there's business. I get it that people are going to pitch and recommend what they do my classic one in our space Brian would be because obviously you I Mike within Mountain Goat are teaching the CSM CSPO and I'll see like 350 page books of get ready for the CSM exam like right the scrum guide itself is I mean how many pages so come on
Brian (08:38)
You
Scott (08:47)
And they'll even be like, you know, misrepresentation. So clearly people are doing things in their own self interest. get that. as you as people out there, hear information, I love what you're saying is to just like look into it and really be mindful of what's their angle for some of that. But back to your question, is Agile dead? I would argue that Agile partly done or halfway is dead in the sense that that doesn't work or what I would kind of call Agile theater. Agile hand waving, spread the agile pace. So I've been doing this 18 years, I think, since becoming a Scrum Master. And I was on project delivery before that and managing IT people. So I've seen all the things that weren't working well as a developer, et cetera. And I saw the results of what I got. And I've seen plenty of stories beyond that. But what I see more and more is people who are further away from the beginnings and what they're kind of doing is implementing what's comfortable. And I would agree that doesn't work. in that sense, that Agile is dead. In a follow on the idea of and really kind of putting together realizing is for those out there that your company is the one implementing Agile, who usually gets that? Well, it's probably going to be the PMO. And I'm going to poke a little bit here, certainly for my PMO friends, but as a former PMP working within the PMO, what's the PMO responsible for? So if I go to your typical company, say, hey, we're going to go Agile. That's under the purview of who it's a, it's a, there's going to be a group that's responsible for watching over execution delivery. Who is that? It's a PMO. Think about this. The PMO is not responsible for like learning continuous improvement innovation. They're responsible primarily for, for status reporting, managing to a given date, managing resources, escalating issues, but not necessarily for improving. So they bring in Agile sense of, what do we need to do without maybe understanding it fully and really. How do we just manage this process and not, hey, we're starting off from point A, but we're going to learn and get better as we go across. It's going to stop where they feel like, I think we have a new process that implemented. Does it get the results? You know, I don't know and I don't understand how it works to fix that. So they may not be getting results is what I commonly see. I'm seeing a slew. I can tell you the last several companies just in these last few months we've worked with. We've got to fix our process is not working. Are you agile? Yes. But you look at it and they'd miss a lot of fundamentals. And so now we're kind of resetting a lot of people that are struggling with the same issues everyone's talking about. Visibility, predictability, can we deliver this by the date we gave senior management? And they're not by and large. For those who say agile is dead, one of the other options, people have put together agile manifesto had lots of ideas, lots of other approaches besides scrum, but even if just take scrum. Look, scrum is based on lean. Is lean dead? And scrum is an empirical process. Is empiricism dead? Does that not work? So I kind of come back like, what are your options? Just think about the results you're getting. Whose fault is that? And what are we even basing what we're looking at? The roots of it are all very solid. So yeah, I'm going to push back quite a bit on that, what I've seen. And maybe see some of those same. Results or lack of results for organizations Brian because I know that it doesn't always go great out there and in the marketplace is coming. Try to roll this out.
Brian (12:07)
Yeah, yeah, there's a, so I have a couple thoughts here. One is just in general, I think you're absolutely right that there's, know, well, just listeners, ask yourself, what percentage of Agile practices out there do you think are doing Agile the right way? Right? And I don't mean like a hundred percent. I just mean they are, they're all in on it. They're trying to do it the right way. I don't know what number you have in your head, I would say, don't know, Scott, what would you say?
Scott (12:43)
They're doing it right?
Brian (12:45)
Yeah, they're not perfect, right? But they're committed to doing it right. They're committed to doing it according to what the Agile Manifesto says, that sort of stuff.
Scott (12:55)
Fairly Fairly smart, right? I'm guessing, my first number that came to mind, you asked, I'd say 10%. That's my, maybe less than that.
Brian (13:02)
Okay. Yeah, I would bet it's a small thing, right? Now that right there, I think is something that we can talk about. Why is it that small? Right? Why is it that small? And I think that there's a discussion that's a legitimate discussion to be had about, well, maybe the structure that was put in place to spread this and train people up and get them, you know, situated to do this well. has failed. And if that's the case, that's the problem. It's not really that the methodology is bad. It's that we didn't do a good job of explaining it or training people for it. that's a separate discussion. But I think that there's a lot of bad agile out there. And I'll just put it to you this way. If you like to hike or camp or anything like that. If you are an aficionado of that stuff, right? If you occasionally go hiking or camping, I'm fairly certain that you've had some hikes or some camping trips that weren't that great, right? And you can probably recall them and think, wow, that was horrible. Well, imagine if that was your only experience, right? Imagine if that hike or that camping trip was your only experience. And you came back from that and someone said, you tried hiking or you tried camping. What did you think of hiking or camping? That sucked, it was horrible. I never wanna do that again. I don't know why these people are crazy, that do that stuff. I would never do that again. But if you really like it, you know that yeah, there could be some bad experiences, but there's some good experiences too. And if you plan a really nice hike and you've got good weather and everything else, it can be a really great experience. So to base someone's opinion on, well, my experience in one place was that it was terrible. Well, okay, come on, give it another shot, right? I mean, they're not all gonna be perfect. And if you see it in a couple of places, you'll probably understand, now I know what we were doing wrong in that other place because it's clear now, right? So that's one point here. And the other thing I wanted to say is one of the things that they talk about in their
Scott (15:17)
Right.
Brian (15:26)
268 % failure rate article where they announced their research, is they focus a lot on that their methodology does a better job with really clearly documenting requirements before development starts. So Scott already knows where I'm going with this, right? I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding before we even begin this, because what they're saying is,
Scott (15:42)
boy.
Brian (15:55)
Yeah, one of the things Agile fails at is clearly documenting all the requirements up front. And my response as an Agile trainer is, duh. Yeah, of course, because we don't try to do that. We actually look at that from a different standpoint and say, you're fooling yourself that you can document all the requirements up front. The example I use in class is, well, We're not manufacturing, right? We don't do manufacturing work. We're not churning out the same thing over and over again. If I was doing that, I could document all the requirements upfront, because I've done it before and I know what it takes to do it. We're closer to research and development. So let me take an extreme research and development situation for you. Imagine I'm inventing the cure to a certain kind of cancer, right? And you come to me before that and say, great. Well, we funded the project to cure that certain kind of cancer. Here's the budget. you know, let's get all the requirements documented upfront before you start inventing that cure to cancer. You'd look at me, I'd look at you like you were crazy because I don't know what all the requirements are going to be before I invent this new way of solving the cancer problem, right? I have to experiment. have to try, I have leads, I have ideas about things I would try and that I think have promise, but I've got to go through trials. I've got to go through tests. And the results of those experiments will then guide where I go next. So I think there's a fundamental fallacy in just the idea of trying to judge whether Agile is successful or not about whether it can capture requirements.
Scott (17:34)
Yeah, right. And for those who've been around, I'm going to double down on that one, Brian, because I've seen this pushback to, hey, we've got to capture all the requirements up front. But every time I ask a company, things change. company priorities change all the time. If anything, we're suffering from just chaotic, inconsistent, random. I remember an executive once said, I love Agile. I can change my mind all the time now. He meant it. So, and even before Agile, there were statistics that showed that the majority of requirements never see the light of day or are to use. So we already know outside of Agile, it's a fool's game, the customer will know it when they see it. That's why it's complex. I think you're right. We're not doing something like manufacturing. We're trying to experiment and figure those things out. So the idea of bad Agile missing out on requirements, it feels good to say we've captured everything upfront. But I remember my first full Scrum project on my own with the whole company and the CEO saying, you know, I need to see this by October. I'm like, well, you'll see, you'll see something backed over, right? I wouldn't say that now, but this same CEO is so dead set, like, no, it needs to hit the state. He fully changed the look and feel of the whole website application we're building twice during that project. To me, it just tells me like, let's not play the game. Like I can still scope it, but let's accept it's going to change. The other part, when you say about just bad and sense of practices, there's a poll I put on my LinkedIn profile. Somebody might have seen this if you follow me on LinkedIn, but I asked.
Brian (18:34)
Ha
Scott (19:00)
You know, is the two day CSM enough to get you the results, your organization you want to see now for those who don't know CSM, obviously the standard, you know, training that people take to understand scrum from the scrum Alliance. there's certainly a lot of other courses, Brian, I know you do the advanced CSM CSP, advanced CSP. And there's more beyond that, but people by and large stop at the CSM. The percentage of it last time I checked was like 99 % of all people trained by the scrum Alliance. taking the CSM and it drops off. The percentage of people when I asked out there in the marketplace, is the CSM enough to get you the results? 95 % said no. So one, for my listeners, I'm to be a little bit of tough love on you. We ourselves might be the ones to blame for this. If we stopped our learning then, if we didn't encourage others at our org to learn and keep pressing in, you don't have the tools you need to be successful. The CSM was not all theirs. There's a slew of Equipping and training out there much less coaching and getting support. So I think there's also some miss on bad Agile. Like we never learned enough. Let's just take the basics of well, we have multiple teams. Well, but yes, the CSM doesn't cover multi team and scaling, so you got to figure that out and you're figuring out based on what you have. done it before you have valid experience and the number of companies who aren't getting coaching anymore. Now they end up just trying to figure out a methodology themselves and that's not their strength. The strength might be in -flight software for airlines. I don't know, it's not methodologies. And they're gonna take their best guess influenced by who? I'm gonna guess the PMO. And now you get this muddy version that yeah, doesn't get results. So I second that on the requirements issue and I second that just the fact that Bad Agile could be our own equipping. I do wanna add on the point about experimentation, encourage those.
Brian (20:45)
Yeah.
Scott (20:48)
The metaphor you give about camping is really great. I see a lot of out there in the world for those who are out in the scene, the whole dating scene, and you might be like, these dating apps are terrible. They don't work. Okay. I'm not going to argue they don't work depending on how you use them what's going on out there. But again, what are your options? The world's shifted and here's where we are right now. There's things we can do to do that better, but to simply throw that out, it's like, well, or dieting. Yeah, I tried that diet. It doesn't work. Dieting doesn't work. Well,
Brian (20:59)
You
Scott (21:16)
There's a mindset that goes with that. And did you follow up correctly? Did you look into the research underneath that? Even recently, I'm going through my own personal work around like sleep and health. I'm going through Peter Tia's Outlive, which is a fabulous read. But those are both like, here's some data and science, but you need to kind of hack everybody's different. Here's some ideas, try them out, see it works. Same with Scrum. Try these things out. It's not like, I did Scrum and we didn't get amazing results out of the gate. Well, you keep experimenting. It's simply empiricism. So those could be things for those listening, come back to that, look at your education level, look at options and keep learning and growing and try those things out. Cause could be, we didn't do our best to bring that or even on Mountain Good for their friends who listening who've gone through the Mountain Good courses and you have access to agile mentors. There's a community forum, there's a chance to interact, ask questions, there's lean coffee, bring your questions. How many of us actually go and take advantage of those resources? There's tons of knowledge, information, but most of us are just too busy. to get smarter and apply that. So that could be an action for people listening. What's your own next steps to grow and make sure you're doing the best agile out there that you can and you have case studies that you can reference. Could be an opportunity.
Brian (22:24)
Yeah, such great points. I'll build on your analogy there, or what you talked about with sleep a little bit, and thinking about how, you know, this is one of things I love about Agile, because, you know, if it was, this will maybe highlight the difference between Agile and Scrum a little bit for everyone, if you don't really understand this, right? If I were to say to you, make sure you go to bed at 10, and get up at, you know, six every day, right? You get eight hours, that's eight hours, right? You get hours of sleep, but you gotta be in bed by 10 up at six. Well, some people would hear that go, well, that's ridiculous. That doesn't fit my schedule. I work better at late at night and I'm not an early morning person. And you probably just say that's terrible. That's a terrible idea. But if I said to you, make sure you get enough sleep, right? Then you can apply that and think, okay, well, for me, enough sleep is this. And I know what that means. I know what it means when I get enough sleep.
Scott (22:53)
Thank you.
Brian (23:23)
And for me, that means I'm going to bed by 11 or 12 or whatever. Like I know when I need to be in bed and I know when I need to wake up in the morning and that's enough sleep for me. Maybe it's seven hours for me. Maybe it's nine hours for me. Right. That's the difference to me between Agile and Scrum is that Agile, and that's why I take such offense at anything that would say, it's a failure. Well, it's a principle. And if you're going to take exception to it, which one? Which principle or value are you going to call out and say, this is the one I disagree with, this is one I don't think is valid? Because it's not telling you exactly how to do it. It's not telling you what a sustainable pace is, for example. It's not saying only work 40 hours a week. It's saying everyone should work at a sustainable pace, a pace they can maintain indefinitely. And if you disagree with that, if you're going to say, well, that's a failure,
Scott (24:05)
Right? Mm -hmm.
Brian (24:17)
I don't think people should be working at a sustainable pace. They should be working at an insustainable pace. Well, I'm going to have an issue with you, right? And I'm going to say, where's your research on that? Like, where would you say that that's, you know, how could you back that up? So that's why I take, I think I'm welcome to people with different ideas, but I want to see the data. I want to see you back it up. And even, you know, something like this project, I want to say, what questions did you ask? You know, if you're just taking a poll of software engineers, how did you phrase the questions? Were they leading in how you phrase them? That kind of stuff can be very, very important and make a big impact on your numbers. So without the data, it didn't happen.
Scott (25:01)
Absolutely. I think that, well, and to that point, Brian, and I'm going to push a little bit. This word agile might be the most misunderstood word of the last decade or two. I guarantee you. You can ask 10 people and get 10 different versions of the answers. So like, what are we talking about? Let's take a step back and like, it's sense making to have a conversation around that. So for example, I remember this person who supposedly walked in, this is just this year, walked into the
Brian (25:14)
I agree.
Scott (25:31)
They're, you know, the head of the PMO, they've been doing agile. came from a large manufacturing company. Everyone recognized the name. Now there's other company that got brought in. Let's do this right. And, you know, has all this agile experience. And I'm actually having a conversation. We're talking about planning and predictability and how to get the teams where we need to. And I mentioned this about Velocity and she said, Velocity has nothing to do with planning. And for those who don't know, one, reach out and talk to us, because we can help you do that. The second thing is, in my mind, I didn't even know how to answer. That is the thing we use for planning is how much does your team get done, and we'll extrapolate what they're going to get done by the certain date. But I remember just feeling like, and you're saying you're walking out with all this Agile experience, and you're heading up the PMO on how we roll out Agile. Thank goodness that CTOs are like,
Brian (25:56)
Right.
Scott (26:16)
It has everything to do with planning. And I'm like, thank goodness you straightened that out because I didn't want to say anything. And I'm going to add to that at the leadership level and management level, because management statistically is going to be your biggest inhibitors to continued agility and growth. Management in terms of how we work around here, which is essentially a culture, how we do things around here. That's going to be seven of your 10 reasons you get stuck. When I've polled and asked numerous groups, how much does your leadership understand about Agile on a scale of one to 10? And the numbers I'm constantly getting back are right around 3 .5 to four on a scale of one to 10, right? Which is bad. But here's the flip side is I say, okay, how much does your leadership and management think they understand about Agile? Well, then it basically doubles, right? And even I've people say like on scale of one to 10, they think they're at 12, right? So we have groups who are large influences of how this is going and the stakeholders and what they're asking who.
Brian (26:53)
Yeah.
Scott (27:13)
not only don't understand it, but think that they do. So if you're listening to this out there and you're kind of like, yeah, I agree. Yeah, so what do we need to do about this? And again, you have a lot of options, but if you let that hang over us in terms of that's gonna be your constraints, the true agility here, what we're trying out. And we just kind of accept that, yeah, they don't know anymore. It's almost like this gallows humor, ha ha, they don't get it. Yeah, but they're the ones who are like. asking for fixed scope, fixed date, don't understand about iterating, don't understand MVP, don't understand, like show up to the demos and see what we've done to give us feedback. So those are things that undergird this problem that that lack of understanding can be pervasive and yet people think that they do. And I'll go back to another leader who said they understood Agile, but when we went through the survey feedback to help them and work through that, his comment was, I'm tired of this deadline optional culture. Deadline optional. I guarantee that people don't feel like it's optional. If anything, they're feeling a lot of pressure. But when we miss dates, how they interpret it several layers above is like, they just don't care. This is all deadline optional. So I think there's a disconnect from leadership and management side and the knowledge and even those heading up the project management office that we need to kind of check ourselves. Have they gone to training? Do they know? You'd be amazed what that can do when they get on board and really support this. It clears up a lot of stuff at the team level.
Brian (28:26)
Yeah.
Scott (28:36)
But back to what said earlier, if all you did was send a few people to the two day course and that's it, yeah, you're probably gonna struggle.
Brian (28:44)
Yeah, and I support what you were saying about, need to take responsibility as trainers and as the Agile community that maybe this way was not the right way of doing this. And if there's one thing I might take a little bit of exception to now from how it's described in Scrum is, we talk about Scrum Masters being change agents. And I think that may have gotten a little overblown, right? Because I think in a lot of organizations, people look at it as these people who take a two day class are ready to lead our whole company in how we're doing this. And that was never the intention, right? I think the two day class is actually okay for someone to get kicked off and plugged in and being a scrum master on a team with support, right? If that's the only person, you only have two or three scrum masters that have all taken just a two day course and... no one has really a lot of experience, then it's probably not going to do very well. But if you have some base layer scrum masters who are new, and they have some coach layers that are more experienced, even if it's just one, even if you have that one senior person who hasn't just, you wouldn't do that with anything else. There's nowhere else in your company where you'd say, let's just hire a bunch of people who have never done this before and hope that it works.
Scott (30:07)
you
Brian (30:09)
You wouldn't do that with programmers, you wouldn't do with testers. You would have some, you want to have some senior people that can help guide and mentor and make sure that it's done the right way. But for some reason, you know, companies just kind of look at it as saying, no, I'll just hire a couple of scrum masters that are brand new and that'll solve it.
Scott (30:27)
Woo, I mean, can you imagine getting on a plane like, by the way, everyone, welcome on board. Our pilot's never flown before. I could do that, course. And not only that, we're trying to save money around here. So he's actually going to be concurrently helping fly three other planes at the same time, like while they're doing this work.
Brian (30:32)
But I passed the two day class. Yeah, because most of the flight, you're not doing anything, right? You're just sitting there. So we want to make sure they're still productive so he can fly three planes at once.
Scott (30:50)
That's a hard one be, exactly. That's yeah, which it's, it's, people might be laughing, but it's similar. Like we're trying to get pointy to point people, things change on that flight. And I see these teams, know, scrum master spread around. I remember a company scrum master on seven teams. Nevermind organizational change agent. This poor soul can't even have the meetings run. and someone bested me like, no, I know someone's on 12 teams as the scrum master. So if management doesn't understand the value of this person, and I like what you're saying. It's a tall order organization changes. And I like the idea of like lead improvement, but we kind of cut it at the knees. had one company this year and sadly we'd helped them get started. When we came back, kind of had some back -channel conversations with people that were disgruntled on the team. So thank goodness they had a safe place to come and ask questions. But the person rolling out Agile, it was kind of knighted to help do this. And she had been through the two day training, I think, but literally as they're giving feedback on what's working, not working, she basically said like, Stop complaining. This is the way we're doing things around here. I'm here to just kind of write the playbook. I think you're the person that should be spearheading how to improve every single sprint. And you're saying, we're done talking. We're complaining. I'm trying to formalize our process here. But basically, booted them out of the working group committee that was how we implement Agile. Now, those are two of the key Agilists there. So think we missed some of that when those examples happened. So my friends are listening. expect that people don't get it, expect that they're optimizing for their own concerns. And that's fine, but we don't stop there. We have to kind of work top down bottoms up on that. And there's lots of options and case studies and stories you can see. And certainly I'll just point again to a resource. If you look at Agile Mentors, there's plenty of experts who gonna, they've been on the interviews, been recorded, take a listen to those and hear some stories, help champion this. As a side note, Brian, just gonna add this in real quick. When we talk about Agile being dead or not, I think if we lead this company, like, I totally agree with Brian Scott, especially Scott. He really is very articulate and well -spoken. I think he's probably one of the best podcast interviewees ever. And they might say something like that, but they might come back and say, I agree with Brian Scott. Agile's not dead. We're just not doing it right. So what can we do about that? We'll look back and say, how are we implementing it? Is there a plan? Are we nudging people along? Expect them to kind of play these things out, but keep in mind, It's most of this company's is a multi -year journey to get those kinds of results, but I'm not going to go back as a takeaway from listeners podcasts and tell my management or leadership, we're not doing Agile right. We should do Agile right. For those who don't already know, they don't care. They don't care that we're doing Agile right. They don't even know what it is. We already talked about their scores. They don't know anyways. I'm not going to pitch any kind of change to what we're doing in terms of Agile being right or wrong. That misses. almost every single time for me. What I will pitch is, hey, leadership, you're frustrated that we're not delivering predictably. You're frustrated we're not getting more innovation. You're frustrated our quality is not where it needs to be. Yes, and here's some things we can do to get it there. Under the covers, what we're doing is improving the way we're doing Agile for more visibility, more clarity, better tracking, all that stuff. Your Scrum Master, whoever's leading this, doggone it, they cannot be just glorified JIRA admins. That's not gonna get you there. So take it back as a thing and think about how you're taking it back to them in terms of what matters for them, what's in it for them in business value. Pitch it that way. And you'd be surprised when you're like, if that's tied to the results, I'm listening. But not this we're doing as a right or wrong. So that could be part of reason it falls on its face when we do try to address the agile being dead is how you're presenting and working with your stakeholders and leadership.
Brian (34:37)
Yeah, and quite frankly, I don't care what you call it. If we need to make up a new name and your company has had such a bad experience with Agile, make up a new name for it. I mean, say, no, it's this new project. It's the, I don't know, tangerine process. And it's, yeah, you haven't heard of it? Well, boy, it's great. It's this tangerine thing. Right, it's the latest thing. Tomorrow there will be a book on it.
Scott (34:59)
That's the way you were saying. Yes.
Brian (35:07)
Amazon, the tangerine process as invented by. And here's my research study showing how it's better than Agile. Right, right, exactly. But you know, it's oftentimes there is kind of a problem with a name. And so like I said, I don't care what it's called. You know, I'll give a shout out here because I had some conversations at the know, couple of conferences that took place over this year. And I was talking with one of my friends, Michael Sahota. Scott (35:14) We interviewed three people and yes, we got the data.
Brian (35:37)
So shout out Michael if you, if anyone kind of points out, I he's listening, but if he's listening, shout out to you for this. But we were talking about kind of the problem with the training courses and you know, how we fixed that and everything. And, one of the things we were talking about is, you know, if we could, if we could distill it down, if we could just have people lead with one thing, if they could walk away from those courses really embedded with the concept of I'm going to inspect and adapt. I'm going to inspect what I did. and adapt and when something doesn't go well, I'm not just gonna say, nah, I'll just keep doing it the wrong way. No, if it doesn't go the way it needs to, stop, figure out why and then change and try something new. If I could just get a team to do that without knowing all the practices, all the other, right, I don't care if you call each other, know, Scrum Masters or whatever, if you can just get that, then I think you will. naturally evolve into what you need to be for that company. But you got to have that underlying mentality, culture of it's not acceptable when something goes wrong. We have to figure out why and change.
Scott (36:36)
Mm Absolutely, and I'm with you. I don't care what's called anyways. My reference is a colleague in Southern California, Ben Rodolitz, and he's very big. I just don't use those words anymore. to be honest, it could be actually confusing for people. If they don't know what Agile means and you're using words from Agile, they're going to think they're mapping to what reality is. They're misunderstanding. So maybe we do start with terminology. I'm with you. I'll see my friends. I don't care if you use agile scrum, whatever. I would just say, Hey, we're to try to do something, see how that goes. Well, we're visiting two weeks and take a look at what we got and get, we'd love some feedback. I mean, it's all the same stuff, but we're expecting to not do things right. And learn along the way and not stop. That's the whole process of it. So for some of you that are doing this and feeling like, I think agile's X, we're not seeing results. would, I would take a look and are you breaking any of those fundamentals to begin with? And I think we are quick to say, yeah, but we can't do X, Y, Z Scott. can't have dedicated teams.
Brian (37:37)
Yeah, yeah.
Scott (37:38)
We can't actually get the stakeholders into the sprint review. We don't got time for the retro. Well, then we're one, you're not doing that stuff right. But even if you just call it something else in the end, do something, inspect and adapt, right? Learn by experience, try something out. I hear too much of, I don't think that'll work here. Well, do some, find out, do something and see what you get from that. Worst case, you're going to learn. But a lot of people are like, you know, we can't do that. They won't go for that. And we never actually even tried. But I love what you're saying. Maybe. for those out there listening, try a refreshing thing of different words and then, or move away from the language that they think they know and don't fight that fight. Pick the fights you think you can win in advanced stuff to get results and get noticed. And Brian, you might've seen this too. I've seen company after company, when they actually see results, the stakeholders see results, business are real, they don't care what you're doing, do more of that. I've watched them just pivot and like rush in. So maybe we do step away from all these.
Brian (38:28)
Yeah.
Scott (38:34)
methodology wars and language issues and just get back to what gets results. Do more of that. Learn as you go and keep them learning, right? Like the brass tax.
Brian (38:44)
Yeah, absolutely. Well, I'm not surprised we went a little over, but I appreciate everyone. I hope we didn't eat into anyone's, know, screw up your walking schedule or anything if you're listening to this while you're walking. But, you know, when Scott and I get on a soapbox, you can just guarantee we're gonna be a little bit over. That's just how it goes.
Scott (38:49)
Next. You would love it.
Brian (39:09)
Well, Scott, I really appreciate you coming on, because I think this is a great episode. I really appreciate your views on this, and thank you for making the time.
Scott (39:17)
Yeah, you bet. And for those listening, honestly, put some feedback. We'd love to see what you think in terms of Agile is dead and continue that conversation. I do think it's gonna be an ongoing conversation. But again, thank you, Brian. My pleasure. Always happy to jump on here. Great to work with you guys.

#113: Influence Without Authority with Christopher DiBella

Join Brian Milner as he talks with leadership expert Christopher DiBella about mastering the art of influencing without authority. Learn how to lead with respect, empathy, and compassion to inspire your team, even when you don’t hold the official title.
Overview
In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, Brian interviews Christopher DiBella, an expert in leadership and organizational development, about the power of influencing without authority. They explore how Agile leaders, especially Scrum Masters, can effectively guide teams and influence organizational culture through respect, empathy, and compassion.
Chris shares practical strategies for building trust, navigating generational differences, and leading through relationships rather than formal authority. The discussion also emphasizes the critical importance of understanding the motivations and needs of others to achieve lasting influence.
Whether you're an Agile coach, Scrum Master, or organizational leader, this episode provides actionable advice for leading in a way that inspires collaboration and growth.
References and resources mentioned in the show:
Christopher DiBella
The Leadership Survival Guide: A Blueprint for Leading with Purpose and Impact by Christopher DiBella, PH.D.
#37 Servant Leadership, Not Spineless Leadership with Brad Swanson
#70 The Role of a Leader in Agile with Mike Cohn
#109 Leadership and Culture in DevOps with Claire Clark
Short Answers to Big Questions About Agile Leaders by Mike Cohn
Certified ScrumMaster® Training and Scrum Certification
Certified Scrum Product Owner® Training
Advanced Certified Scrum Product Owner®
Advanced Certified ScrumMaster®
Mike Cohn’s Better User Stories Course
Mountain Goat Software Certified Scrum and Agile Training Schedule
Join the Agile Mentors Community
Want to get involved?
This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input.
Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one.
Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com
This episode’s presenters are:
Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work.
Christopher DiBella is a leadership coach dedicated to empowering aspiring leaders by teaching influential leadership practices that streamline processes and maximize potential. As the founder of the Institute of Leadership Coaching and Development, Chris is committed to helping others lead with respect, empathy, and compassion to build engaged, high-performing teams.
Auto-generated Transcript:
Brian (00:00)
Welcome in Agile Mentors. We're back for another episode of the Agile Mentors podcast. I'm with you as always, Brian Milner. And today I have a very special guest with me. I have Mr. Chris DiBella with us. Welcome in, Chris.
Chris (00:13)
Thanks so much, Brian. I appreciate you guys having me.
Brian (00:15)
Absolutely. We're very excited to have Chris on. Chris, if you're not familiar with Chris and his work, just a brief little introduction here for you. Chris has an MBA in project management. has a PhD in organizational leadership. He's an author and speaker. He's the founder of something called, actually founder and president, excuse me, of the Institute of Leadership, Coaching and Development. And he has a book that should be out right about now while you're listening to this called the leadership survival guide quotes to keep you from going extinct as a leader. So very, very interesting title there. I can't wait to read that. That sounds amazing. But the reason we wanted to have Chris on was one of the topics that Chris focuses on and talks about from time to time is the topic of influencing without authority. And I thought that's really, really interesting in the Agile world and how that relates to things like Scrum Masters and how we work within the organization and stuff. So let's start there, Chris. Let's just talk about where that, what does that title mean to you influencing without authority? Where did that come from? How did that enter your sphere?
Chris (01:27)
Well, I mean, for the last couple of years, it's a topic that's just been gaining a lot of momentum within the workplace. I guess the easiest way for me to describe the topic is to say that influencing without authority is simply the ability to motivate others to get them to take your direction. But we all know that the real world doesn't work that way. And it's not so easy to get people on board with our ideas and thought processes. So we just need to be more methodical in our approach. when it comes to influencing others. And it's more important now, particularly because when dealing with the different generational and personal generational differences and personalities in the workplace.
Brian (02:06)
I'm kind of curious how you define that difference. What does influencing with authority look like? What does influencing without authority look like?
Chris (02:18)
So they kind of both the same. think people sometimes fail to realize that influence is what actually provides power, right? And not authority. So they both kind of fall on the same lines for me. So when you're trying to influence others, you got to remember that with or without authority, you're trying to get somebody, you're persuading somebody, recently you're coercing them to try to get onto your thought process. So you just got to remember that. When you're dealing with them, that you have the capacity to impact what happens next in their lives. Their lives, sorry, not lives. like you have the ability to shape their actions and their behaviors and their opinions, but you also have the ability to have an effect on their character or their continued development. Right. And kind of adding a little bit more to that question is Ken Blanchard, said that the key to successful leadership in today's workplace is influence and not authority. So for someone to be an influential leader, they just need to learn the skills of confidence and clarity and communication. So that to me implies that even if you're not in a formal position of authority, you can still have an influence on those around you. So it's kind of just bouncing off. You know, there's a thin line of with or without authority. It's just understanding people and understanding how to get the best out of them. And you don't need to be called leader or manager to get that out of people.
Brian (03:48)
I'm kind of curious because especially with your background in project management, kind of more traditional project management, how does that play in project management? I mean, I've gotten in trouble sometimes in talking in class about this issue because I've, know, in my work history, my experience with traditional project management was very much one of... authority. was very much that that person who was the project manager, basically there was a date, a set of work that we're trying to accomplish. it seemed as if the project manager's job was to kind of drive the team, push the team, be the parent of the team, and make sure that they come in on time, on scope, on budget. How does the project management community in today's environment see this dichotomy between leading with influence or with authority.
Chris (04:50)
So that's a great question because I think, can I even touch on Scrum teams with this? Cause, cause I think they're, kind of go hand in hand for me. Right. and I, you know, from, if we use project management or Scrum teams as an example, right. No one, even as a project manager, right. No one has any real form of authority on the people side of things. Project managers really are just people put in place just to get things done. Right. They don't, they don't have an official title to get things done. Right. So it can be argued that.
Brian (04:54)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, please.
Chris (05:20)
while these individuals on a Scrum team or a project management team have no formal authority at all, that they're still ultimately responsible for project outcomes, right? Or it can be argued that an authority is inherently given to them based on their ability to act on behalf of all those objectives. Right. But the bigger point for me is that if there's no formal authority given, this could just limit the influence that someone has on the people in the processes side. Right. But that doesn't mean that you still can't be an effective leader who others look to. And this type of authority is based more on who you are as a person and how you treat others, as opposed to simply being viewed by that title that you possess. So I think there's there's a very strong connection there between Scrumteam and project managers.
Brian (06:04)
Yeah, I mean, it's a tricky thing because I mean, I think about this, like a lot of things, I'll make sports analogies and how I think about these relationships. And when I think about like the coach of a team, the coach can't make the players perform better. It has to be their own personal decision to do what they need to do. But on the other hand, we definitely hold the coach accountable if the team isn't doing well. And it seems almost like slightly unfair, you know, to think about this, that I can't really, I don't really have the authority to make that person do something. I have to, as we said, influence them to do it.
Chris (06:50)
So can I touch on that real quick? Cause you brought up a great analogy that I like to talk about from coaching perspective. So I used to coach soccer and if I start rambling, just tell me to shut up, but I'm licensed to coach up to a college level, right? But I always opted to coach at about the 12 and 13 year age group for boys and girls. And I chose this age group because I believe that this is just where I could have the most influence on them in their development and in their soccer growth, right?
Brian (06:59)
You
Chris (07:20)
The high school level and college level, they could still learn, but they've already got it in there at that age, right? They they've already established who they are on the field, their own identity, right? And they have a good enough skillset to go out there and play the game. But I wanted to be a part of getting them to that point. So I decided that coaching at a younger age group would just give me a better opportunity to mold those players into those high school and college athletes. And anyone listening to this with kids understands. how much influence we have on them at that age. But we also know how difficult it is to effectively influence them in a way that allows them to develop into their own person. So whether we're coaching 12 and 13 year olds, or if we're trying to coach and mentor our peers or our followers, there are just a lot of similar attributes that can be used to influence others to get them to achieve their goals and their successes and those outcomes.
Brian (08:11)
Yeah. Yeah, I completely agree. you know, it kind of, it kind of brings to mind the, mean, we've talked, we talked a little bit about project managers, but, and, and touched a little bit on Scrum teams, but you know, that, that relationship with a, a, a Scrum master, think is also really interesting to consider in light of this, because I know one of the phrases that we use as trainers a lot when we talk about the Scrum master is a Scrum master leads through influence, not authority. And that that's kind of a defining characteristic of what a scrum master does. What does that mean to you? Because I know you speak about scrum as well and you have a lot of knowledge in this area. So how does that translate into the role a scrum master would play?
Chris (08:58)
So if you take it from a Scrum Master perspective, right? mean, that's kind of positional influence, right? So that can come from someone's job title or depending on the hierarchical level of that role, you know, that can have an effect on how influence is also portrayed, either positively or negatively. So whether you're a Scrum Master or some other form of positional leader, it just means that you're followed by other people. So how you choose to impact their life. from an influential aspect will determine the level of followership that you're able to acquire from them. Right. And then kind of going along with that, again, you know, there's really no formal authority in that role, but the influence can stem from expertise and just being competent. Right. That provides you with the background and the experience needed to be recognized for people to go to you for that advice, the leadership advice. But if you also have the available resources that your team needs and you know how to acquire them as well as deploy them, then you're going to have an impact on their success as well, right? If you have the necessary tools to provide them, that's also going to increase the likelihood of them trusting in you as those relationships are developed because that's really what influence is. It's about building relationships and developing those bonds, you know, and then influence. The biggest thing for me with influence is being direct and transparent in your approach. Whether you're a scrum master, project manager, anybody with or without authority, if you're direct and you're transparent and you seem genuine to people and you have a firm, a fair, and a professional tone, that's just going to let other people know that you can be counted on, right? And that you genuinely have their best interests at heart. So that's kind of where earned influence will begin to develop.
Brian (10:50)
Yeah. You know, I, there's a, there's a kind of aspect of this I try to draw out too, when we talk about this in class and that influence, as you said, trust relationship, right? It takes, it takes investment. It's not, influence doesn't come instantaneously. When you think about just in general in your life, the people who influenced you. Right, to use that word influence, that's a shift, that's a big shift. And when you think about the people that influence you versus the people who tell you what to do. And from my perspective, most of the people I would say, yeah, I'm heavily influenced by this or by that. It generally comes from the fact that I have, even if they're a public figure, even if it's, know, you know, Simon Sinek or Gary Vanderchuck, you know, I would say they influenced me not because I just heard one quote, but because I've consistently heard what they speak on and consistently say, yeah, I'm aligned to that. And this is really influencing the way I think about stuff. So how would you advise, especially someone like a scrum master, you know, if they say, yeah, I want to lead through influence, not authority, but... I've got a job to do. How do they start paving that road so that the influence is invited?
Chris (12:26)
Yeah. I love the Gary V shout out because I love Gary. He swears a lot like I do. So I'm actually being pretty good right now. I mean, I guess the first question to ask is, you know, when you think of the term influencer leadership, not for you, but in general, like when you think about it, what's the first thing that comes to mind, right? What are you hoping to get or achieve through that influence? Are you trying to get people on the same wavelength as you? Are you doing it only to get people to see things your way?
Brian (12:28)
You Yeah.
Chris (12:54)
Or are you doing it to expand their perceptions and their realizations? Right. And again, there's often the assumption that if someone doesn't have authority, then they don't, or they can't have any influence. Right. And this goes back to with or without authority, but even with formal authority, it's still possible not to have any influence. Right. Influencing without authority begins with first identifying where that influence comes from. And then looking at how others perceive your level of influence. So. regardless of where that influence comes from, you still just need to build those relationships on that platform of trust and respect if you want to have those successful results achieved. It's tricky though, because depending on where that influence comes from, that's what's going to help to guide and even determine how those relationships and those bonds progress.
Brian (13:40)
So that kind of leads to the area of thinking about, if a Scrum Master is going to do that, we can kind of see how that fits in. And one of the things that I hear quite often with people in the classes is, especially when we come upon the section where we talk about Scrum Masters having an influence in the organization, that we have a responsibility to help the organization. understand Scrum and to get the benefits of Scrum. There's often a double take when that happens and the students in class think, well, I don't understand how can I do that? I'm not the CEO. I'm not a manager. I'm a Scrum master. How am I going to be able to change the culture? How am I going to be able to influence what the leadership thinks? about this stuff. What kind of advice would you give from that perspective?
Chris (14:42)
Well, much like I kind of take the leadership perspective, there's no one size fits all, right? To this and influence the same way. Sorry. Influencing is the same way. So there's different approaches that you can take to influencing, right? There's rational approaches where you kind of legitimize the use of like fact -based logic to influence others, right? And you could use within that rational influencing, you could use exchanging, right? As a form of bartering or trading where you do something for someone and they gives you something in return, right? Give and take. And that builds trust levels, but it's also an effective approach since each party is still committed to achieving that common goal. In addition to the rational, right? Again, different, different approaches that you can take social approaches, right? Think about the breakfast club, right? The movie, the breakfast club. Sure. Everybody who's listening to that. to this has seen that movie, right? To me, this is the perfect analogy for trying to influence somebody from a social perspective, because that movie just embodies the epitome of social approaches to influencing. If you think about it, you got five high school kids in detention from completely different backgrounds, right? And they're trying to outsmart their lesson inspiring principle. So they're essentially forced to have to work with one another to achieve that common goal. So when you socialize, That's essential when it comes to building that relationship and that trust, but that also helps to appeal to those relationships as those bonds are developed. Right. And then you kind of use consulting, which helps just to deliver like a collaborative working relationship that not only produces those results, but that also improves the dynamic and the relationships and the culture of the team and the organization. Right. And then if you add onto that, like in the movie, you know, that's just going to lead to the Alliance building, which kind of is like the creation of a team structure that'll enhance the growth and development of everyone involved. So I don't, you know, then there's also emotional approaches. There's what I call the dark side approach, which I don't recommend because it's, always think Darth Vader, right? The dark side, you, you lead by avoiding issues with your followers or your teams, right? You want to manipulate and you want to intimidate and you want to threaten, but those only serve the need of the person trying to get what they want. Right now.
Brian (16:42)
Hahaha
Chris (17:00)
Kind of be an effective way to get results, to get results. Sure. To influence others and build relationships. Absolutely not.
Brian (17:09)
Yeah, fear leads to anger, right? Right, exactly. Yeah, Chris, you are speaking my language, talking about breakfast club, 80s movies and Star Wars. I come on, this is my wheelhouse here. Yeah, no, I agree. it's, you have that great example. I'm gonna go into the analogy here.
Chris (17:12)
It does, know, resentment, you know, it's... huh. Bye!
Brian (17:38)
You have that great example with that principal or vice principal, whatever position he had, that he came in with the authority figure approach. I'm in charge, you are underneath me, you will do what I say during this time. And it wasn't, hey, let's get through this, let's figure out the best way to make the Saturday go by. It was very much, are in need of my My heavy -handed approach otherwise you're gonna go off the rails and You know, there was no respect there was no relationship there It was it was purely, you know prison guard kind of mentality and you know, there's a There's an example. I always think back to You know, I played football in my high school days. I didn't I played some football I didn't I didn't play all the way through high school, but I played some football. So if anyone happens to be from my high school, no, I did not play my whole high school career. I know that I'm admitting it. Okay. But I remember, you know, for most of my football career, which was very short, I had coaches that were all of one type, which was the screaming head, right? They were the person that would yell at you and chew you out and try to motivate you in that way.
Chris (18:35)
you
Brian (19:05)
but I had one coach and he was the last coach that I had who was the head coach of our team. And he was a very soft spoken, quiet man. And I remember him in one practice pulling me aside and saying, hey, look, you're gonna have to do it this way. You're not gonna be able to do it this way. It's not gonna work. If you wanna be successful with this, this is what you're gonna have to do. And I just remember in that moment that I... paid more attention in that moment to anything anyone had ever tried to coach me in the past. And I remember feeling earnestly this desire that I want to please this man. Like I really want this guy to think highly of me and I want to give him my best. over the years since that moment, I've thought back to it lot and thought, that's a clear contrast. since the majority are the other way, that that one person who took this different approach really had this different impression on me of, yeah, this is, and to me that was a great example of leadership.
Chris (20:17)
Yeah. It's funny. Like you mentioned that when you had that cool, calm and collected approach, right? But that can also kind of be taken the other direction. And the first thing I think about with that kind of approach in a negative way is, Bill Lumberg office space, right? Right. Yeah. If you guys can just come in and come in on Saturday or Sunday, blah, blah, blah. Right. So again, so like that type of leader and, know, to stand on the negative, cause I like to focus on negative stuff because it kind of gets people thinking about what not to do.
Brian (20:31)
Yeah. Okay? Yeah.
Chris (20:45)
So like that type of leader, you know, they focused on that power, that title to impose their will on others. Right? So like you had what sounded like an influential kind of perspective from that cool, common, collected tone. Bill Longberg was cool, common, collected, but he was just a jerk. I'll say it without swearing. He was just a jerk. Right. But it's when we're at moving into a position of leadership or someone who wants to influence others. Right. It's we look at people like that and they, it's.
Brian (21:02)
Yeah.
Chris (21:15)
They look to lead from a place of authoritarian status, right? Again, the, my way or the highway approach, but this may stand from two different schools of thought, right? Because either it's the only way they've been taught to lead others or it's to intimidate others into submission. And I'll be completely honest with this by my own admission, I was that type of leader when I took on my first leadership role. Right. I'm Gen X. I had observed this leadership mentality throughout my early career. And I just assume that that was the attitude that got others to follow direction and achieve results. And it wasn't until that I realized this approach was not in fact effective and that there didn't need to be a brutish mentality, but I just needed to transform my mindset and adapt to the individual needs of each person on my team so that I could figure out how to get the best and the most out of them. So it's a learning curve. I mean, you're not going to get it the first time you get put into a position of leadership or the first time that you're tasked to influence people, right? You're not going to know what to do. But our leaders that we grew up with are going to be a huge inspiration. And I always tell anybody, no matter what, you can be an authoritarian leader or you can be a transformation leader. You are a person of influence, no matter what you do. And I always say that anybody in a company can be a person of influence. But if you're tasked with that, if you, you're given that role, whether you want it or not, you are a person of influence and you're going to have an effect on someone's character or continued development. whether that's good or bad. It's up to us as we evolve and we mature and we grow and we develop to figure out the good from the bad and figure out how to move forward in a positive, more positive direction to get the best out of the people that we're now influencing and that we're leading.
Brian (22:54)
Yeah. Yeah. It's such an interesting dynamic because I think you're right. There's authority that people have sometimes that just is sort of a natural thing. This is a very loose analogy, but I know I've been involved with groups of people who are tasked with doing something kind of ad hoc things thrown together for volunteer things or whatever, kind of things where you're not really in an organizational structure. but a group of people come together to do something. Maybe it's in a class or whatever. you know, sometimes you have that one person in the group that, sort of starts a little bit to be the leader of the group. And I've been in the case where the person sort of takes leadership, right? Where they, kind of try to, to just grasp it and control it and tell people what to do. But I've also been in a situation where that person sort of just emerges and the rest of the team is not reluctant to follow them. They're actually thankful that they have someone that can lead and guide them. And there've been occasions when I've been in those situations where that one jerk in the group will speak and say, hey, well, who made you boss? again, I understand if the person really is being bossy. But I've been in situations where the person's not being bossy and someone has said that, and the rest of the group actually turns hostile on that person. Because they're like, what are you talking about? They're doing what we need someone to do. And they just naturally kind of float into that. So I always think about that when I think about when people ask, how am I going to influence this organization when I don't have any authority in the organization? Well, leadership isn't about a title. It's about a how you approach things, right?
Chris (24:53)
Not anymore. used to be about a title, but it's not in today's workplace. It's just not, you know, again, I grew up in a different time where it was pull up your big boy pants, do your job. You know, my boss could talk to me any way they wanted. I wasn't going to take offense to it. wasn't going to take three days off to have a safe space. You can edit that out if you want, but I, you know, I just, you know, but it kind of speak adding onto what you just said about that, right? You had somebody who wanted to take that charge, but you had somebody else who wanted to.
Brian (25:10)
Yep. No, no, no.
Chris (25:23)
you know, who made you boss, right? So how do you influence through tension and conflict? Right? Because if you have somebody who wants to take the reins, but you have somebody combating them, now you're going to, it's going to create, somebody outwardly speaks against that person, that's going to create that tension. Right? So, you know, it comes down to like, how do you influence others when you don't agree with their choices or how they approach things in an influential. approach, right? Particularly when it comes again to those cultural and those generational differences. Right. And this is going to sound harsh, but how do you influence people when you just don't like them? Right. We don't like everybody that we work with. Right. And you're going to have to work with these people. And if you expect to be a person of influence, you got to suck it up and you just got to figure out how to get the best and the most out of them. Right. So again, it's during those times, right? It's just important to identify why it is that you want to influence people in the first place.
Brian (25:59)
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's why I'm glad that like a scrum value is not like everyone on your team, right? I mean, it's respect and you should have respect for people even if they have a difference of opinion with you, which we were talking about this a little bit before we started, just the idea that, you know, we can exchange ideas and we can have a difference of opinion on ideas. That's not a problem, right? That's just trying to figure out the best idea. We're challenging the idea to see which one is the best approach. It's only when that becomes a personal thing, when it starts to become about the person, not the idea, that's when it's, well, that's when it turns into a destructive conflict.
Chris (27:04)
Yeah, it's, you I always like to say, think leadership or influence comes down to three simple words. Respect, empathy, compassion. If you can figure out how to master those three words, which I think it's virtually impossible to master them. But if you could figure out how to have some sort of ability to figure out how to use those words, you can lead anybody. Right? It doesn't matter. As long as you can have respect for them, show empathy, put yourself in their shoes for why they might be feeling a certain way. and have compassion for why they feel that way. Try to understand where they're coming from.
Brian (27:37)
That's awesome. I love that. Respect, empathy, compassion. I think that's a great place to end it. So Chris, thank you so much for coming on. I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts and wisdom with us on this. And just again, I'll mention this in the outro, but look for Chris's book that's out now, Leadership Survival Guide Quotes to Keep You from Going Extinct as a Leader. So Chris, thank you so much for coming on.
Chris (28:03)
Awesome, man, I appreciate you having me. It was fun.

#112: Exploring Collaboration Styles with Jessica Guistolise

Discover how recognizing and accommodating different collaboration styles can transform your Agile team dynamics. Join Brian Milner and Jessica Guistolise as they delve into the key to effective and inclusive collaboration.
Overview
In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, Brian interviews Jessica Guistolise about the diverse collaboration styles that impact team dynamics. They explore the importance of recognizing and accommodating different collaboration styles—relational, expressive, and introspective—to create effective and inclusive collaborative environments.
Jessica provides practical tips for Scrum Masters and facilitators to cater to these styles during meetings and retrospectives. The discussion emphasizes the value of diversity in collaboration styles, which brings different perspectives and ideas to the table, fostering creativity and innovation.
References and resources mentioned in the show:
Jessica Guistolise
Lucid
The Collaboration Style Quiz & Report
The Global Scrum Gathering
Advanced Certified ScrumMaster®
Certified ScrumMaster® Training and Scrum Certification
Advanced Certified Scrum Product Owner®
Certified Scrum Product Owner® Training
Join the Agile Mentors Community
Mountain Goat Software Certified Scrum and Agile Training Schedule
Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast
Want to get involved?
This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input.
Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one.
Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com
This episode’s presenters are:
Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work.
Jessica Guistolise is an Agile Evangelist and coach at Lucid who excels in helping organizations deliver continuous value to their customers. With a passion for people over process, she specializes in change adoption, gaining critical buy-in, and establishing trust in Agile methodologies across various industries.
Auto-generated Transcript:
Brian (00:00)
Welcome in Agile Mentors. We are back for another episode of the Agile Mentors podcast. I'm with you as always, Brian Milner. And today I have a special guest with us. have Jessica Gastolis with us. Did I say that correctly?
Jessica Guistolise (00:14)
You did. Thank you so much. It's a mouthful. I am so happy to be here. Thank you so much for inviting
Brian (00:21)
Absolutely, incredibly excited to have you here. For those who aren't familiar with Jessica, she is an evangelist at Lucid. So I'm sure we'll hear a little bit about that as we talk. She is an agile coach and she has the credentials to back that up. She has from the Coaches Training Institute, a professional coach certification and also she's an ORSC coach, if you are familiar with that. I'm familiar with that. I know there's a lot that goes into getting those. So it's not just, you know, filling out a, sending in some box stops and, you know, getting it back in the mail. and, so the reason I wanted to have Jessica on is because she was speaking at, or she did speak at the scrum gathering that just took place, back in May. And, she had a couple of talks actually that she did with, Brian Stallings there. but one of them really caught my And I thought it would be interesting here to the audience. And that's about collaboration styles. So let's dive into that topic. When we talk about collaboration styles, Jessica, don't we all collaborate the same?
Jessica Guistolise (01:33)
You know, it's funny, we don't actually. Though, although there is a kind of a misconception that we do because we collaborate in the way that we collaborate, but not everybody collaborates in the same way. And so for us to create really amazing collaborative environments, it's helpful to have an awareness of those different styles. And if we facilitate in such a way that cares to each one of those styles, you're gonna get so much more in the room than you would if you only stick with, well, here's how I collaborate. So obviously this is the way to do it.
Brian (02:09)
Right. Yeah, I think this is such an important topic because I know one of the questions I'll get a lot in classes or just even in Q &A sessions when we talk about retrospectives is, I'm having a hard time facilitating my retrospective and my team doesn't want to talk or my team's quiet and shy. And to me, this is all kind of indicative of this concept of you're probably not recognizing that they have different collaboration styles than you do.
Jessica Guistolise (02:41)
Yeah, absolutely. And it's so amazing because I think as Scrum Masters, as Agile Coaches, this is a really important piece to recognize because as the facilitator, you're really building the container. think of these events as like the containers and the folks who are doing the work, they're all the content. But if you build a container that's going to allow for that content to emerge in a healthy way, you just, I mean, Anything's possible.
Brian (03:10)
Right, right. And you know, one of the things I love to say in classes is just that, you know, that facilitation, that's the root goes back to this phrase, it means to make easy. And you know, that's our job is to make whatever that thing is easy. And if we are, if we're not aware of our own personal preference and style and how we collaborate, then it's harder for us to even be empathetic or recognize that other people have different styles and much less how to accommodate them and be inclusive of them in those environments. So I just think it's a really important
Jessica Guistolise (03:51)
Well, and the interesting thing too, besides easy, there's also an element of safety. Because if you're asking me to collaborate in a way that makes me really uncomfortable, then I'm spending all of that time in my discomfort and trying to put forth ideas. Those two things are so, they clash. And so there's also an element of just creating an environment of not just easy because this is the way that I collaborate, but I feel safe in collaborating in a that make sense to me. In fact, there's some, there are a couple of styles that are almost opposites. So if you're asking me to collaborate in that way, ooh, I am not sharing anything with you.
Brian (04:31)
Right, right, you have that amygdala hijack going on. You're kind of, you're in that fight or flight mode of just, my gosh, I'm panicked. I don't want to do this. I feel highly uncomfortable. you know, it's, can, you know, literally it's blocking those neural pathways of actually being able to collaborate and access, you know, the parts of your brain that would allow you to, to contribute in that kind of environment.
Jessica Guistolise (04:59)
Yeah, it's fascinating actually, right before the study that was done came out, I was in a collaboration with a group of people who were collaborating in a way that was wildly uncomfortable. And I came out of that meeting feeling dumb. Like I really was like, wow, I didn't, I just gave nothing. But then, you know, a little while later I was like, well, but I have this idea and this idea and this, wait a minute. I was just stuck because this isn't a way that's very comfortable for me.
Brian (05:28)
Yeah. Well, you know, I know you probably know this, but for anyone else listening out there as well, I have definitely felt that way as well in sessions that were kind of contrary to, you know, opposite of what I prefer. And, you know, the way I always describe it is I don't, I'm not a person who thinks out loud. I think internally, I think quietly and then express it later. I need time to process and work through things. But I recognize there are others who are verbal processors who need to speak out loud and and You know if you're in a meeting with a bunch of those Types of people who have that collaboration style and and yours is a quiet one Then you know I've walked out of those rooms before feeling like gosh I'm the dumb one in this meeting because I didn't have anything to contribute
Jessica Guistolise (06:12)
Yeah, I didn't provide any value in that, but there is, there's so important to recognize that. And I think there's, there's, there are ways to create these containers and to create these collaboration sales that really help to make it so that everyone can feel comfortable collaborating in the way that is going to be comfortable for them. And it just, it's, you know, it's the facilitator work of being prepared.
Brian (06:16)
Right, right.
Jessica Guistolise (06:38)
preparing for the meeting or the event, creating the container in a way that's going to be safe, comfortable, and easy for everyone.
Brian (06:45)
Yeah, absolutely. All right, well, let's get to the meat of that then, because I know there are a few, you kind of delineated these in the presentation that you had. So walk us through, what are the differences in these different kinds of collaboration styles?
Jessica Guistolise (06:59)
Yeah, so the study was done, Lucid did a really interesting study. I was so excited by this. And what they found was over half of knowledge workers identify with one of three collaboration styles. And the other part of that is you may not land fully in one of the three and you may have kind of a blend of them, but these are the ones that we see most often. And one of the things that I always like to point out too is that none of these are Like it's just the way that you feel comfortable. They're all really helpful and healthy and really great ways of coming together. So I'll start with the one that I most identify with because it makes the most sense to me. That's we normally create collaboration is we see how do I collaborate and I'll collaborate with you. So the first is relational. And so relational collaborators really want that human connection. Like they want to be, they want to spend some time. How was your weekend? Or just if it's a brand new person, let's get to know each other a little bit before we dive into trying to solve problems. there's it's, it's almost like, for me, I just feel like I need to be in relation with, in relationship with someone before I'm comfortable collaborating. It's like, the metaphor I like to use is, is like baking bread. If I'm in relationship with you, I'm gonna bring you ingredients and recipes and stuff that I'm playing with and trying to figure out. But if I'm not in relationship with you, I will have that entire thing baked and then bring it out and see if you like it. But that's not collaboration, right? That's me by myself and how much better is the bread gonna be if somebody says, well, let's try this and let's try this and let's try this. So that's a relational
Brian (08:49)
So that sounds like that one in particular needs just a tremendous amount of trust to be effective.
Jessica Guistolise (08:55)
It does. really does. And I actually, I'll tell you a story about this because, so I, I was working with, an individual who had an interesting problem to solve another agile coach. and he'd come up to me and he was like, I have this interesting problem. Do you have anything in your coaching toolbox or knapsack that you can pull out for me really quickly? And I was like, Hmm, you know what? actually don't. but let me think about And so I went, was doing some other things and sort of in the back of my brain. And then I had just an absolutely ridiculous idea. I mean, it was like, I, I felt silly even thinking it, let alone saying it out loud, but I was in really great relationship with this other individual. So I ran across the hall and I said, okay, I have a really dumb idea. And he goes, okay, let's hear it. And I told him, and he goes, wow, that's really dumb. Let's play with it. And so we played with it and got it into something and he took it back to the team and it worked spectacularly. And I think he's still using it today as an exercise that'll help with the team's collaboration. but if I hadn't been in relationship with him, I would have had that dumb idea and then I would have let it go.
Brian (10:10)
Right, right, because you know, you don't want to get made fun of or you don't want to be made to feel dumb or anything. So yeah, absolutely. You got to have that trust and sense of safety with them to be able to bring it up. That's a great
Jessica Guistolise (10:23)
Yeah. The second one is one that I wish I had more of and I just don't. So some people identify as expressives. If you're an expressive collaborator, you are ready to dive in at any moment. Like somebody can throw out a topic and you've got, you're the first voice in the room. You love using visuals and drawing out your ideas and throwing up sticky notes and emojis. You're one of those people that's I'm ready to, I'm just ready to share. I really wish I had more of that. Sometimes I think of them as blerters. Like they're just willing to blurt it out. Whatever is there on top of mind and a brainstorm. And I just, think that's so admirable and it's just not a skill that I have.
Brian (11:09)
So less of that filter then. mean, it sounds like they don't necessarily need to have that basis of trust. They're just sort of always willing to say what's on the top of their mind and get it out in the open.
Jessica Guistolise (11:22)
Yeah, yeah, I think it's a great way of expressing themselves. And they also have maybe a harder time spending that time getting into relationship and all of that ooey gooey stuff. And they're like, let's get to the work, you know. But if we have an awareness that I as an expressive am working with a relational collaborator, some of the work is getting into relationship. So now I feel more comfortable spending that time because I know that the work we're going to do after that is going to be greatly
Brian (11:57)
And correct me here if I'm wrong, because I'm just trying to make sure that we're understanding all speaking the same terminology here, but it sounds like the way you describe this, that expressives are not necessarily verbal expressives. Like you mentioned, someone who's more sketch note based or anything like that. So they may not feel comfortable speaking, but they're very comfortable with the concept of getting an idea out of their head quickly in one way, or
Jessica Guistolise (12:26)
Yes, exactly. It could be in visual form. think of like people who always have memes or GIFs at their fingertips. Like they're just ready to go and send out these their ideas into the world and not hold on to them tightly. know, they hold them on, hold on to them, Lucy, please, because they're coming out in the world.
Brian (12:44)
Hold on loosely, but don't let go. Awesome, I love that. Okay, and then was there another one?
Jessica Guistolise (12:52)
There is. So the last one is introspective. So an introspective collaborator, I dip my toe in introspective collaboration as well. Deep work is really, you love deep work. Spending time really processing, thinking through, chewing on an idea, tossing, playing with it a little bit yourself before beginning to share. It's the opportunity to do some research, do some brain writing, spend some time in ideation. And you might even feel comfortable having a conversation with one person rather than if you have a giant group of people sending them into breakouts to have individual conversations. sending out thoughts about what's going to happen before the meeting or the event so that they've got that time to themselves to say, here's what I'm thinking about this topic. before throwing them into a room with a whole bunch of people and expect them to just go.
Brian (13:57)
Right, right. Yeah, no, I mean, of these three, yeah, that one sounds very close to what I would identify with for sure. And yeah, I mean, I think one of the characteristics I would kind of try to relay that home to everybody is I love when a collaboration session spills over across days because I love having the ability to go home and sleep on it
Jessica Guistolise (14:18)
Yes.
Brian (14:24)
you know, when I'm walking my dog or getting ready in the morning and the shower or something that that's when the brilliant idea will strike is when my brain is actually distracted and thinking of something else. That's when I can really think about things. And I, I feel like I need that time to sort of let it percolate and kind of, you know, seep in a little bit before I can come back and really contribute.
Jessica Guistolise (14:46)
Totally. One of the things that I really appreciate that we do at Lucid. So that meeting that I was talking about where I walked out and I went, I provided zero value in that meeting. We've got an open board for that for after. And there's an expectation that if you have ideas afterwards that you have the opportunity to come back to it the next day or the day after that. It's not, okay, we collaborated, close this. That's it, we're done. but you actually get the chance to do some of that asynchronous follow on day, day after kind of collaboration.
Brian (15:20)
Love that. Well, and two, Scrum Masters out there, hear that, listen to that, right? Think about that from that kind of a meeting. This is just a normal meeting, right? But we sometimes can get so structured into the idea of a retrospective being only at this time and this confines, and we have our time boxes and everything else. But yeah, if we can have some spillover time as well, pre or post, right? Just having that ability
Jessica Guistolise (15:30)
Hm.
Brian (15:49)
let people think through and contribute after the fact, that can really deliver some great results and allow you to include all these different collaboration styles. So then relational, expressive, introspective, these are kind of the three styles that you guys highlighted in your talk. All right. So let's say I'm a Scrum Master and I might identify with one of these. How does that help me? How does that help me to do my work with my
Jessica Guistolise (16:23)
Yeah, fantastic. So Brian, you immediately recognize your own sort of tendencies or collaborative tendencies, collaboration styles. But if you think about those you work with, do think you could kind of identify what different styles other people you work with on a regular basis might have?
Brian (16:43)
Yeah, I think so. mean, most people who are listening to this know my boss. I would, it's kind of funny. If I was going to try to pin Mike Cohn down in one of these three. Gosh, you know what's funny is I'm not sure because he sort of has a blend of all three.
Jessica Guistolise (17:08)
Well, that's absolutely like I mentioned, I'm sort of I'm a relational with an introspective kind of toe in introspection. And so I think there's a lot of people who are a little bit of a mix. And so the easiest thing to way to find out is to ask, share what these styles are, and ask what find out what's going on with your team, if they were to self identify, because it's easier to self identify, obviously, And then now you've got a great understanding of what's going on with the rest of your group. It was so fascinating to me when we did the conference talk, we had everybody self -identify and then collect in your self -identified group. So all of the expressives were together, all of the relationals were together and all of the introspectives were together. And then we had them do some work together and they were describing what helps them. to collaborate best. And the expressives were loud and they were right away writing all over the sheets of paper that we had for them. were, you I mean, it was like, it was a boisterous part of the room. The relationals immediately, hi, I don't think we've met yet. Let's get to know one another very quickly. You know, what do you love about your collaboration style? I mean, they really spent that time getting to know one another. And they were kind of coming to consensus before,
Brian (18:23)
Hahaha
Jessica Guistolise (18:35)
before writing anything on their page, because they were making sure that everyone was relating and getting their voice in. The introspectives, quiet, quiet, quiet part of the room, and they all had sticky notes and they were writing their ideas and then they were putting the ideas next to each other that might be similar, and then they started having conversations. So as a scrum master, as a facilitator, to know what your team's style is, is again, going to help you create the experience of inviting each one of those styles to collaborate in ways that best work for them. I mentioned introspectives, send out the agenda beforehand, make sure that they know the topics, have some silent brain writing time, because expressives are going to start putting their stickies out anyway, but allow that quiet moment to be there to accommodate those styles. You may put them into breakout rooms or have them meet with one other person. Especially if you've got like a larger collaborative of that, where you've got a bunch of people together, one -on -one first, then maybe four -on -one, know, one, two, four -all kinds of experiences are going to help those introspectives be able to bring their voice forward. You'll also have a moment of connection. Nobody likes icebreakers, so I think of them more as like relationship activities. If we're going to have a relationship activity, that feels way better than an icebreaker.
Brian (19:52)
Ha
Jessica Guistolise (20:00)
And spending time really allowing for, how are we feeling today? Let's bring some awareness to what's going on collectively as a group. All of that is helpful because then your relations, they've gotten their relationship moment. They feel connected to the people that they're working with, which means they're going to feel connected to the work that they're doing. So that connection before content allows the contact to be significantly improved. and expressives, give them the space to do it. mean, really allow them to be that voice in the room that jumps in and gets everyone excited. They bring people along. So building your events in ways that allow people to bring, be their best collaborative self is so helpful. The other thing that I think is really helpful trying to make sure you've got diversity of collaboration styles on your team. I'm a huge proponent of DEI and diversity and bringing together wildly different perspectives and ideas. And I just think that all of these interesting and complicated human problems that we're trying to solve need interesting, complicated humans and interesting, complicated teams.
Brian (21:20)
Hahaha
Jessica Guistolise (21:22)
And if you've only got introspectives on your team, there's going to be these relation, relationship type thoughts that are going to be missed and same with expressives. And so I think as you're building out a team, or if you have a team, just thinking about like, Ooh, do we have a diversity of collaboration on our team? And am I making sure that each one of those styles are cared
Brian (21:44)
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, like we, I know we talked about this quite a bit on our podcast. know, there are different neuro types, people think in different ways, people have different preferences and you're absolutely right. You know, what, what we need is people who see things from different angles. you know, if we all see things from the same perspective, then we're, don't have anything really to share. We all can just observe one thing and give our own perspective on it. But how much better is it if you have someone who's standing on the opposite side and says, wait a minute. There's actually another dimension to this that you guys aren't really able to see and bringing that to the table can make all the difference in the
Jessica Guistolise (22:20)
complete difference. And isn't it more fun? Everybody thought the same things that I did. Boy, the whole, it would just be boring. And it's a delight to see the ways in which other people see things and to go wander over and see their perspective. like you said, it brings more dimension to the things that we're working on.
Brian (22:45)
Yeah, and at the end of the day, we need some of that conflict. It's not all conflict is bad conflict, If I have a different viewpoint than you, then you're challenging my way of thinking and I'm challenging yours. And hopefully we end up at an endpoint that is a better endpoint because it's been challenged, because we haven't just accepted as rote what somebody thought.
Jessica Guistolise (23:14)
Absolutely. I'm totally agree. I think healthy conflict, healthy conflict and collaboration is, is helpful. I collab. I should have said in that moment, I don't collaborate like this. Can we get to know one another? And I probably would have met some folks in the organization that I, because it was, it was not people that I spend a lot of time with on a regular basis, I would have met people across the organization that I would have.
Brian (23:28)
Right.
Jessica Guistolise (23:43)
would have liked a number.
Brian (23:45)
Well, and I think it's amazing how powerful it is to have a name for something and be able to just kind of say, hey, this is what this means and this is what this is behind this. And if I know I am relational, then I know kind of what I need to be successful. I know what's gonna set me off. I know what's gonna be difficult for me. And I have a much higher likelihood of being productive in that kind of environment because I'm aware of those sorts of things. I think I know the way that you guys started was to try to get people to understand a little bit about where they were first before thinking about others. And I think that that was a genius way to approach that because I think you're right. You kind of know where you are on the map a little So yeah, we've talked about this a little bit when I kind of did my research and work on neurodiversity and different neuro types and stuff and how these different things relate. yeah, it's just like we were saying, right? You need different perspectives. You need different kind of approaches to problems if you're going to solve them and think in different ways when you approach issues. All right. If we understand there's relational, there's expressive, there's introspective, we kind of can pin where we are. We're starting to see where others are. How do I put this into practice? If I'm designing a retrospective, let's just say, and I know my team is made up of, I got five people, I got, you know, of three introspectives and two relationals on my team and no expressives. How's that gonna change how I prepare my
Jessica Guistolise (25:36)
yeah. Well, probably don't just have them start talking about it. I mean, so, you know, as you're thinking through the as you're thinking through the five stages of a retrospective, what you might do is like, okay, so if I'm going to open the retrospective, how might I open the retrospective in a way that's going to cater to my relational? That's an easy one to grab on to, right? Let's let's talk about
Brian (25:41)
No open discussion,
Jessica Guistolise (26:04)
What's something interesting that's in your wallet or your purse or just something that's gonna help the group begin to be in relationship with one another? You'll wanna have some quiet time. Allow them to spend some time on their own thinking about what happened over the course of the last week before you even start throwing things up. You might have just a five minute, close your eyes walk yourself through the last sprint and think about what were the big things that happened before even going into the writing. There's some really nice introspective time to chew on what happened, what's going on. You may put them, like I said, in small groups of two or three instead of having them come together to try to come up with experiments as a whole wide group right off the bat. So when When you figure out, here's the things that we want, here's the topics, here's what the data is telling us, and here's what we want to run an experiment on. Again, allow for that time to go back and really chew on. So we have this thing that we want to work on in the next iteration. So I'm going to spend some time thinking about maybe 10 different ways that we might experiment on that instead of having the whole group have that conversation right off the bat. So there's a whole bunch of different things you could do. to kind of unlock the collaboration in all of your team members.
Brian (27:37)
Yeah. Yeah. We were talking a little bit before our podcast about how we're music nuts and, you know, really get into that world. you know, the ideas crossed my mind. It's sort of like, you know, when you think about composing music or you think about a piece of music, right? If everything wasn't a major key, that would get boring. You know, we like to have minor keys on occasion or sometimes augments. augmented keys or different time signatures and different rhythms and things that kind of come to play in a piece of music. And sometimes we'll even shift those in the course of a single song. So if you think about a retrospective kind of in that or a facilitation session even larger than a retrospective, but just any facilitation session, right? You don't want it to get boring. You don't want to just cater to one thing. You want to be able to have some variety and that makes it interesting that keeps people's attention.
Jessica Guistolise (28:32)
Please. It does. mean, think about just even how you might shift things up in a daily scrum. Every day come to it, okay, so today we're gonna do an expressive scrum. Warn your introspectives that that's coming. Today we're gonna do a relational scrum, daily scrum. Think about how you might add these elements into your planning session, because that's a deeply collaborative session, and you wanna make sure that there's space for each one of your collaborative. collaboration style team members to have the ability to you I think everybody would be surprised how much more information comes when we feel comfortable collaborating in these different styles and There's edges in each of us right so helping to kind of Walk those edges I've I have been working really hard on trying to be more expressive I asked expressives. How do you do that? And really a lot of it is I don't hold my expresses, the things that I express tightly. They're just ideas and I'm willing to just throw them out. And so for me, that's an edge for me that I can walk up to. And so you can help your team members because they're not always gonna be on a team that has an understanding all of these styles exist. Although as a team member, I might say, hey, let's all talk about our collaboration styles real quick as a part of our working agreement. But you may find yourself on a team that doesn't have that same understanding of the collaboration styles. And so if you work on kind of moving that edge further and further, you're stepping into it a bit, then you're going to be more comfortable collaborating in multitudes of environments. And ladies and gentlemen, and all of those in between, We want to hear your voice. so doing the self work in some of that I think is also really important.
Brian (30:37)
Absolutely, yeah, I couldn't agree more. Well, I can't thank you enough, Jessica. Thank you for taking time out and coming in and explaining this to us. It's just, one of the joys of getting to do this kind of thing that I get to have these kinds of conversations with the Agile community and different members of our community. So thank you for making time and sharing your wisdom on this with everyone.
Jessica Guistolise (31:00)
Yeah, thanks, Brian. This has been an absolutely delightful conversation. And if people want more information on the collaboration styles, there is a report out there. And with the report, there is also a quiz you could take that says, wait a minute, what is my collaboration style? And you could have your whole team take the collaboration style quiz. And then you'd really have an understanding of where is everybody at? And how can we make sure that their voice is in the system?
Brian (31:22)
That's an awesome suggestion. We'll definitely put that in our show notes, too. So we'll make sure everyone can just find that in our show notes and not have to hunt for it or anything. But that's an awesome suggestion. Well, again, thanks, Jessica. I appreciate you coming on and speaking with us.
Jessica Guistolise (31:39)
Yeah, thank you so much for having me. It's been a delight.

#111: Adapting to the Future of Work with Heather McGowan

Explore the dynamic future of work with Brian Milner and Heather McGowan as they discuss the essential shifts in mindset and culture needed to thrive in the augmented era.
Overview
In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, Brian Milner interviews Heather McGowan, a renowned future of work strategist, about the rapidly changing landscape of work in the augmented era.
Heather emphasizes the importance of adaptation, empathy, and human connection in response to technological, societal, and cultural shifts. They discuss the pervasive issue of loneliness in the workplace and the critical role of leaders in fostering a culture of trust, agency, and high expectations to drive performance and productivity.
Heather also shares insights on finding personal purpose and intrinsic motivation to excel in the future of work. This conversation provides valuable strategies for individuals and leaders to navigate the evolving work environment successfully.
References and resources mentioned in the show:
Heather McGowan
Heather’s Website
The Adaptation Advantage by Heather McGowan & Chris Shipley
The Empathy Advantage by Heather McGowan & Chris Shipley
The UpSwing by Robert Putnam
Agile Training for Teams & Leaders
Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast
Mountain Goat Software Certified Scrum and Agile Training Schedule
Join the Agile Mentors Community
Want to get involved?
This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input.
Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one.
Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com
This episode’s presenters are:
Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work.
Heather McGowan is a leading strategist and keynote speaker on the Future of Work, known for transforming mindsets and organizations with her insights on continuous learning, leadership, and culture. Her groundbreaking approach has empowered employees, enhanced leaders' effectiveness through empathy, and driven businesses to achieve their goals in a rapidly evolving market.
Auto-generated Transcript:
Brian (00:00)
Welcome in Agile Mentors. We're back with you for another episode of the Agile Mentors podcast. I'm with you as always, Brian Milner. And today we have someone I'm very, very excited to have on. She was the keynote speaker that kicked off our Scrum Gathering in New Orleans this year. It's Ms. Heather McGowan. So welcome in, Heather.
Heather (00:20)
Hey there, thanks so much for having
Brian (00:23)
I'm so excited to have Heather in. If you're not familiar with Heather's work, she has, think, the best job title I think I've ever heard. She is the future of work strategist. And like I said, that's awesome. I love that. But beyond that, there's a lot that I could say about Heather to introduce her to you. But I'll give you a couple of things just so you kind of understand the perspective of her coming home. First, She was named one of the top 50 female futurists by Forbes. So let that sink in. She also has two incredible books out there. One called The Adaptation Advantage. has more than two books, two recent books. The Adaptation Advantage, Let Go, Learn Fast, and Thrive in the Future of Work. That's one. And her latest one that just came out recently, it's called The Empathy Advantage. leading the empowered workforce. And I'm very, excited to have her on because her talk at the Scrum Gathering really captured my imagination. And I think everyone's imagination there. so let's just dive in, Heather. Let's talk about this whole concept of the future of work. And I think one of the ways you started in the presentation, I think, was really important to try to understand where we are on the timeline of the work. the way we have progressed through ways of working. So where are we? Where would you put us on the timeline?
Heather (01:57)
Yeah, so first of all, the title, Future Work Strategist, was not something I applied for. It's a title.
Brian (02:03)
Really? Because I want to fill out that job application.
Heather (02:07)
It's a title I created because I felt like there was a need for many of us to be working in looking at the future work, which is something that will never be done. It often gets conflated with being about where we work or DEI issues, but really it is about those things. But for me, it's about leadership, it's about workforce, it's about learning, it's about adaptation, it's about purpose. It's about adapting right now pretty rapid changes that are not only technological, but societal and cultural and demographic and generational. And we're wrestling with just a lot of change at once. one of the things I say to folks is sometimes I think that the majority of what we're going to be doing in the near term is helping each other adapt. Because we're to have to adapt at a clip we've never had to adapt to before. Prior generations had maybe one paradigm shifting change in a generation. Now we might have three or four.
Brian (03:02)
Yeah.
Heather (03:03)
So in terms of where we are, we had the agricultural era and the industrial era and the information era. Well, we're now in the augmented era. So we're dealing with technology consuming tasks that we do at a faster and faster clip. And a lot of people kind of catastrophize it about technology taking away jobs. We're the only species that would invent things to make ourselves irrelevant. that's how what people, but it doesn't make any sense. What we're really doing is inventing technologies that augment our potential. And it requires us to not only learn and adapt and think about differently about who we are, which is what the adaptation advantage was really about, but how do we relate to each other? How do we get the best out of each other? And that's really what the empathy advantage was about. So we're in the augmented era. Technology is going to continue to come at a faster and faster clip. But it's more important for us to think about how we learn and adapt and how we lean into our uniquely human skills. Because... The technology can provide the answers, but it's up to us to find the questions.
Brian (04:04)
That's awesome. Yeah. I think that's such an excellent point that, you know, just trying to think about the fact that, yes, in previous generations, there may have been one paradigm shifting kind of change that comes through a lifetime in the way that we work. But in our lifetimes, we've dealt with the Internet coming on board and we've dealt with multiple revolutions since then, mobile and AI. And these things happen. it's such a greater clip that it really does shift even even things like COVID changing, a lot of places working from home previously was always in the office. It seems like change is the constant now and that change is kind of the thing that we need to get good at is being adaptive and able to change. Why do you feel like, I'm just kind of curious of your opinion on this, why do feel like we're so resistant as humans to just change in general?
Heather (05:00)
I think we have a fear of obsolescence. then in times like right now, I delve into this sometimes in some of my talks, is we're going through some pretty significant division and polarization. It's really acute in the US, but it's happening all over the world. You look at the elections in France and the UK recently. I think it's important to understand how that happened because a lot of people think that's just social media. And technology did come into play, but if you look back in the US anyway in the 70s and 80s, that's when we started to see a real erosion in our social fabric. We started having fewer people over for dinner and being part of fewer fewer clubs, talking to our neighbors less. So we got more and more isolated. And then we had a loneliness epidemic that's been around for at least a decade or so, which, and when you're lonely, your amygdala, the kind of reptilian part of your brain goes into overdrive. So you go into fight or flight mode. So you have a lot of change, isolation, fight or flight mode, and then you throw in social media that kind of catastrophizes things. And we're all in this us versus them mode. And we've stopped seeing, hearing each other. And one of my messages in almost all my talks is we have so much more in common than we have in difference. They show lots of studies from it. So if we just could start talking to each other again, we may not vote for the same candidate. We don't vote for the same teams, but we both love the sport. And that's what we need to get back to is understanding how much we have in common because so much of the work we're going to be doing, especially when technology comes in, is communication, collaboration, exploration. And all of those things require us to relate to each other because you're going to see something that I don't see. And if I only hired people who think like me, it would be tragic because I wouldn't see the entirety of the opportunity. So if you want to really drive profitable growth in your company, you want those diversities of inputs and you want to set a culture that has people see and hear each other so you can see optimally the opportunity space. And because that's what we're going to be doing. It's most of the work we're going be doing.
Brian (06:55)
Yeah, yeah, this is a fascinating fact to me because I, one of the things I start in your presentation is just this idea about loneliness. And I absolutely agree. You know, there's, I think we all can kind of recognize that even though we've tried to create these social media companies that to try to, you know, get a, gain a stronger sense of connection in some ways it's driven the opposite of this sort of loneliness factor. But I'm curious from from some sort of a sociological perspective, that has, it seems, transferred into our workplace. And I know one of your stats there was about how we feel more lonely at work. And I'm just curious, what do you think is driving that, the kind of sense of loneliness that we have while at
Heather (07:48)
Yeah, know, some folks will point that to being about where we work. That's not my area of expertise. There plenty of people who look at where we work. That may be a factor for some folks if you're working remotely and you don't see other people, certainly a factor. But what I think what's really happening is we've outsized what work is in our lives. So community used to consist of social interactions, religious affiliations. clubs and groups we belong to, all of those kind of, if you think of them as circles, because everything's visual to me, all those circles shrank and work became bigger. So now part of it's generational change, but more and more people are looking for work to provide their purpose, work to provide most of their relationships, work to fill these. So it's a little bit in terms of how we're interacting with each other that's causing the loneliness, but it's also an outsize expectation we have around work. So now it becomes table stakes for a lot of organizations for work to be my self -expression, work to be my sense of purpose, work to be where I think about my values. And it wasn't like that a few decades ago.
Brian (08:49)
Yeah. Yeah, that's, I just, I love that point. think you're absolutely hitting the nail on the head with that. And, and, know, just so everyone listening doesn't, doesn't misinterpret this in any way, you know, we're not, we're not saying in any way that those other kinds of organizations like churches or community groups or anything are bad or that you shouldn't see community and those kinds of things. It's just that our society has sort of moved away from those as being the foundational, places where we get community and you're I absolutely agree. is, work has sort of filled that. Sort of analogous, I think, to the way that police have become the front line of our mental health,
Heather (09:27)
Mental health, yeah, exactly. Exactly, and that's not fair to the police and they're not prepared to do that and, you know, we suffer. I think the point with work is that that is where we are. So if you're leading an organization today, that is a reality. I hope that changes. I'm a big fan of Robert Putnam. He wrote Bullying Alone in the late 90s and he pointed out the sort of phrase we're having in ourselves, of fabric. He had another book that came out in, I think it was 2020 or 2021, in the middle of pandemic where he... which was called the upswing, where he says we go through these kind of, you you think about it like a pendulum, we go through periods of high collectivism, you know, the kind of the eye to the we. And we're at the highest, you know, the lowest level of the we and the highest level of the eye in terms of being isolated and all that we do. And we're primed to go back into a we phase. So I'll be interested to see what forms of community start to emerge because we're primed to have that happen. Soon, like I notice is a, live most of the time in Florida, part of the time in Massachusetts. It's a restaurant I go to in Florida. And I was like, why do we love that restaurant so much? I do like the food. It's very good. But it has a situation that an empty seat is is a, is anywhere you could sit. So if I come in by myself or with one other person, they would sit me at the table with one other person or two or 300 people. It's community seating. So you end up sitting with people that you don't know having conversations. It's kind of like a forced community. It's fantastic.
Brian (10:53)
Yeah, that's awesome. I love that. I mean, I will say, you know, the introvert part of me is like, I don't want to sit down. Right. Yeah. I identify with that. Yeah. Awesome. Well, so if we have this problem, right, we're dealing with, with a fear of change. We're dealing with a work in place that is lonelier than it's ever been. And we were dealing with a population that's seeking belongings, sinking.
Heather (10:59)
I'm an introvert too, but when I'm forced, it's good for me.
Brian (11:23)
connection and community while at work. I think you're right that that has a profound impact on the way we work even. And I know you talked a little bit about just kind of the main drivers of productivity, the main drivers of being successful. And I think that this is maybe counterintuitive to what some people think. Help us, talk us through that a little bit about what you found as far as what really drives productivity.
Heather (11:58)
Sure, so just to give you a little background on me that relates to this point. So I spent the last, prior to when I started speaking full time, which is about 10 years ago, I spent 10 to 15 years working on the corporate side, industrial design, product design, design strategy, so new innovation stuff. And every organization I went into, I felt people really weren't equipped. to propositionally think. They could reiterate on the existing solutions. If they had a product, they could make another version of that product, but they couldn't jump entirely to a white space and think of something where we didn't have a contextual reference. And then I found myself working in higher ed because I had a mentor who became president of university and he said, I want to create a new college focused on innovation. And I think you understand it better than anybody else. So I built a new college focused on innovation. From those two sides, I saw the supply and the demand side of talent. And what I saw happening, and this is what kind of led to my speaking career, is we're not preparing people to do the kind of work we need people to do. We're hiring people based on past skills and experience degrees. We've now like edged all the way up to skills -based hiring. But what that really is, is hiring somebody who can demonstrate that they can do something you need them to do. What happens when they get there three or four months later and you need them to do something that's never been done before? So we need to prepare more people to do work that's never been done before. And how do you do that? I think you look more at behaviors. And then how do you activate those behaviors? So what you look for in people is some level of skill, but also behaviors that will tell you what they'll do when they don't know what to do. And that is basically what culture is. Culture is collective behaviors. So that's how you screen for people. And then how do you set the conditions to activate those behaviors? What we've done in the past is hire the skills and exert some hustle culture. And that's going to rev the engine of productivity. We did that until we hit burnout and we're still hitting burnout and we're still hitting burnout and unhappiness and disengagement. So we went from hustle culture to going, we need more engagement. we need shared purpose. we need psychological safety. Well, what's behind all of that is we need humans who feel seen and heard. Somebody cares about me. I trust my leader. You set those conditions to people who have agency and they'll activate those behaviors for which you hired them. And so they have some of the skills you need. They're going to have to acquire so many more because you don't know the work they're going to be doing. So we got to focus on what I say is culture and then people who want to build their capacity.
Brian (14:29)
Yeah, yeah, I love that point. And I think you're absolutely right. I'm kind of so we've been building towards skill based kind of hiring instead of behavior based hiring. And we should be looking more at building people who have the right behaviors to learn and grow and change and adapt. So I'm kind of curious your take on this, because I know that in the past few years, especially, I don't know if you've seen this, think I've noticed this in multiple sections, but there seems to have been sort of this segment of management that has returned a little bit, kind of tried to turn the clock back and gone back to a little bit of Taylorism and kind of the idea of, you you need to push and drive your employees to work harder. And I even see that in some job postings and things about how, you know, there's sort of a rise more traditional project management, is really more based on pushing and driving than enabling. I'm just curious, what's your take? Why do you think that's resurfaced?
Heather (15:41)
I think we got a lot of fatigue coming out of COVID. I remember us doing the sort of the press tour and everything for the Empty Advantage last spring. one, I was talking to a group of CEOs and they said to me, you know what, we're just tired of caring. And because they were being honest with me. And I said, well, explain to what you mean. And they said, well, I get it. We have to be empathetic and we have to feel bad for people and expect less of them. And I said, there's compassion and you should have that instances. And there's empathy and they are not the same thing. When I'm talking about empathy, it's about understanding the people that you're hiring and what motivates them so you can help them become what I call self -propelled. Because you cannot get people to learn and adapt at the speed, scale and scope we're gonna need through just extrinsic pressure. And there's a return to that right now. I think it's some COVID fatigue of just, you know, exhausted because people did have to care a lot for their people. But you know what, we had higher levels We had higher levels of engagement. had higher levels of productivity at the height of the pandemic because we were caring. And that was a little care fatigue. so the care fatigue hits a little economic uncertainty. We've been waiting for a recession. Inflation's been sticky. It's harder to run your business tomorrow than it was yesterday. Again, all those things. But a return to kind of the beatings will continue until the morale improves has never worked. But there is certainly a push to try that now. And I get But you're not going to get the performance out of people that way. just don't believe it. A very small percentage of people that works on most of us work best when we feel like we can trust our boss. We have agency. We have high expectations. I mean, all the studies that I've seen, the best jobs people had with the highest level of performance were when they challenged themselves, they had respect, they had autonomy, and they had agency.
Brian (17:33)
Yeah, yeah, absolutely agree. It just, it fascinated me when I saw that kind of return and rear its ugly head again and think, and my thought was, we've tried this, you know, like this is, it's not that this hasn't been tested and tried, we've run this experiment and it failed and we've progressed into this new era. And I think sometimes there's a leadership kind of misunderstanding that we're just trying to be nice. Like people just want us to be nice. And it's just about being kind of more friendly and kind. And that's what all these management consultants want us to be. there's a purpose behind it. It's because it works. It's not because it just makes you a better person, though it does. But it actually is better for your business to do
Heather (18:21)
Yeah, I think what happened is we had such a long stretch of Taylorism that we presume that that is the model that works. had four years of caring and we had good performance. And that gets sort of conflated with where we work, which I think is a completely separate thing. I think we've got to return to, not return to, we've got to go forward and to say, what did we learn in those four years? What are the things that really worked? How did we really better performance out of people. Because at the end of the day, it's what you're to do. It's why you run your organization. We are in a capitalist society. You're going to run your organization getting the highest level of performance. Highest level of performance and productivity is getting the highest level of performance out of your people. Highest level of performance out of your people comes when you trust them, they have agency, you hire for the right behaviors, you set the right conditions, and you encourage them to do things they never thought they could do. And that's what comes out of all the studies.
Brian (19:11)
Yeah. Yeah. And I know you, you, you drawn kind of this, this really interesting connection, I think between performance and, and mental health and sort of the idea of, you know, that we, again, building on what we've said, right? If our organizations are where we're seeking community and we're feeling lonely, then that this does impact how we work. so it shouldn't be that far of a leap for people to understand how, Hey, if, if, our work environments are damaging people's mental health, that directly impacts performance.
Heather (19:47)
Yeah, and you just look at the studies like, know, the companies that are ranked best places to work, they're ranked best places to work by the employees, because the employees are happy there. And you know what? Their performance is something like 16 % higher than the companies that are on the list. So it's pretty clear. You're getting the performance when people are happy, not you're going to get the performance. You're going to be happy when you get the performance. It's the other way around. We're looking at it backwards.
Brian (20:12)
Yeah, I agree. And one of the stats that jumped out at me in your presentation was this stat about how big of a role your direct manager or leader has on your mental health, just in general and overall in life. So tell us a little bit about
Heather (20:32)
Yeah, there were three different studies I think I cited in the piece you're talking about. First, the employer has a greater influence on your mental health than your spouse, partner, or therapist if you have one.
Brian (20:46)
That's so, I just got a full stop there. Like that is so amazing to me. Your boss has more impact on your mental health than your spouse. That just blows my mind, sorry.
Heather (20:57)
And the greatest source of stress in your life is your job. And then there was another study, which I thought was fascinating, and it was looking at lower paid workers generally not highly educated. The relationship, this was a longitudinal study, and it was only like four or 500 people, but they looked at your relationship with your direct supervisor. If your direct supervisor treated you with respect, gave you agency, gave you autonomy, you trusted them, you went home and raised your children such that they had higher levels of economic, social, and financial success. So not only is your boss influencing your life, you're influencing the next generation and thereby the next workforce. So there's a lot more we should be doing preparing these leaders for having this what is now an awesome responsibility. It's a really profound responsibility. And it's because I think work has become so outsized in our lives. And it's going to be. It's going to continue to be.
Brian (21:58)
Yeah. Yeah. So no pressure, leaders, right? I mean, no pressure on the fact that not only are you concerned with your business and your employees, but the future generation of workers. Right.
Heather (22:09)
And we need to help those leaders. We need to help them put on a gas mask before they try to help anybody else.
Brian (22:14)
Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. So, you know, we're in this, first of all, I think this is this huge dichotomy of, you know, as we said, we're in the age of people feeling lonely at work. While when we look at our process kind of evolution, we're in a teaming phase of process. We value, especially here, you know, an Agilist and people who practice Scrum. We're all about teamwork. It's all about working together as a team. So I'm curious, kind of your take on that. Why do you feel like we still have this sense of loneliness, even though we're trying to move more and more of our process towards being collaborative and team -based?
Heather (22:58)
I think we forgot to know how to connect to each other. And we can't get it all from work, but since we're looking to get so much of it from work, we need to figure it out there. I mean, how many, you know, they found these studies that, you know, you're happier at work if you have a best friend at work. It used to be that people met their spouse or partner through church work, or I can't remember the third one. Now it's mostly online. So even though we're in work, we're not. forming our social circles around work as much anymore. And it's not really, because this started long before the pandemic, so it's not just that we're working remotely and that's why our social circles aren't happening there. I think we forgot how to connect with each other. We forgot to say, how are you and mean it, instead of just waiting for fine. We forgot to have conversations that had something other than to do than what we're doing. We just forgot how to be human and have meaningful connections. And I think when you start having conversations with people about that, like I was just in Prague last month for a talk, and there was another speaker. And we connected beforehand, we sort of knew each other, and his talk was on human connection, my talk was on the future work as human, because all my talks are bespoke to the audience and what they need. And so we coordinated our two talks. And then while I was there, in his talk, he talked about how both of his parents died suddenly, within like three months of each other. And it was a really impactful part of his talk and an impactful part of the most important conversations you have in his life, in your life, et cetera. And then when I was in Prague, I got a call that said my father was dying and I had to leave. And I messaged him. And now we message each other every single day to check in with each other. It was a catalyst for a human connection you don't normally have when you share a stage with someone for five minutes. But I'm noticing more and more that people are trying to do They're trying to make more meaningful and lasting connections that are, you know, we talk about speaking, but really we talk about how are you? What are you going through? How's your breathing going today? What do you have on store for the weekend? And I've done that with a number of speakers who've become close friends. And I think more and more folks need to be, feel comfortable just reaching out and doing that and having a real connection with folks that doesn't have to do with a product that's due or a deadline or a financial goal or what have you, but has to do with. What we all want is humans, which is ultimately connection.
Brian (25:14)
Yeah, boy, I can't agree more. Well, we're getting towards the end of our time. before we wrap, one thing I wanted to ask is, we have listeners here that are leaders. We have listeners that are involved in Scrum teams. We may have some Scrum masters and product owners that are listening. And they're hearing this, probably agreeing a lot with what they're hearing from you. So my question for you then is if you were to talk to that group, if there were some advice you could give them, tips you could give them to better prepare them for the future of work, for where we're headed, what kind of advice would you give people currently working on Teams?
Heather (26:02)
I think the most important thing to figure out, and some people take a lifetime doing it, some people are born doing it, is what do you really care about? What kind of impact do you want to have on the world? How do you like to work? What kind of problems do you like to work on or find or frame? Where do you like to work in the process? Because more self -awareness you have about what really drives you, because that's really your fuel source, the better you're going to be in whatever you do. We tend to tell people, funnel people into careers based on what they're told they're good at, or more likely what they're told they're not good instead of focusing on what gives them energy. Because if we're going to have to learn and adapt, and we are, then we ought to be learning adapting around something we're intrinsically motivated to do.
Brian (26:46)
That's awesome. Yeah, I agree. It sounds very close to, you know, Simon Sinek's kind of find your why basis there of just, you know, that being so important in what drives us. So couldn't agree more. That's that's awesome. Well, I want to be respectful of your time and our listeners time. So, Heather, I can't thank you enough. Every time I hear you talk, I feel like I've taken another leap and have more stuff to go research and and study based off of it. So.
Heather (26:53)
Sure.
Brian (27:15)
Thank you so much for taking some time here to talk with us on the podcast.
Heather (27:19)
Thank you. And I just want to close with one thing because I'm a belligerent optimist. So we have some hard problems ahead of us. We've got division, we've got technology, et cetera. But we have done more in one human lifetime to improve the human condition than all of human history. We've more people out of poverty. We've almost solved literacy. We've connected the globe. It's time for us, in the words of JFK, take longer strides and do hard things. We are up to and we are more than capable of this. So I'm really optimistic about the future that's ahead of us. I think we just have to face some of our challenges. So thank you very much for having me.
Brian (27:53)
Amen, amen. All right. Thanks so much, Heather. I appreciate you coming on.
Heather (27:58)
Thanks a lot for having me. Take care.

#110: Overcoming Organizational Dysfunctions with Lucy O’Keefe

Explore the hidden barriers to successful Scrum adoption as Brian Milner and Lucy O'Keefe dive into organizational dysfunctions and cultural impediments in this insightful episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast.
Overview
In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, Brian Milner sits down with Lucy O’Keefe to unpack the organizational dysfunctions highlighted in their talk at the Scrum Gathering.
They delve into how culture can significantly hinder Scrum adoption and discuss other common impediments like resistance to change, command and control leadership, and siloed teams. Emphasizing the importance of transparency, inspection, and adaptation, Brian and Lucy offer actionable insights to help organizations overcome these challenges.
Listeners will also learn why leadership understanding and stakeholder participation are crucial for successful Agile adoption and the necessity of training in Agile values and principles for true organizational change.
References and resources mentioned in the show:
Lucy O’Keefe
Dart Frog Consulting
Path to CTC - Monthly Cohorts
#109 Leadership and Culture in DevOps with Claire Clark
Agile for Leaders
Join the Agile Mentors Community
Mountain Goat Software Certified Scrum and Agile Training Schedule
Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast
Want to get involved?
This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input.
Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one.
Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com
This episode’s presenters are:
Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work.
Lucy O'Keefe has over 28 years of IT experience and has worn multiple hats in the Agile world - developer, Product Owner, Scrum Master, and now, Certified Scrum Trainer® (CST) where she uses her experience to ensure each student has a great training experience.
Auto-generated Transcript:
Brian (00:00)
Welcome in Agile Mentors. We're back for another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I'm with you as always, Brian Milner, and we have a favorite back with us today. We have Ms. Lucy O 'Keefe with us. Welcome in Lucy.
Lucy O'Keefe (00:12)
Thank you so much, Brian. Happy to be here again.
Brian (00:14)
Very happy to have Lucy back with us. Lucy and I saw each other recently. Actually, I think it was the first time we saw each other in person, right? Yeah. We finally saw each other in person at the Scrum Gathering that took place recently in New Orleans. And I had the pleasure of getting to see Lucy's talk that she had there at the Scrum Gathering. And...
Lucy O'Keefe (00:22)
It was the first time, yep. Finally.
Brian (00:41)
She gave a talk with Joe Miller called, Scrum Unmasked, Unveiling the Dysfunctions Within Our Organizations. And I thought it would be a good opportunity to bring Lucy back and talk a little bit about this topic, because this is an important topic. And it was a packed room, it was full of people that wanted to know about this as well. So I thought it'd be a good chance for us to share this with the audience. But to start this, actually, before I even begin, I get ahead of myself. myself here a little bit. For those who maybe haven't heard Lucy on the podcast before, Lucy is a CST. She has a CTC. Her company is called Dart Frog Consulting. And she also has started recently this mentoring program with a new smally that is kind of a really interesting concept. It's a CTC mentoring cohort. So if that's something you're interested in, We'll put links into our show notes that you can get in contact with her about that. But if you're interested in pursuing certified team coach certification with the Scrum Alliance, that's a really great way to do that. You get a group of people around it and kind of go on that journey together. But let's talk about this topic. And I thought a good way to start was actually to be a little bit meta about this. I want to go behind the scenes a little bit. and think about where this topic came from, what's the genesis of where this came from and how you and Joe hooked up on this. So give us a little bit of the backstory of where this idea came from.
Lucy O'Keefe (02:20)
So to start, Joe and I have worked together. We worked at a consulting firm together. And funny enough, we actually were both speakers at a virtual conference a few years ago. He was on the panel and I was an actual speaker, but we never met. Back then we met actually when we started working in the same consulting firm. And of course I left the consulting firm a few years ago to go independent, but we just kept in touch and we always wanted to do something together. so when, when I was trying to figure out topics for the scrum gathering in New Orleans, I reached out to him and I asked if he would want to do a talk with me. A lot of times it's much easier to do it with somebody else. And I thought it would be fun because he and I see eye to eye on a lot of stuff. And I think we, we complement each other pretty well. But when we were talking about what topics we'd want to talk about, I kind of always go back to the things that I've experienced when I've been in organizations. And I think, I think a lot of us have experienced kind of something, something similar where people are going to say, scrum just doesn't work for us. Right. I actually, it was actually one of my first blogs that I wrote probably six, seven years ago was about that, about people saying, it just doesn't work for us. There, you know, it's not something that we can do. So I kind of got this idea that this is what we should be talking about. And I always go back to. Ken Trebers quote, and I said this during the talk, you may recall, you know, scrum is like your mother -in -law, it points out all your faults. So this idea that scrum is holding up this mirror, you know, to the organization is something that I always talk about. And I think it's important for scrum masters and others in organizations to understand that, no, it's not scrum that's the issue. It's that we have all this stuff that's not, going well in our organizations and we're just putting Scrum on top of it without fixing the issues, right? So we're trying to put a band -aid on what's going on in our organization instead of looking at the root cause. So I just thought that that would be a great topic to talk about.
Brian (04:27)
I love that. And I think that's a great way to look at it because you're right. It's not something that's going to fix everything, but it does make it very revealing. I remember the phrase I've always heard people use is it's not a silver bullet, it's a silver mirror. You know, like it's going to reflect back very honestly to you what's going on. Awesome. Well, that's that. Thank you for the backstory. I really appreciate that because I know a lot of people, you know, if you're listening to this, you may be considering, you know, do I want to submit and try to speak at a conference? So.
Lucy O'Keefe (04:41)
Yep.
Brian (04:57)
just to give a little background to where those kind of ideas come from. I thought that would be interesting little sideline there. So let's get into our topic. Let's talk about some of these dysfunctions because I know the main point of this was talking about organizational dysfunctions, kind of some common problem. So hit us up. Give us a few of these big organizational dysfunctions that you guys talked about.
Lucy O'Keefe (05:22)
So I think the main one and one that's probably going to resonate with a lot of people is culture. For me, culture is always the biggest issue. People are the biggest issue, right? You know, as you know, you probably remember this, right? In the previous Scrum guide, it would say, Scrum is simple to understand, but difficult to master, right? Or difficult to implement because it involves people. So culture is the biggest issue and culture encompasses... quite a few things, right? It could be resistance to change within an organization. It could be a lack of empowerment. It could be command and control, which I'm sure you've seen in plenty of organizations. I've seen plenty of organizations, even though we know that we are hiring the best people, a lot of leaders or managers actually I'll call them, you know, still want to be in control, still want to be the people telling people what to do. And it's very hard to go to... to a way of working where it's like, okay, I need to remove myself from the equation and trust that these people are gonna do what they should be doing. So I think culture encompasses a lot of the other things that we talk about when we're talking about organizational impediments. Another thing is organizational structure. Are we highly hierarchical? Are we a matrixed organization? Do we still have these silo teams, right? That work on just specific skills? And I'm sure you've seen this. I'm sure you've worked in waterfall just like I have in the past, right? You have your business analysts on one side. You have your designers on another side and then your developers and then your testers, right? And they're all reporting into a business analyst or tester or developer or anything like that. So there is no cohesive team that has one. focus or one objective. You know, we're matric, you know, getting these people out of that matrix and putting them into a team. But they're all just interested in their own thing, right? It's a very siloed way of working. So it's very hard to make that transition into, okay, we are a product team and we work together. And we have to be dedicated and stable. Because we're not used to seeing that in a lot of organizations, people are not dedicated to teams. And we're talking about waterfall. I have barely seen any of that. I used to have a team where, and there was already a scrum team, but we had three BAs on the team and they were each 33%. And that's something that is very normal. And even when I'm teaching my classes and I'm sure you have the same questions or comments, a lot of people are like, well, this is very hard for us because we have John Doe here who, you know, he's in five different teams. How is he going to go to all these events? So that's definitely another organizational impediment, which for me kind of goes back to culture as well. Right? So those things are big things. Leadership not understanding. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, no, go ahead.
Brian (08:10)
Yes. Yeah. I was thinking, I was thinking, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I was just, I was thinking the same thing that when you said that, that just, yeah, it is very, the hierarchy of the organization is very cultural. And if you, you know, if we're, we're trying to empower teams and instill in them this idea that, Hey, you need to, in order to move fast, you've got to have autonomy and you've got to have the ability to go and make decisions. that's, that's very. much ingrained in how we structure our organization. If I have to get approval for everything I do, that's going to run counter to what we're trying to do in a Scrum environment. So I love that you made that connection. I absolutely agree with you. It's a very cultural thing.
Lucy O'Keefe (08:59)
It is, it is. Yeah. And as I said before, I think a lot of the impediments we see go back to culture, leadership, understanding leadership participation, a lot of organizations when they're thinking about agile, they're thinking about scrum. It's like, okay, the teams need to do that. All right. Let's, let's start in IT and our IT teams are going to start doing scrum and who cares about the rest of the organization. We're going to keep thinking the way that, that we've always been thinking. We're going to keep budgeting the way we've always budgeted. And then we have. We have a lot more resistance, a lot more conflict because we have a team that's trying to work in a certain way. And then you have stakeholders and leadership that are expecting things to be the way that they always were. So stakeholder participation, for example, you know, a lot of stakeholders are going to be like, well, I already told you what I want. Why are you coming to me every two weeks or, you know, however long our sprints are, you know, for to get feedback. You know what I want. I shouldn't have to talk to you about it. Right. So there's that lack of understanding of what's in it for them. So back to culture again, right, understanding that this is a whole cultural shift. It's not just a team shift. So leadership needs to understand that. And of course, as you know, you know, we have, you know, certified agile leadership programs that I'm trying not trying to do a plug here for those classes. I don't even teach them. But.
Brian (10:03)
Yeah. Ha ha ha.
Lucy O'Keefe (10:22)
it's so important that leadership understands what it means to be an agile organization and what it means to lead in an agile organization. And I think when they do that, when they're able to get that understanding, it's going to make it a lot easier for everybody to succeed. So once again, that is another big impediment that I've seen is the lack of leadership and stakeholder understanding.
Brian (10:46)
Yeah, absolutely agree. I mean, it's almost like the concept seems to be more, like you said, we'll start from the team and build up when really it should be more of a from a top down or even not even kind of whole, right. Right, it's kind of, it's a whole organization thing. And if we try to compartmentalize it and say, no, we're just gonna do this group.
Lucy O'Keefe (10:57)
up and down. Or even from both extremes and meet in the middle. Right? Yeah.
Brian (11:13)
then we're already kind of setting ourselves up to fail a little bit because I can't change the culture of just one segment of my organization. If I do that and they have a different culture than the rest of the organization, then we have cultures at odds with each other and they're set to fail. The more dominant one's gonna overtake the lesser one, which is usually gonna be the scrum side of things. So yeah, I completely agree. Yeah, yeah, frustration.
Lucy O'Keefe (11:37)
Exactly. Yeah. And it causes a lot of frustration. Yeah. It causes a lot of frustration for the team. Right. So I was actually at a, I was contracting at an agricultural manufacturing company. I may have brought this up before, but like the, the stakeholders didn't understand why they had to come to sprint and review, why, why they had to talk to the product owner instead of just talking to the engineers themselves. And it wasn't until I had. the lunch and learn with the stakeholders and help them understand what's in it for them because that's what's so important. How am I going to, how is it going to improve things for me if I abide by what you're trying to do? It wasn't until we did that, that they were like, I understand now why I need to talk to the product owner. I understand now why I shouldn't be dealing with the developers or the engineers themselves. I understand now why my feedback's needed. Yeah, it's great that now I have a say in the process. I have a say in the outcome. So it's not like people are trying to just be difficult. They just don't know any better, which brings us to one of the other organizational impediments, which is lack of training and understanding. Cause we can't just train the team. We have to, yeah, I mean, we don't have to train everyone in, you know, a CSM or anything like that. That's, that's not it. Right. But they need to understand the basics of how, how agile works. What are the values? What are the principles? What, what are the benefits of working in this manner? Right. It's, it's not about doing the thing, but it's how is this going to impact who is and how, how are things going to be better after you start working this way?
Brian (12:52)
Yeah. I've had a lot of conversations about this in the CSM class of just talking to different people and saying, you look at these agile manifesto values and principles and if we can't get an alignment on these things, right? If we can't look at these things and say, yeah, I agree. My philosophy is one of that's responding to change over following a plan. I believe that you should be more. able to respond to change, then you should be about following a plan. That's a fundamental kind of core value. And if my organization or if leaders in my organization, that's kind of the key here, right? If the leaders in the organization think, no, no, no, it's about following the plan. We have to establish this amazing plan and then follow the plan. Well, it doesn't really matter what we do at the team level because... somewhere up the chain of command, we're going to have to have that perfect plan that we try to execute on and the leadership is driving that. So we have a mismatch on just our core kind of understanding.
Lucy O'Keefe (14:26)
Exactly, exactly. So when I go into a new organization, one of the first things I do during my assessment phase, I actually go through every single one of the values and principles with leadership and with the teams. And I ask, which one of these are you doing well? And then we talk about that it's the minority usually. And then it's like, okay, what do we need to do to ensure that we are responding to change or following a plan or that we are... you know, focusing on working software instead of measuring something different. So we go through every single one of those because, as you said, that's where the value is. Understanding those values and principles, it's not about doing scrum, kanban, whatever it is. But if we are following those values and principles, then that's when we're truly going to be algebra and that's when we're going to see the benefits of working in this manner. It's not about the practice, but it's about your beliefs as an organization.
Brian (15:24)
Yeah, yeah, there's no practice that we're gonna put in place that's gonna solve it all, right? I mean, there's practices that can assist and help us, but the practice isn't the cure, right? The practice is just something that can assist. It's like having crutches, you know? The crutches aren't gonna heal you.
Lucy O'Keefe (15:30)
Not at all. A way to get there. Yeah. Exactly. Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The practice just a vehicle, but you have to do the work to get there for sure.
Brian (15:51)
Yeah, that's a great point.
Lucy O'Keefe (15:53)
Yeah, so I think those were the main ones that we talked about there. You know, of course, we only had an hour, so it wasn't, there wasn't a lot of time to talk about every single one. But I think that, you know, and you were there, of course, but a lot of people came up with their own impediments that they were seeing in their organizations. And I think a lot of them aligned to what we had to say as well, because I think it is pretty standard in organizations that are just starting out.
Brian (16:02)
Sure. Yeah.
Lucy O'Keefe (16:22)
that you are seeing a lot. I mean, not just starting out actually. I mean, I've seen an organization that they say they've been agile for years and they still have a lot of these issues. So it's pretty clear that the culture again is the biggest issue with being able to adopt Scrum correctly or adopt an agile way of working correctly.
Brian (16:43)
Yeah, and I think you hit the nail on the head with the fact that it's just, there's not the time always spent to try to get to the root cause. We're a culture of quick fixes. We want to find something that's going to put in place and take this pill, do whatever, and then it's just going to be solved and everything's going to be fine. But you know, it... For instance, we've used this analogy quite often, the idea of weight loss. There are things that can assist you with that. There are things that can give you help along the way, but there's not a silver bullet to do that other than changing the way that your lifestyle is. You have to change. And please, anyone who's listening, don't think I'm saying this because I have this perfect, because I don't. I'm very bad at this. But I know that the way that I change You know, my overall health is by changing the lifestyle, changing what I eat, changing, you know, my exercise patterns. And that's hard work. It's hard to change that kind of core value in my life, but that's what actually makes the impact. The other things are dressing around it. Right.
Lucy O'Keefe (17:58)
Yeah, that's what's gonna make you change. Exactly. I mean, think about people who go for, and just staying with the same topic, right? For some bariatric surgery, right? So a lot of times, like the doctor will say, I used to watch my 600 pound life, don't judge me, a little bit, just because it's kind of, it's interesting. And yeah, I mean, they'd have to lose weight before they had the surgery.
Brian (18:06)
Yeah, yeah. Hahaha.
Lucy O'Keefe (18:25)
And the majority of people after they had the surgery and kind of lost weight, they just went back and balloon back up because they didn't change their lifestyle. So as you said, yeah, it's great that these band -aids exist, but if you're not going to do the work yourself, then it's really not going to work. So what is the root cause in this case, right? We're eating badly and we're not exercising. So that's what we need to change and not just, you know, take a pill or do a fad diet or get a surgery that... It's not gonna work if we don't change our ways.
Brian (18:55)
Right, and just for the listeners too, I mean, Lucy and I are not medical professionals in any way. So, you know, we do not mean in any way to try to belittle, you know, treatments and therapies that people use for legitimate purposes and all that stuff. Please understand, right? Gotta make that disclaimer. But I think you're right. You know, like I know in my life, there's been times when I thought, there's some diet supplement or there's something else that, you know, is gonna...
Lucy O'Keefe (19:01)
No. No, no, no.
Brian (19:25)
be the thing that really cures this and changes it. But what I've experienced time after time is, no, you really just got to do the hard work. You got to go to the gym and you got to get up and you got to change what you eat and that kind of stuff. And that's what really makes the impact. Well, the same thing here with our organizations. There are practices and the things we can put in place. And there's always hot ones that will be the hot one of the day. I remember when DevOps was kind of the... And we just talked about DevOps in our last episode. It is an important thing. It is a very important thing, and it can give you a lot of boost. But it's a set of practices. And our last guest, when we talked about this, talked about how it's really more of a mindset. It really is more about how we have to change the way we see things. So even there, when we approach things like DevOps, yes, there are practices, there are tools we can put in place. But if we don't change kind of our approach to how we do things, then it won't matter. It's just another thing that we have to learn and put into the workflow.
Lucy O'Keefe (20:32)
Yeah, yeah, exactly. I mean, you know, the definition of insanity, right? Doing the same thing over and over and over again and getting the same results because that's what happens if you just keep putting band -aids on things, you're going to end up, you know, encountering the same issues over and over again. So if we don't have that mindset that we are going to make the change and the foundational change to ensure that everything works out, then, you know, then it's we're going to keep having the same issues and we're going to keep hearing this crime just doesn't work for us. Right.
Brian (20:37)
Ha ha ha.
Lucy O'Keefe (21:02)
So, yeah.
Brian (21:04)
There's something that also comes up in classes sometimes that I think one of the things that I found is that getting back to that transparency inspection adaptation, that if we as an organization really value that process and value the idea that, hey, we're going to be transparent about how we do things. We're going to not just ignore when there's a problem, but we're going to inspect it and get to the root cause. And then we're going to find a new way of doing things. that we can just latch onto that. That's a huge cultural change, right? And just kind of buying into those concepts. And what I found is in a lot of instances, I talked about this in the ACSM, a lot of instances, you can directly relate it back to a lack of one of those three things. Are we not being transparent? Are we not actually inspecting? Are we not actually adapting?
Lucy O'Keefe (21:57)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, those three pillars are definitely important. And I think that they're the foundation of what we are trying to do. And you're right, if we're not being transparent, inspecting and adapting, then we're not being agile, first of all, but that's something that needs to exist throughout the organization, not just within our work, within our teams, but are we being transparent in our relationships? Are we inspecting and adapting how we are dealing with our employees? Are we inspecting and adapting how we are budgeting? I mean, everything, right? We need to be... using that empiricism on a daily basis to ensure that we are headed in that direction. And if we do that, as you just said, the culture will shift organically when we're employing those three pillars, for sure.
Brian (22:42)
Yeah, absolutely agree. Well, let's, I want to meta this a little bit more here at the end, because I want to know kind of how it, how the fallout from this happened. So, so you, you have this idea, you work with Joe, you, you come up with this topic, you go, you present this. What kind of a follow -up did you get from this? Did you get a lot of good questions from people afterwards? How did the talk go? What did you, what, what, what kind of learnings did you take away from it after you gave the talk?
Lucy O'Keefe (22:47)
Yep. So I think it was received very well. There were quite a few people that came up to us afterwards and started asking questions to the point that I was actually late to a meeting after that. But anyway, I've had quite a few people reach out to me on LinkedIn, you know, talking about, we really loved your topic. And I actually, I got my reviews from it. And I think a lot of people appreciated that we had action items at the end.
Brian (23:22)
Hahaha.
Lucy O'Keefe (23:38)
So for those of you who are listening, we actually had an action plan where people could create an action plan on how they are going to start dealing with the organizational impediments in their organization. So a few people appreciated that. So it was pretty good, you know, pretty good feedback, I think, that we got from that. I would have loved for it to have been a little longer, so we could have gone a little deeper because it is, there is a lot that we can unpack. when we're talking about organizational impediments, one hour just isn't enough time for that, especially when you're trying to make it a more engaging session and not just talking at people. But I think if I had to do this again, I would probably try to do a little less and maybe go a little deeper instead of trying to talk about maybe so many things and barely touching the surface. But I think it was...
Brian (24:28)
Yeah.
Lucy O'Keefe (24:36)
I think it was pretty good. I know you're there, so you let me know.
Brian (24:38)
It was great. Yeah, no, it was great. And so, yeah, I hope you're encouraged by that. But yeah, it was a great talk. And like I said, I heard a lot of good comments from people afterwards. And I think that's pretty natural for us as speakers to kind of rethink afterward and say, maybe I could have done this a little bit different or I could have done this a different way. But, you know, it's tough. Like you said, you've got an hour. And within that hour, you're trying to work in some... interactivity, so it's not just you talking the whole time and you're trying to keep the group engaged. But then you get a lot of information and you just, I got to share all this stuff and I only have an hour to do it. Especially, as CSTs, we're used to talking for two days at a time. So, yeah, an hour is like, you know.
Lucy O'Keefe (25:26)
Exactly. So an hour is nothing. Yeah. Yeah.
Brian (25:32)
the break or something, but yeah, you're not used to trying to fit all that information down into a one hour stretch.
Lucy O'Keefe (25:40)
Yeah, and for me it's like I love answering questions. Like if I could do a talk and then do an hour of just answering questions, I think I'd be like really, really happy because I mean, even when I've, you know, taught with Mountain Goat and all that, you know, being able to answer questions at the end of class, that's like my favorite and I do that in my classes as well. So not being able to give time to actually answer, you know,
Brian (25:47)
Yeah.
Lucy O'Keefe (26:04)
questions from the people who are having the issues for me was very difficult not being able to do that because that's something that I enjoy. And, you know, but at the end of the day, I do love speaking. You know, I just, it's one of my passions now, which is kind of funny because I used to be really introverted. But yeah, I think, I know it was a really good experience. It was my first time speaking at the Scrum Gallery. I've spoken at smaller conferences before, but that was my first big one. So it was, it was great.
Brian (26:19)
Ha ha. Awesome.
Lucy O'Keefe (26:34)
I hope I'm able to do it again.
Brian (26:36)
Awesome. Well, it was great. It was a great talk. And I appreciate you coming on and sharing this information with us, because not everyone can come to the Scrum Gathering. And that's one of the reasons why we try to have some people come on that do speak at it, so we can share some of that information in these small little podcast windows. So. Well, Lucy, thank you again for coming on. I appreciate you sharing your talk with us and kind of the behind the scenes of it. And hopefully we can have you on again soon.
Lucy O'Keefe (27:11)
Thank you, Brian.

#109: Leadership and Culture in DevOps with Claire Clark

Join Brian as he chats with DevOps expert Claire Clark about the cultural and mindset shifts needed for successful DevOps adoption, the concept of 'shift left,' and the crucial role of leadership support.
Overview
In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, Brian and Claire Clark, founder of Sienso, winner of the The Great British Business Woman Award, and freelance software development executive, delve into the world of DevOps.
Claire explains that DevOps is far more than just tools and processes—it's about fostering the right mindset and cultural shifts within the team. They discuss the 'shift left' approach, emphasizing the importance of considering end stages of software development early on.
Claire highlights the critical role of leadership in supporting DevOps principles and aligning team goals. She also shares strategies for measuring success through a maturity matrix and underscores the importance of continuous improvement. This conversation provides a holistic view of DevOps, integrating both technical and cultural aspects.
References and resources mentioned in the show:
Claire Clark
Sienso
#108 Adaptive Organizations with Ken Rickard
Mountain Goat Software’s Working on a Scrum Team
Join the Agile Mentors Community
Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast
Want to get involved?
This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input.
Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one.
Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com
This episode’s presenters are:
Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work.
Claire Clark is a multi-award-winning transformational leader and Chartered Engineer with over 20 years of experience in Software Engineering. Specializing in leading high-performing teams, Agile transformation, and DevOps, Claire has successfully managed complex projects across various industries, including cybersecurity, logistics, and financial services.
Auto-generated Transcript:
Brian (00:00)
Welcome in Agile Mentors. We are back for another episode of the Agile Mentors podcast. And today we have a very special guest with us, someone I've been trying to get on for a while. We have Ms. Claire Clark with us. Welcome in, Claire. Glad you're here. Claire has been in our world for a while here at Mountain Goat. And she's had lots of interactions with us and Mike and over the years.
Claire Clark (00:13)
Hi, hi, good to meet you.
Brian (00:29)
And just for people who aren't familiar with Claire and her work, she is, I guess the best way to describe it is kind of a freelance software development executive. She kind of comes in in high level, kind of more temporary positions, would you say, Claire? Okay. Yeah, kind of coming in on the spot positions to help get people over the hump and get them situated and set up the way they need to be from an executive level.
Claire Clark (00:44)
Yeah. Yeah.
Brian (00:56)
Her company is called Cienso and she's won numerous awards over the years, but most recently she had a really huge honor. She was the winner in the engineering category of the Great British Businesswoman Awards. So first of all, congratulations on that. That's awesome. And the reason that we wanted to have Claire on was...
Claire Clark (01:15)
Thank you.
Brian (01:22)
just to share a little bit of her knowledge with us, and particularly the area of DevOps. She's done a lot of work with teams and building the teams. And we've had some really interesting discussions offline about this area. So let's start and just set the table a little bit here, Claire, for everyone. When we're talking about DevOps, first of all, let's just kind of explain what that means for people who aren't familiar with it.
Claire Clark (01:47)
Yeah. So I tend to describe it as it's a way that teams collaborate for the continuous delivery of a product from end to end, to get the value of the product to a customer. So it, it's not a specific process, a specific tool. It's a little bit around the mindset and approach to things. And how you get that continuous development and delivery of a software product, for example, to a customer. So yeah, I think people often tend to see it as possibly it's a tool thing or it's a process thing. And it's not quite that, it's all elements of that and a mindset side of it as well.
Brian (02:42)
Awesome. Yeah. That was the thing that I found really interesting in our conversation. And some of the things I've seen you write about this online, it's just the concept here that DevOps is really kind of a mindset. It's kind of a cultural thing. It's kind of culture first. And a lot of times we think of this as a set of practices. So let's get into that a little bit. How does the adoption of DevOps kind of change the culture?
Claire Clark (03:03)
Yeah.
Brian (03:11)
in an organization.
Claire Clark (03:12)
Yeah, I think in terms of changing the culture, it taps quite a lot into the agile side of culture, I guess, in that it promotes that collaboration and the continuous delivery of an integration of software, of a software product to a customer. So what I found is that, for example, with agile, That brought together a big collaboration with development and test and your product function. And then the DevOps kind of movement, I'll call it, sort of come to life a bit more. And that's where it then changed the culture again in terms of extending, I guess, the kind of agile side of things, but embedding the continuous integration and delivery into what the software engineering team does. So the operational aspects of the software. become more forefront into the, into like the team's thinking. They become like shift left. Do you think about this earlier? How are you going to maintain and deploy systems and how are they going to integrate? And I think that's where it's really shifted the culture quite a lot where instead of it being the, you know, we create, create the software and now there's an operational aspect of how we then deploy and integrate some of the dev op development and test aspects. into that. So I feel like it's really got into the mind, a lot of people's minds that we need to think of the full end to end when we're talking about building and delivering a product. It's everything and it's how you can make that pipeline that chain through that development team more of a continuous approach. So teams that have succeeded with Agile tend to be able to approach. embedding that DevOps mindset that bit more because there's a lot of overlap between some of the principles and the mindset needed between the two. So.
Brian (05:16)
Yeah, no, I absolutely agree. And you mentioned a term there that I've always loved in the DevOps community. And just in case people there aren't familiar with it, when you talk about shift left, what does that mean to you? What do you mean by shift left?
Claire Clark (05:32)
So for me, it means if you took a typical software development lifecycle and there's requirements, development and test and so on, it's very sequential and it typically follows the order. And what the mindset brings with DevOps and shift left, and you see this a lot with testing the term shift left is think about the latter stages up front. So the more you can think about some of those end, stages of software development and deployment and integration to customer systems, the more you think about them upfront, the more you start to design the way of working in what you're doing through agile and your continuous approaches, you start to embed that earlier. So it becomes a thought right at the front instead of being an add -on at the end. So shift left in essence being... what normally you would have done in a sequential manner and ends up far down the chain, you start trying to identify how could we do, how could we bring this earlier? What, you know, you start thinking about earlier, start looking at the practices and tooling and all those processes that people are doing in the software team. You start then to identify that can change the test, your test and your design. That can change then what you've. product functionality and non -functional requirements need to be. It's always about making sure that them later stages, what traditionally were later, are thought about upfront at the start, designed, planned in, and continuous efforts all the way along the software development lifecycle to embed them. So it becomes an easier stream from end to end and more automated and more, I guess, more constant flow through the system. So yeah, shift left is think about the end at the start as much as you can.
Brian (07:37)
I love that. Think about the end of the start. Yeah, that's a great way to phrase it. I love that. So when you we've talked about kind of the mindset behind this, the culture behind it. So when you when you come in and work with a new group, do you start with kind of a more culture approach and work on mindset first or you kind of go right into practices and let it kind of flow along the way? How do you approach that kind of shift when you start to work with a new New team.
Claire Clark (08:07)
Yeah, it's interesting because it's the balance because when you're introducing any of these practices, it means typically it would mean there's some form of change for a team and change itself is difficult for people to go through at times. And in terms of embedding some of the success of the frameworks and the processes, you can only really succeed if people are coming at that with the right mindset. because otherwise you can get people who say, I don't want to change. I don't understand why I need to change. So you can explain the kind of value in why to do some of these things. But fundamentally, what underpins that in all of this is a mindset. And in Agile, I've talked before on some presentations about how important an Agile mindset is. So being able to sort of... accept that, you know, change will happen, you know, change is the only constant that happens and the more that people can start to understand, I guess, appreciate that and then come up a new thing, a new challenge, start coming at that with how can I make that work and it's then subtleties that if you don't challenge the two together,
Brian (09:11)
Right.
Claire Clark (09:34)
you won't succeed in getting the benefits from Agile and DevOps. You could have the best processes in the world, but if the mindset's not there, you're never going to reap the benefits of what you're trying to achieve. So I try to work with teams on both fronts at the same time, because like I say, you can have the right mindset, but they might not understand the process or the right process. If the mindset's not there, the implementation won't come to fruition.
Brian (10:02)
Yeah, we actually just had another episode that was, I think it was our last episode actually, looking at the order of this. But when we were talking, we were talking with Ken Ricard about the overlap between change groups and the lean change overlapping with Agile and how really that ability to shift and adjust and change is really at the central core of it. What other kind of key cultural shifts do you feel like are necessary when a group starts to adopt DevOps practices that they really need to get a handle on?
Claire Clark (10:43)
Yeah, I found that some teams really struggle with the concept of the shift left side of it. So it tends to be, we've always done it this way. And because it's become second nature to do certain aspects, you know, certain aspects of the software delivery and development in a certain manner, that trying to open up people's minds to say there is another way and it's different.
Brian (10:52)
Yeah.
Claire Clark (11:13)
And it will feel different, but you've got to be open to trying that. And here's why. So I think the cultural side of it is I still see at times some teams that are really focused on DevOps tooling. And it's, I think the mind set shift, the cultural shift is it's not, that's a part of it. Part of DevOps is the tooling you have to do that. And same as when people struggled on the agile journey initially is, you know, thinking agile was, you know, user stories and Jira and yeah, Jira and things like that. And that's, that's a tool that facilitates you to work in that way. But having a tool like that, a Camman board it or so on, doesn't make you agile. And it is that.
Brian (11:50)
Sure. Right. Right.
Claire Clark (12:08)
It's that same thing with DevOps. There's some brilliant tools out there now and we are getting that shift left approach and using them tools to integrate at different stages of the software development more of the operational aspects and getting that continuous integration. But I think with Agile, people, a lot of teams have gone over time now and through the great work like what Mike does, helping people understand how to. to really come on board and get the best out of an agile way of working. It feels like with DevOps, we're in a similar spot where some people have really got it. They get that mindset, they live and breathe the kind of DevOps side of it. But there are still a lot of teams that you come across and DevOps is still a tool. It's still a thing. And maybe they get that tool in place and hey, presto, we're DevOps. And it's like... Some of the subtleties that you don't see, it's not in a process, it's not in a tool. That behavior and that mindset is what I think there's still a bit more of a journey to go on across the industry with that DevOps side of it. It just feels so similar to when Agile sort of come out and the challenges people were facing there and what we believed Agile is and what Agile really is.
Brian (13:29)
Yeah, that's a great analogy. I love thinking about it that way. I mean, it's like if you have a boat that's in a garage, you can get in the boat, you can turn it on, you've got a fantastic tool, but if you don't ever put it in the water, it's not going to really live up to its purpose. And that's kind of the way people, I think, sometimes look at some of these tools is, well, we got the tool, so we're sailors now, right? We can... We know how to drive our boat because we have a boat. No, you got to put it in the water, right? You got to actually know where to use it.
Claire Clark (14:01)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. One example I always think of is it's a bit like having a scenario where there's a driver and there's a really fancy, you know, car, but it's got no engine. So you can have all of these elements and you could say, I'm a racing car driver, I've got this really fancy car.
Brian (14:18)
Mmm.
Claire Clark (14:25)
It looks great and you know, it's got all the features on it and all of the buttons you can press, but, but underneath the core of that is the engine. And I liken it to like with Agile and DevOps, the core underneath this is the mindset. And it's that, it's that hearts and minds of the principles behind DevOps principles behind Agile that if people buy into that, the rest is a bit easier to implement. But often people can have tooling shoved at them or a nice fancy car in that scenario. But it doesn't come with the fundamental, the heartbeat, so to speak, inside that really embraces the principles behind some of these things. And it's that where the cultural side comes in that people really do not just read the words and say collaboration. They act it. They do it. They...
Brian (14:54)
Yeah.
Claire Clark (15:21)
you see them behaviors and I think sometimes with Agile and DevOps some of the principles or the value that you get out of them once people describe them they love it, they say it sounds great yeah we should do at DevOps we should do Agile but if they're missing that connection to the heart underneath the value is the principles. even if they sound great, if they don't exhibit the behaviors, that will affect the culture. And you often can see that in teams where, you know, the quote processes, quote tools, but then the behaviors are almost opposite to some of the values that underpin agile and underpin DevOps. And then, yeah, for me, I would say you've got to try to tackle both together.
Brian (16:08)
Yeah.
Claire Clark (16:13)
And you just won't really get the success and the team won't enjoy it. Yeah.
Brian (16:19)
Yeah. So I think one of the things I've seen too, when people implement DevOps is they kind of miss, it seems like they miss the heart of it, the point. If you had to sum it up, what would you say is the purpose? Why do we need DevOps? What is the purpose that the DevOps, a good DevOps team, what's really their driving purpose?
Claire Clark (16:29)
Yeah. You see it work really well with teams, the successful teams, when their focus is about continuous integration and delivery of functionality to customers as quick as they can, not, but without, you know, still with the quality and the stabilization. But they, they focus quite a lot on that optimizing that, you know, how soon can we break something down, prove it, test it. And get that out to the customer so the customer can realize the value. So for me in the, in the DevOps, it's where the teams really focused on making that, that channel of that functionality is seamless as possible and making it as efficient as possible so that, you know, it is from end to end, create the product and it's good to go as soon as possible. So. It's less about when you hear people talk about tooling. It's more when you hear them, the thinking shines through in what they're saying. In how can we get that sooner? How can we, how can we use the principles to get value to customers and prove what we're doing is right along the way.
Brian (18:05)
Yeah, and it overlaps perfectly with what we're trying to do in Agile with delivering value. And I love that kind of marriage that it seems to have there. How about from a leader's standpoint, what is important for leaders to understand? How can leaders better support DevOps in their organizations?
Claire Clark (18:28)
found that from a leadership perspective, and I've supported teams on this, is being open about how different it might feel and how different that might be in terms of where we're working. And having an initial discussion to check with people, their understanding of what DevOps is before you start going on that journey. So one exercise I did once was, just simply to ask everybody in the room before we started going on that kind of DevOps journey. What is DevOps? What do you believe it is? And the responses in one team alone was incredibly different. How they described it, someone said, it's someone's job over there. It's to do with, it's like that way. And then, yeah, described it as it.
Brian (19:18)
It's Jenkins.
Claire Clark (19:24)
It's nothing to do with me. I'm software engineer or I'm tester. It's more business and support type things. And I think doing that exercise at the start was really good to sort of understand and appreciate where we're actually starting on that journey and where even misconceptions have come in or where people have not had the opportunity to somebody to share and explain to them what. What in essence is DevOps? And, you know, same response again, a lot of names of toolings come up and, you know, there's this tool, this tool, this tool. And so with Agile, I tend to talk about things like there's the principles, the values, frameworks, and, you know, when we started to describe DevOps in a similar way to the team, they were able to relate that to that structure that you get with Agile. where I was saying, in essence, there's some principles behind this. There's some aims, some aspirations, some goals that we're going for. Just put the tooling aside for the moment. We can change the tools, whatever tool we want, but if we just focus on that. So I've sent her a lot of the discussion around that initially. And from there, that's when as a leader, you can start to then move on to some of the processing tooling. But I think you've got to really listen to the team. understand the challenges they've got in how they work now and what would it mean on a change management perspective to migrate to that kind of more DevOps way of working. So you've got to listen to your team. You've got to understand the products at hand that you're working with and support the team as much as you can on that, both from process tooling, but on that mindset. because of us, if you don't, what you end up with is a lot of friction in a team and a lot of friction against the thing like DevOps and pretty much what I think you saw in the industry when a lot of organizations moved from waterfall to agile. There was some people who, you know, they read about it. They loved it. They're on the journey. Let's try it. Let's go. I get it. And then there was some people where they just had that struggle that, that.
Brian (21:26)
Yeah.
Claire Clark (21:48)
What do you mean? So if I'm in traditional way of working, how does that translate to the new way? And you've got to take that time as a leader to allow people to have that open debate around it and support one another to really understand that fundamental side of it. And I think often a lot of organizations hear about DevOps or hear about Agile. And within a couple of months, that's it. The one agile in DevOps in get all the benefits. It sounds great. But as a leader of a software team where you're trying to introduce that you have to appreciate that every team's journey is different and approach it as needed. And that it might not be a quick five minute. If it definitely isn't to turn that around. And, and you can start getting some of the benefits incrementally along the way. I was like agile, I would say. And eventually you'll get the full benefits that people buy into when they hear about these amazing ways of working that will bring them so much better opportunity.
Brian (22:59)
Yeah, I think it's such a great point too, because like you said, if you have a misconception about what this is and what our purpose is, where our point is, we talk about individuals and interactions over processes and tools, and we look at that and we actually dissect it and start to think about it as an organization and decide, you know what? No, we really are more process than tools over individuals and interactions, then that's going to be a problem.
Claire Clark (23:26)
Yeah. Yeah.
Brian (23:28)
You know, that's gonna be, we're not gonna be successful because we don't have that cultural value that underpins kind of why we're doing things the way we are.
Claire Clark (23:40)
Yeah. Yeah. And, and exactly that, when you say about the, the interactions and then behaviors and so on in, in a team and then over, you know, processes and tools, it's, it's often that side of it. What in some organizations is the afterthought and you know, the tooling space, just get this tool and it'll help us with this. Then get the process on the tool so we can get the benefit from the tool. And then afterwards it's, let's help the people who are not on the journey with this, are struggling with the journey and so on. And, and I tend to think it's, focus on, on what their understanding is, the alignment, get that shared understanding. like what we do through our job as working, get the shared understanding. And then once you've got that alignment as to what it actually means in principle and. everybody can feels they can understand and appreciate that. That to me is where all the other aspects just become easier. But naturally it tends to be focused the other way around on get the benefit. We need to get the tool, we need to then get a process for the tool and then let's work out where everyone's happy or not.
Brian (25:01)
Right. So you've done these kind of transformations in multiple places. How have you traditionally tried to measure success? How do you know where you are in your journey of this DevOps transformation and what are you aiming for as a successful endpoint?
Claire Clark (25:20)
Yes, I often, I sort of built, maturity matrix on a lot of these things. So from agile and DevOps, and in there, I cover that human side of it. There'll be heavy side. And from a maturity perspective, I kind of benchmark it at the basics and then eventually it gets more mature and eventually it becomes self kind of, I guess, running and organizing and. There's certain behaviors and process, maturity that you expect to see at each kind of stage of that journey. So you might start off at the beginning, it's chaotic, there's that misalignment on what everyone thinks this is. and you know, you build on that over time and you just keep rechecking on that maturity kind of this and that score. Where are we at across all of those different things? And it's quite easy then to assess and say, was, was, was, we're getting better, but we're not a kind of self sufficient, systems running. Everything's quite independent kind of model. And then obviously you get to the point of utopia where it's smooth, it's running. We're constantly looking at how we can improve this. and we take action, self -action to do that. So I tend to like look across the horizon of agile and DevOps and team culture. and behaviors. And at that, that's where I kind of understand then what level we are at the moment, where, which areas in particular do we need the most support? And that then kind of shapes how I approach things with that team, the speed at which you maybe then try and bring some of that change in. But importantly, what actions I need to do to, to support that team on that journey of maturity. And like I said, each team different and some it's easier to move up through that maturity across all those pieces than it is for others. But you've just got constantly like with Agile and DevOps looking at how can you improve what you're doing now? And it is a journey you can always improve. And to get there, you've got to have that goal. You've got to have something to aim for. What does good look like? and have that as a common goal across the team. So we know what the North Star is, we know what we're aiming for, we know that, you know, we really, really are agile, really are doing boxing, getting benefits out of this. And then really be honest about where you are as a team and then work with that team to support them on listening to if they've got ideas and perhaps, and best practices in there that they've maybe done somewhere else before they want to apply. But... For me as a leader, the biggest thing I can do is all those learnings that I've got from all the different experiences is to bring that to that team, share that and say, I've seen an example like this before. This is what we've tried. How would we want to try that here? Because along my journey to success and like you said earlier, winning these awards and so on, it... It's been a challenge, you know, without doubt it's, it's, it's software development can be difficult. Developing teams and bringing changes into business is not easy. And along the way I've learned, you know, some really good practices. And I think as a leader, you've got to really be able to come in, appreciate the team and the scenario that you're in and work out the best path forward. And every path of every organization is different. but you can use your experience to work out how to navigate through that journey. I think the key thing to do as a leader is to appreciate that every team, every organization you work with has a different journey. But what you have learned along the way as a leader is where the wrong turns are, where you can get the most efficiency, where common problems are, but importantly, how you've managed to overcome them. How... You know, learning that is difficult, but using that and having that appreciation with the team to impart your experience and share that with them. Listen to them. And the biggest thing I ever says, I'm on this journey with you. I'm not here to do this journey at you. I'm here to help you on that journey. I can show you what a kind of good Northstar looks like, but I'm in this with you. I will support. We're in this together.
Brian (29:52)
Yeah.
Claire Clark (30:05)
And as a leader, I'll do what I can to help you on that journey with the experience I've got. I'll make it as easy as, as it can be. And so, yeah, I think that that's the key thing that I've kind of led from, I guess, in my leadership side of things is it's not you come into an organization and take them on an agile journey, take them on a DevOps journey. You're going on that journey with them.
Brian (30:32)
I love that. Yeah, that's a great point. That's such a great leadership point. Well, Claire, I can't thank you enough. This has been so eye opening and there's so much great information here. And easily could go on for another hour talking about this stuff. But thank you for taking your time and sharing your wisdom with us and with the group here at Agile Mentors.
Claire Clark (30:55)
Thank you. Thank you so much for having me on the podcast. Yeah, I've really enjoyed it.

#108: Adaptive Organizations with Ken Rickard

Join Brian and Ken Rickard as they delve into why agile transformations get stuck and uncover strategies for creating adaptive, resilient organizations and people.
Overview
In this episode, Brian sits down with coach, author, and Lean Change agent, Ken Rickard to explore the common pitfalls of agile transformations and the commodification of agile practices.
Ken emphasizes the need to focus on people rather than processes and introduces the art of change, which includes self-awareness and adaptability. And shares the six big ideas of adaptive organizations, such as sense-making strategies and leadership agility.
Tune in to learn how to navigate transformation challenges and create an environment that fosters resilience and adaptability.
References and resources mentioned in the show:
Ken Rickard
Insight
The Six Big Ideas of Adaptive Organizations: From Frameworks to Sensemaking by Ken Rickard and Jason Little
Agile Manifesto For Software Development
Lean Change
Mountain Goat Software’s Agile for Leaders Training
Join the Agile Mentors Community
Mountain Goat Software Certified Scrum and Agile Training Schedule
Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast
Want to get involved?
This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input.
Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one.
Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com
This episode’s presenters are:
Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work.
Ken Rickard is a spark for transformative good — a change alchemist, deep thinker, and a catalyst for personal growth and organizational evolution. With over 15 years in the agile community, he's honed the art of navigating change and embracing adaptation as the true essence of agility.
Auto-generated Transcript:
Brian (00:00)
Welcome in Agile Mentors. We're back for another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I'm with you as always, Brian Milner. And today I have a really special guest with us. I have Mr. Ken Ricard with us. Welcome in, Ken.
Ken Rickard (00:12)
Thank you. Nice to be here.
Brian (00:14)
Glad to have Ken here with us. Ken recently spoke at the the global Scrum Gathering, in New Orleans that I was at as well and had a really interesting, actually had a workshop slot there for a workshop titled Humans Agile and Change, How to Get Your Transformation Unstuck. And wanted to have Ken on to kind of talk through that a little bit. But before we do, for those people who aren't familiar with Ken, let me give you a little bit of an introduction here. Ken is an enterprise coach and change alchemist. I love that. At a company called Insight, he co -authored a book called The Six Big Ideas of Adaptive Organizations, which I know we're going to get into here in this conversation. He's a licensed facilitator of Lean Change. He's an IC Agile authorized instructor. So he's got just a load of credentials and a load of experience to bring to the table here with this. So Ken, let's get into this. Let's talk about humans agile and change and how to get transformations unstuck. What do you think is the main cause of transformations getting stuck?
Ken Rickard (01:31)
Yeah. So I think, you know, we're all feeling the effects of the high of agile. And I think now we're, we're starting to come down a little bit in the industry. I think everyone's feeling that effect. I mean, I see so many agile coaches on LinkedIn that are still looking for roles and whatnot, scrum masters, you know, a good bit of that, though, I think it's a blowback from the industry and just companies in general who, when they need to tighten the belt, they're actually beginning to look at the roles they've got and figure out which ones that they can do without for now. Or maybe they can do with roles they've already got. And so the effect of that, I think is coming from this idea that, you know, the agile industry, let's even narrow that a little bit more and talk about scrum specifically, has really kind of in the industry has become commodified around this idea that it's a process. And that we just like, we used to do this thing over here and we can just go to the shelf and purchase like scrum in a way. And then like. take that and just drop it into the spot and the practices we used to do. And so when it was only viewed as a process replacement for what they're doing now, it's very easy when, things get rough or tough in the industry as they've been over the past year, year and a half, two years, that our natural, you know, kind of inclination is to kind of hunker down and that hunkering down is to go back to what's comfortable to us, which is typically non -agile, non edge. things because that edge is actually kind of uncomfortable. And so we want to kind of go back and go back into our hole and actually like do the things that we're most comfortable with as an organization or as leaders. And so, yeah, I think that's been kind of what's been happening. And it's just, you know, the follow up from that, I think it's just now hitting the industry, I think in the current times now.
Brian (03:10)
Yeah. Yeah, I agree. I mean, you talk about it being a commodity and I can definitely see that across the different organizations that do certifications with this, and we're both trainers, we both do trainings. The hard part for me as a trainer is that I don't wanna... discourage people from getting training because I think the training is an important step, right? I think it's you know, you got to know the basics before you can play a sport and You know, if this is the team sport, but it's it's so much easier for me to tell someone all right Well, there's these roles these events and these artifacts
Ken Rickard (03:49)
Mm -hmm.
Brian (04:05)
and they can just go, you know, start putting it into their schedule. Here's the events we're going to do, and we have these meetings at this time. It's easy to do that, but it's hard to say, all right, what is openness? And how do we operate in an open environment, you know, or how do we treat each other with respect as we go through this kind of thing? That's hard to train, you know?
Ken Rickard (04:10)
Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And coming from the, you know, I've spent a three and a half, almost four years now, I think with lean change and Jason little, and, and obviously we co -wrote co -wrote the, the book together, but the, I think the thing that I've learned from all that is, I mean, I want to say that at the beginning, the intention of the folks that created the agile manifesto for software development, their intention was really to help the industry change, but from a software development and probably an adjacent request would have been that the project management kind of behavioral patterns that were there and existing already. They could have actually kind of caused that trajectory to start to shift. And they obviously did over time. I think the one thing, if I had a time machine and I could go back and I could just plant a little seed with those 17 folks, it would be to not look so narrowly at the organization, like just the software development part. Because I think that's what's caused agile and scrum to become that thing that those IT developers do. And it's actually in a way done a disservice, I believe, to the industry at large and then just kind of the trajectory over time and where we kind of landed over these past few years. And it's why with lean change, what I'm trying to do, and I'm not the only one trying to do this. There's a number of folks out there trying to do this as well. But I think Jason and I, what we're trying to do and all the lean change facilitators is to get people to realize. that at the end of the day, everything is really about change. So scrum is just a process. It has all these, like behavioral patterns that come along with it. You're going to need to change, but those things aren't laid out necessarily exactly explicitly in the scrum guide. So you can read through that with your current understanding and your current lens of the world. And you can go, okay, I got this. And okay, all I need to do is go and create a scrum master position and I need a product owner and we need to do these events and then we need to set up these artifacts. And, and that can very easily lead to that kind of mechanical approach to scrum because that's kind of the world they've come from, right? If they've come from kind of project management world where everything is very laid out, very kind of straightforward and linear and then sequentially executed. And I think what we would all probably agree is that what's really missing is that mentality shift and. and the perspective shift. And to get there, we got to really focus on people change. Like, and I don't mean just like, Hey, we're doing a new process. So what do I need to do differently? Or, Hey, we put, we installed this new piece of governance software. So what buttons do I need to push differently? I'm talking about like actual evolution of the individual, their beliefs, their behavioral patterns, and the rituals that match up to those behaviors and beliefs that set underneath them as a person.
Brian (06:52)
Yeah. Yeah.
Ken Rickard (07:14)
And so that's what we're really trying to focus on from Lean Change is we're really trying to help people understand that, that to do those things well, to do things like Scrum well, you really have to focus not just on the process change or the technology change, but actually on the people change. You may even have to focus on structures and strategies as well.
Brian (07:31)
So I'm trying to channel my inner listener and try to think of what they might be asking or thinking about in hearing this. And I mean, what I think about is, all right, well, let's say I'm an organization and I buy an end to all this stuff. And I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah, we've tried that. We've tried to implement this stuff and it's all about process and we'd rather not do that. We want to do it the right way. Where do you start? How do you start to...
Ken Rickard (07:38)
Yeah. That's it. Yeah.
Brian (08:00)
you come in and just say, hey everybody, we're gonna change how you think and how you, how do you start to get the organization to shift like that?
Ken Rickard (08:06)
Yeah, that's tough. Yeah. Yeah. And I would actually, I would point the finger right back at ourselves first. I mean, this is the journey I've been on for the past five years. You know, I mean, I, I actually talked about this in the session at the global scrum, scrum gathering. I told the crowd there. I was like, like five years ago, Ken, like if anybody challenged anything or didn't understand how scrum worked, I would essentially kind of like,
Brian (08:14)
Ha ha ha.
Ken Rickard (08:34)
just picture this idea of Ken taking them by the arm and leading them over to the Scrum Guide and being like, look, here's what the Scrum Guide says. And that was kind of my go -to thing in a way, variations on that, obviously. But at that time, it was mentality -wise, I was just like, okay, well, we just need to do Scrum. If we just do it well and we do it like it says we're supposed to do it, then it'll fix all the things. And that didn't really get the best response out of it. everyone. You know, it wasn't until I started to shift myself and my own perspective and start to really understand that, okay, I'm not the snake oil salesperson that they probably think I am. I'm actually somebody who's trying to help them change. And so if I look at it from that perspective, now it becomes less about the process or the framework and all the specifics of the framework. And it becomes more about, okay, where are they now?
Brian (09:18)
Yeah.
Ken Rickard (09:29)
What mentality do they have now? What are the attitudes that they have about the things that I would hope to put in front of them? Like, are they, are they like, yeah, this is great. Let's do it. Or are they like, no, I don't know. Not so sure. Or are they like, no, that's a stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Like we would never do that here. so better understanding them as an individual and then being able to better show up in a way that is going to be conducive for them to see the need to change is actually the very first.
Brian (09:42)
Yeah.
Ken Rickard (09:55)
best thing that I ever did in the way that I shifted my own perspective and how I showed up. And then that started to actually unlock them and their ability to actually pay attention and realize how they needed to change. And then therefore the change started to go. It's a much slower route because you can just go take stuff off the shelf and be like, Hey, we need to do it like this. And you probably will get some traction with some folks, but you're probably going to miss a good bit of them too. So.
Brian (10:20)
Well, let me, let me ask you this because this is something I've kind of been wrestling with with some other guests on the podcast as well. It's just this, this concept that, you know, partly, I think what's behind some of the problems with this is, is also the short kind of nature of, of how we view change in organizations. And, you know, we want quick results. We, you know, we have a change initiative to do something and we want to see that, that, that benefit of that change in the next three months.
Ken Rickard (10:42)
Sure.
Brian (10:49)
And all of a sudden things are going to be completely turned around and we're going to do things differently. But that's driven a lot from this short -sighted nature of, you know, we got to increase our profits quarter by quarter. We got to, you know, please our shareholders and they don't have the long vision that we used to have in companies of, you know, 10 years or something.
Ken Rickard (10:54)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I'm going to, I'm going to say something and I'm going to meet it in a completely different way. Planning. Let me explain what I mean by this. all right. And I don't want to make this into the lean change show either, but I'm going to talk about a concept, from lean change real quick. so bear with me, but, so there's this idea that has been created in lean change. It's called, we, we, we refer to it as a big next now. Really what it is is it's like.
Brian (11:17)
Okay? Hahaha.
Ken Rickard (11:42)
Think of like an overarching rainbow at the top of like, Hey, what's the largest, biggest thing we're trying to accomplish? And what's the strategy around that? And if we can define a high level strategy around that, it will help us be, get like an orientation towards what outcomes are trying to seek it at the grandiose level. Let's say it's an agile transformation. All right. Underneath there are like a series of smaller humps that are like, okay, what are the goals we might want to actually achieve? Let's make sure those are really loose. except for the ones that are in the very beginning. Does this sound familiar? I'm basically describing breaking down and iterating incrementally changing the organization, right? So, underneath that you'd have like what's referred to as like the lean change cycle. This idea that we go out and actually look at the organization and get data back on what might need to change instead of actually telling people what needs to change. Like, Hey, we're becoming a scrum team, or this is what scrum is, and this is how it works.
Brian (12:21)
Yeah, yeah.
Ken Rickard (12:41)
well, what if they just start where they are and maybe the first thing I add is like a daily, you know, maybe they don't have any kind of coordination events at all right now. And then their tolerance level to change is just minimal. So, okay. So as a coach or as a less even a scrum master, the first thing I might help them do is to actually just put in some frequency of a regular sink. That could wind up turning into something that we would recognize as a daily scrum or a daily standup, but. In the beginning, maybe they don't have the tolerance to go right directly to the thing. Maybe they'll reject that or resist that. So as, as a coach or as a scrum master who's focused on change and not the process of the framework, I would go in and actually help them figure out what the best changes for them right now. And that's the approach I've been using and it just works. It works pretty well. versus coming in and being like, Hey, here's what scrum is. Here's how it works. Let's go through this training. You know, we got to get all these things set up. We need, here's what perfect looks like.
Brian (13:14)
Yeah.
Ken Rickard (13:39)
guess what we can't get there. So yeah.
Brian (13:43)
Yeah, I mean, as I'm listening to you, I'm thinking, you know, it's a difference of listening versus telling, you know, like there's a, there's kind of a telling mindset of going in for a lot of coaching of, you know, what we would typically frame more as a consulting approach. You know, I have answers. Here's the answers for you. Just do the way that I've always done it and everything will be fine versus let's actually hear what your situation is. And.
Ken Rickard (13:59)
Yeah.
Brian (14:10)
what your needs are and what you're seeing going wrong and how can we address those issues? I love that. Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Ken Rickard (14:14)
Yeah, and experimenting through it and honestly showing up, showing up as, or knowing when to show up in a coaching stance, who is going to be more empathetic and more understanding and not going to give them all the answers and it's going to let them explore and figure it out. And it's going to shine the light in the dark corners of the room versus the consultant stance, which is going to show up in more of an advisory. Hey, If I see you all struggling, I'm going to kind of tell you what to do or show you what to do. And they may not be ready for that. So it's about knowing when to actually do one stance or the other and be able to be very fluid in those things.
Brian (14:47)
Yeah. Yeah, there's a, there's a phrase I'll use often in class when I talk about the coaching kind of mindset to say, you know, what we're trying to do is not build knowledge, but build capability. And if you build the capability, then people can then adapt and change when, when something similar comes along or something in the same realm, they can say, yeah, I remember last time when we had something like this, here's how I responded. So that, that ability, I think to. deal with change like you're saying. And if we have it ingrained in our mindset that, hey, we identify problems, we inspect them and we adapt as we go along, to me, that's so much more important to build into how we do things than it is to know, we got these four meetings or five meetings that we're gonna make sure we hold at a certain time. Awesome. Well, you know, I'd like to hear a little bit because I know, you know, your talk is somewhat loosely based on your book as well. And, you know, with a title like the six big ideas, help us understand. We may not have time for all six, but give us some of these big ideas.
Ken Rickard (16:00)
Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. I'm also still, I think Jason and I are still trying to figure out if, how the word or the phrase big ideas is resonating with folks too, because in the agile community, you know, big, big is not a word that I think people will gravitate to very quickly, but, we're also trying to straddle the fence on the change community and the agile community. Honestly, what we're trying to do is I was joking around and I think we, I'm.
Brian (16:21)
Yeah. Yeah.
Ken Rickard (16:31)
might've wrote this either in the book that's out now or the bigger book that we're working on for later this fall. But I wrote somewhere that really the change community and the agile community should really go on a blind date because they never should have really been two separate communities in my opinion. And I think Jason would hold the same opinions and a lot of our lean change facilitators, I think would hold the same opinions. So yeah, so the book is really about trying to get Agilist to understand that their role is really about change.
Brian (16:47)
Yeah.
Ken Rickard (17:02)
They already know the agile bits and the iterative incremental and all that kind of stuff. And that the change community really needs to better understand the agility community and take some of those practices and apply it to the change. And if both sides do those things, we're going to wind up in the middle and everybody's going to be the same type of person or the same type of thing. Because at the end of the day, getting to agility, like this idea of the characteristics of being nimble and being able to adapt to what's going on with a certain grace and resilience.
Brian (17:25)
Yeah.
Ken Rickard (17:31)
that set of characteristics is really, I think what the agile industry is hoping to go for. And yet a lot of the folks that find these things come to it with their current understanding and they don't really, aren't really looking to change themselves and how they see things, their perspective. And so that's how we get into this commodified kind of off the shelf version of it. And so I think we're just trying to get people to realize that. Look, if you look at these big, these six big ideas, which are really just sense making strategies. At the end of the day, that's what they are. You should be able to sense your way through what your context, your organization, given the changes that are going on. you know, what are those circumstances? How well do you know those circumstances? If you can understand those things in a sense making way, you'll be able to show up in a way that it actually be conducive to help that organization change, no matter what the scope of the changes. Let's say you're a store master. It could be your scope of your change is essentially your team or teams.
Brian (18:25)
Yeah.
Ken Rickard (18:29)
And the product that they're building, let's say you're an agile coach. Okay. Maybe it's somewhat wider than that. I don't know. I'm still on the fence about what the difference between agile coaching and scrum master is. That's another podcast though. I think, or let's say you're somewhere higher up in the organization. So whatever your purview is, whatever your scope is, that context is really what we're trying to do. We're trying to help you and the others around you understand what it is that you're not paying attention to, what it is that you don't understand.
Brian (18:39)
Yeah.
Ken Rickard (18:58)
or that you might think you understand about your organization. So it's really six ideas to help people kind of unravel that about their organization and themselves. Because like, for instance, one of the six big ideas is something that Jason had created quite a long time ago called the four dimensions of change. And what it says is that there's four things that you really probably need to focus on as, as a agent of change. And that is yourself. So like,
Brian (19:07)
Yeah.
Ken Rickard (19:26)
Your set of beliefs about things, you know, how you show up because how you show up actually affects how others receive or perceive you. And then that impacts your ability to influence others and actually help them change. And then it goes on to say there's, the big ideas or strategies that you can deploy from, from a change perspective, typically minimally viable practices, or strategies. And then the last bucket in that four dimensions is, tools and practices. You know, the things that we have the most affinity for and tend to go to first, and kind of ignore the other three things. So it's, so that particular big idea is trying to get people to recognize that, no, there's like a bigger kind of art and science here to helping people change. It's not just about the science, like the strategy and the tools and practices to be good at those things. Most likely you got to focus on the art of change, which is yourself and your stance or how you show up.
Brian (19:59)
Right. Right. Yeah, I'm gonna share one of my geeky subdivisions here in making this quote, but it reminds me of in the musical Hamilton, there's a line in there that George Washington says to Hamilton where he's talking about, you know, Hamilton has these visions of going off and dying like a martyr and George Washington says, dying is easy young man, living is harder. And.
Ken Rickard (20:30)
Yeah. Yeah.
Brian (20:51)
That's kind of how I see this. I'm not saying we're dying or making a choice between dying or not, but I am saying that the practices side of thing, practice is easy young man, culture is harder. It's just harder to try to implement those things. And I think a lot of times, I don't know if it's, I think individually sometimes as coaches we can get lazy.
Ken Rickard (20:55)
Yeah.
Brian (21:18)
and go to the things that's easier to tell people about. But I also think that it's an institutional thing because it's much easier for me to certify somebody or give them a credential saying that, hey, this person knows their stuff when I can test them on facts and figures and how long is that meeting and that sort of stuff versus.
Ken Rickard (21:20)
Mm -hmm. somebody. Yeah. Please.
Brian (21:41)
you know, how do you change the mindset of the culture of the organization when they're really into quick solutions and they're into trying to get things out the door as fast as possible and not focus on quality. It's harder, right? It's just, it's more difficult.
Ken Rickard (21:55)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You're hitting on one of the other six big ideas right now. Actually two of them, but we can start out with the explain the one. So there's another one that we made called the, the two change strategies of effective organizations. And so what this one says is that there's two ways that you can probably improve or change your organization. And that's a fractal statement in an organization because again, we're only talking about whatever context you have.
Brian (22:06)
Hahaha.
Ken Rickard (22:27)
Cause if you're a SCAR master, we're talking about the context you have of the teams you're working with. Agile coach or something higher up than that, whatever context you have. So, okay. So within your context, you probably have two ways to think about and try to help your organization change. And those two ways are either optimizing what they already do to make it better, faster, cheaper, or evolving the way they think about what they do so that they can actually succeed in ways that they never have before. And I'd be, I'll go out on a limb and say that every, at the very least, every single company I've come across that's doing agile and whatever way they call it, is really trying to do it from the purpose of the optimization, better, faster, cheaper. I think there are very few companies around the world that are actually taking it seriously enough to do the evolution part to actually change the way they think about how they do things in such ways that they're actually elevating. their set of beliefs and behavioral patterns, not just as individuals, sorry, as individuals, but as a collective and then ultimately as an organization. And so it's really trying to get you to, to focus on what is it that we actually are trying to improve? Is it just that we're trying to optimize what we're doing now? Cause that's a take scram off the shelf and just drop it in, you know, or that's send people to training and like come back and be like, cool, you're certified.
Brian (23:33)
Chief.
Ken Rickard (23:49)
But if we don't ask the hard questions around, okay, well, what are you gonna change about your behaviors? Then they're likely not focusing on evolution. And if we're not coaching them through that, yeah, not really going anywhere.
Brian (24:01)
Yeah, do you think organizations just don't know what they don't know? I mean, because I know you're right, they do want better, faster, cheaper. And that's sort of the end goal that they're coming at a lot of this stuff with. They just not recognize that it's really the change capability that they should prioritize.
Ken Rickard (24:05)
It's like. Well, I think it's because they focus. So what's really easy for a lot of organizations to change. There's a, we're going to keep tying these five, sorry, these six big ideas together, I guess, because there's another one called the five levers of change. And what that one is, is a, it's a circle of five things with people being the biggest circle in the center. And then on the four corners of it, it's basically process and technology strategies and structures.
Brian (24:32)
No, that's great.
Ken Rickard (24:48)
And so if we look at that as a systems approach to changing an organization, the reason why it's called the five levers is because they can pull any levers in any combination they want in order to try to change their organization. But the easiest levers to pull are process and technology. So, Hey, let's do scrum and we need to install Jira or Azure DevOps. Right. And that's generally where these kinds of things start because it's within the control of the teams oftentimes to make those changes. It doesn't impact a larger organization to, well, it can, but probably to a lesser extent initially. So the teams have some level of autonomy or local control to start making those changes. They don't run into problems or impediments or just kind of organizational dysfunction until a little bit down the road so they can kick that can down the road. And so I think it's, I think it's that that causes us to gravitate towards a process and then just pull that lever pretty easily. And, and that's an optimization lever. So if you tie those two ideas together, it takes the other side of those five levers, the structure and the strategies, which are all built on beliefs. You know, like if I'm a leader in a hierarchy who's worked 20 years to get to my lofty management position, I'm going to be a lot less likely to take a empathetic kind of delegated approach to my management style because I put in a lot of hard work to get to where I am now. And there's no way you're going to tell me now.
Brian (25:48)
Yeah.
Ken Rickard (26:18)
20 years that I now have to change the way I operate? Like, no, I'm in control here. So I think we're also battling that a little bit too.
Brian (26:20)
Right. Yeah, what I've done got me here. So why would I do something different now? Right?
Ken Rickard (26:32)
Right. Exactly.
Brian (26:34)
Yeah, I've battled that in multiple occasions, for sure. One of the places I worked was a newspaper. And if you want to talk about people not wanting to change their mindsets of, hey, what do you mean that people don't want to have delivery of their newspaper on their front doorstep every day like they've done their whole life? Yeah, it's crazy. Well, this is great stuff. I'm really enjoying this.
Ken Rickard (26:49)
Yeah. Yeah.
Brian (27:03)
Do you have one last big thought, big idea to leave us with here? Because we're almost out of time, but what have we missed in these big ideas?
Ken Rickard (27:13)
Yeah, probably the other big one that comes up a lot. one of the other six that I haven't talked about yet is the, what I call the three agilities. And we'll tend to focus on the delivery agility, which is like, Hey, we, we can help you team better and people better at the team level where you're delivering. And we can help you become more product led. And we can also help you with your technical excellence, you know, like DevOps types things, right?
Brian (27:21)
Okay?
Ken Rickard (27:38)
And I think we could probably draw a circle around those three things and go, you know what, for the vast majority of the agile industry, this is what they think agile is. But in my opinion, that's only one of the agilities an organization needs in order to actually possess the characteristics of agility. And the other two would be change agility. The idea that we are adaptable to the change that we cannot control and that we actually can adapt well in a resilient way to the change we can control within our organization. And that we're constantly evolving to get better at that so that we can sustain change in a graceful way over time. So that's change agility. And then the third one is probably possibly the most important one. And that is leadership agility. This idea that if we don't create the environment for change to take place in a conducive way that is productive and adaptable. then we won't change and we'll stay stagnant and we'll stick to our standardized approaches in a stagnant way. And then delivery will suffer even though we can put new things on top of it and we can call things new words, it won't actually change. And the leadership agility is really about not just trying to teach leaders to be more competent. That's generally what management consulting and a lot of other folks are focused on. It's really about trying to help leaders address their ability. to actually have a consciousness about themselves, that they can show up in ways that are actually enabling and empowering the organization to be adaptable and flexible and to be able to deliver and change in ways that are graceful and resilient. And so in my opinion, it kind of starts there even though a lot of them don't start.
Brian (29:14)
I love that. No, I love that. I think that's great because, you know, a lot of times you hear the complaints of people who come through classes that are kind of more team level in the organization. And it's, there's a lot of complaints about how management just doesn't understand, or we're bumping up against the glass ceiling, you know, kind of in our organization, we can't really Institute change or make the change permanent because, you know, leadership still wants things exactly in the old way. They haven't actually shifted. how they think about things. So I love that, I love that concept. I would agree there. Well, this is great stuff. And obviously, like I said, the workshop that Ken did at the Scrum Gathering was an hour and a half. And this is just a short little taste in half an hour. So there's no way we're gonna be able to cover it all here. I strongly encourage people, if they're really interested in this topic, if they're really interested in what Ken is saying,
Ken Rickard (29:53)
Thank you. Yeah.
Brian (30:15)
Check out the book the six big ideas of adaptive organizations. It's a great book And it'll go into detail on all of these these six big ideas that we talked about here And what we're gonna put lots of the links in our show notes here so if you want to just head on over our show notes you'll find links over not only that but to to Ken's organization the six big ideas network and you can find the website there and find the the
Ken Rickard (30:24)
Mm -hmm.
Brian (30:44)
classes and trainings that Ken is doing in this area. So we'll make sure that everybody can get to that. Ken, I can't thank you enough. Thanks for coming on and sharing your knowledge with us today. Yeah.
Ken Rickard (30:54)
Yeah, thanks for having me. It was fun.

#107: Transforming Organizational Mindsets with Bernie Maloney

Join Brian and Bernie Maloney as they explore the transformative power of mental models, emphasizing the shift from a mechanistic to an organic mindset in Agile organizations.
Overview
In this episode, Brian and Bernie Maloney discuss the profound impact of mental models on organizational culture. Bernie delves into how our beliefs and assumptions shape our thinking and behavior, particularly within Agile environments.
He discusses the importance of transitioning from a mechanistic to an organic mindset, focusing on problem-solving rather than merely delivering solutions. The conversation also highlights the role of psychological safety in fostering a culture of experimentation and learning.
Bernie shares valuable resources, including Amy Edmondson's 'The Right Kind of Wrong,' to further explore these concepts. Tune in for insightful strategies for enhancing your organization's agility and effectiveness.
Listen Now to Discover:
[1:03] - Brian welcomes Certified Scrum Trainer® and Principal at Power By Teams, Bernie Maloney, to the show.
[2:15] - Bernie delves into the concept of mental models, sharing the origins of his philosophy of "making new mistakes" developed during his time at Hewlett Packard.
[5:55] - Bernie illustrates the power of mental models and belief by sharing a compelling example that brings these concepts to life.
[13:46] - Join us for a Certified Scrum Product Owner® Training, where a year of coaching and development with Mike Cohn, Brian, and the Agile Mentors Community of Agile leaders is included with your training.
[14:39] - Bernie discusses how applying mental models can enhance the effectiveness of Agile transformations, creating a naturally adaptive and innovative climate.
[18:12] - Bernie offers language as a powerful tool to support the shift to a new Mental Model.
[23:30] - Bernie demonstrates the use of mental models for product owners through the Mobius Loop, providing actionable guidance and examples
[26:27] - Brian shares a big thank you to Bernie for joining him on the show.
[26:59] - If you enjoyed this episode, share it with a friend, and like and subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast so you never miss a new episode.
[27:27] - If you’d like to continue this discussion, join the Agile Mentors Community. You get a year of free membership to that site by taking any class with Mountain Goat Software, such as CSM, CSPO, or Mike Cohn’s Better User Stories Course. We'd love to see you in one of Mountain Goat Software's classes. You can find the schedule here.
References and resources mentioned in the show:
Bernie Maloney
Power By Teams
Mobius Loop
The Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well by Amy Edmondson
Agile Teams Learn From Spikes: Time Boxed Research Activities by Mike Cohn
Certified Scrum Product Owner® Training
Certified ScrumMaster® Training and Scrum Certification
Mike Cohn’s Better User Stories Course
Mountain Goat Software Certified Scrum and Agile Training Schedule
Join the Agile Mentors Community
Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast
Want to get involved?
This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input.
Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one.
Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com
This episode’s presenters are:
Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work.
Bernie Maloney is an Agile leadership coach and international speaker, leverages his 25 years of engineering and leadership experience to help teams and organizations unlock their full potential. Known for his engaging workshops and impactful coaching, Bernie believes in making performance breakthroughs both achievable and enjoyable.
Auto-generated Transcript:
Brian (00:00)
Welcome in Agile Mentors. We are back for another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I am with you as always, Brian Milner. And today I have a very special guest with me. I have Mr. Bernie Maloney with me. Welcome in, Bernie. I am.
Bernie Maloney (00:14)
Thanks, Brian. Happy to be here.
Brian (00:16)
Great. I'm so excited to have Bernie here. Bernie and I have touched base for years over conferences. We've run into each other and had chats and shared our shared passion for Hawaii and other things. But Bernie was speaking at the recent conference and we've gotten into some conversations. I wanted him to come on because I wanted him to, first of all, if you're not familiar with Bernie, sorry, I see, I just want to jump right into it. If you're not familiar with Bernie, Bernie is a CST. He works at a company called Powered by Teams. He teaches classes, Scrum Master product owner classes and leadership classes and other things as well. But he is a principal at Powered by Teams. So just wanted to give you the basics there before we dive into anything. But the topic that we started to talk about that just as a jumping off place for us is a topic. the topic of mental models. So Bernie, why don't you explain to everyone how you define that, mental models.
Bernie Maloney (01:23)
So, Brian, this is a great topic. I find myself talking about it all the time. And y 'all, I warned Brian, like, he can press play on this, and it might be 15 minutes before he gets a word in edgewise here. It touches on mindset. It touches on a lot of topics. My talk that Brian was referencing at the recent Scrum gathering in New Orleans was make new mistakes, leadership lessons from an Agile success. which goes back to where I really kind of cut my teeth in Agile at Hewlett Packard. See, I'm a mechanical engineer by training. And I cut my teeth in Agile in the consumer PC division at HP about, this is scary to say y 'all, okay, about 27 years ago starting at this point. And some of the fun stuff, it was a bang up enterprise. It was the fastest business in HP's history to hit a billion dollars. And it was just...
Brian (02:05)
Yeah.
Bernie Maloney (02:18)
a great proving ground. We had hardware, we had software, we had distributed teams where volume manufacturing was in Asia, engineering was here where I am in Silicon Valley. Go -to -market for Europe was in Grenoble, France. We had high volume. Some of our products had 100 ,000 units in a single model run, with like 200 models in Europe on a quarterly basis at times. So high volume, high mix, tight margins from a business perspective. A lot of technology products want to have 20 % to 30 % gross margins. That's before you start taking off deductions like expenses and salaries and things like that. On a good day, we had 8 % gross margins for Christmas products, maybe 2 % gross margins. We used to refer to it as we were shipping rotting bananas. And like I said, I was there. When I started, we were shipping six products a quarter. We grew to 20. By the time I left after eight years, we were doing 200 products a quarter in Europe alone.
Brian (03:04)
Ha ha.
Bernie Maloney (03:16)
hardware, software, distributed teams, high volume, high mix. And we did all that with weekly iterations of a plan. At one point in my career, I was tactically responsible for the delivery of 2 % of HP's top line revenue with zero direct reports. And part of the secret sauce of success in that organization was really that mental model of make new mistakes. So that's where the talk title comes from. And in fact, makenewmistakes .com will point to poweredbyteams .com because I own that domain too. But that mental model really helped the organization thrive and not just survive. We went from like a number one to a number five share. Sorry, from a number five to a number one the other way around. Because the founding executives recognized that in that tide of a market, mistakes were probably going to happen. And so what they did is they established the psychological safety. Wow, look, there's another great topic. Make new mistakes. You knew that if it was an honest mistake, it would be forgiven. Just don't make it again. Get the lesson is one of the things that they said. I can even tell you the story about the weekend I blew a million dollars of HP's money and I was forgiven, but you'll have to come to a conference talk for that. So that was just like a great experience. And...
Brian (04:32)
Wow.
Bernie Maloney (04:39)
After that experience, I went on to TVs. Another part of my background is I shipped the very first internet connected TVs. Look it up, the Media Smart 3760 from HP. It shipped even before Apple TV. It bombed. Okay, it was way ahead of its time. But I recognized that that had been such a joyride. And then I recognized some other stuff that really gets into the psychological, the mental aspects of leadership, high performing teams. And I could, Brian, I could talk about that too, but okay. But that kind of got me to recognize that with those skills, the success that I had experienced at HP could probably be replicated. That's kind of been the path that I've been on for the past 15 years is really helping organizations go along that path. So mental models can be really big. Let me give everybody here an example. And so Brian, I'm going to speak to you as a way of illustrating mental models. So imagine you are physically where you are right now.
Brian (05:24)
Yeah.
Bernie Maloney (05:37)
but it is 150 years ago, okay? Imagine you're physically where you are right now, but it's 150 years ago. Now, Brian, let me ask you, can man fly?
Brian (05:47)
boy, you're testing my history knowledge.
Bernie Maloney (05:52)
Okay, make it 200 years ago, okay? That makes it easier. Okay, cool. Great, now fast forward to the present. Brian, let me ask you, can man fly?
Brian (05:54)
No, yeah, no. Yes.
Bernie Maloney (06:02)
What changed? Nothing about the laws of physical reality. It was just your mental model of what for man to fly means. That's the power of belief, okay? And belief limits a whole bunch of stuff in the way that people behave. So you'll hear Agilent talk all the time about, this is all about changing mindset. I'm probably, Brian, gonna give your listeners some ways of.
Brian (06:06)
invention.
Bernie Maloney (06:30)
changing mindset as we go through this, but that's going to illustrate the power of mental models. Now, a big one that I like to use that's specific to Agile comes from Gabby Benefield. She's an Agilist out of the UK, and it's called the Mobius Loop. And I think she's got the domain mobiusloop .com. So everybody can imagine a Mobius Loop. Okay. And what I really like about this model for her...
Brian (06:32)
Sure, yeah, please. Yeah.
Bernie Maloney (06:56) i
s the right -hand half is what a lot of organizations think Agile is. Build, measure, learn, build, measure, learn. The whole idea of the build trap that we talk about in Agile. It's all about the delivery of a solution. Okay? But the left -hand half is all about the discovery of the problem. Okay? And the discovery of the customer. And that's a part of Agile too that most organizations overlook. So you got to ask why. And it comes down to kind of mental models. So when I was at Persistent, if you go look me up on LinkedIn, you'll find some of my employment history. I was at Persistent for a while. They had a really good mental model. And it's something I still use when I go into a client. And they would talk about there's kind of three eras of a company culture. And so culture is really the environment that an organization lives within. And there's an era. where cultures were formed before the internet. So things like finance and government and mining and manufacturing and oil and gas field developed. I mean, I've had clients in all of these areas. And in that sort of an environment, okay, it was, well, an era. One of the things I'll ask, and Brian, I'll kind of like let you represent the audience. Would you say in general, the people that you work with, the markets that they serve, Are they moving faster and all up into a thumbs up, slower, thumbs down, or about the same, thumbs sideways? Are the markets moving faster, slower, or about the same as they were, say, five or 10 years ago?
Brian (08:32)
I think everything's moving faster, yeah.
Bernie Maloney (08:34)
Cool. Okay. Now, how about the technology that your clients use to solve problems for that market? You know, moving faster, thumbs up, slower, thumbs down, or about the same as it was, say, five or 10 years ago. Faster. Yeah, cool. Okay. Now, when things are moving faster, thumbs up for yes, thumbs down for no. Do they always move in a straight line?
Brian (08:46)
No, faster. No, not always.
Bernie Maloney (08:56)
Okay, cool. So now things are moving faster, but they're not moving in a straight line. So let me ask you, do most organizations try and plan and predict? Is it possible for you to plan and predict when things are moving faster and they're not moving in a straight line? Is it easier or harder to plan and predict?
Brian (09:19)
I think it's definitely harder.
Bernie Maloney (09:21)
Yeah, but organizations are trying to do that, aren't they? And it's because their mental model is as a machine. So organizations born before the internet have a mental model of the entire organizational system being a machine, the industrial age, which you can plan and predict. They treat people like cogs in a machine. In fact, the thing that us Agilists will say is, when you say resources, did you mean people? See, that's...
Brian (09:35)
Yeah.
Bernie Maloney (09:50)
That's kind of now we're starting to get into some of the culture aspects of this because language actually forms culture. And so you'll hear Angela say, did you mean people? Like when that whole word of resources comes up. But organizations born before the internet, they've got one culture. Okay, they were born in an era of plan and predict. They've got a mental model of the system being a machine. And your listeners would probably agree most of them struggle with Agile. Okay, now there's another era born in the internet but not the cloud. So some examples like here in Silicon Valley, Cisco, PayPal, okay, lots of us have had exposure to them and lots of us recognize they still struggle with agile because agile wasn't really fully formed and articulated. Then there are organizations that were born in the cloud and so places like Striper Square and I use payments because I've had... clients in finance across all three of these eras. So Stripe or Square, they were born in the cloud where things were almost natively agile because the Agile Manifesto had been published by that point. They just inherently get agile. So these mental models of your organizational system being a machine get reflected in the language. So things like people or resources, it turns them into objects. It enables something I've heard called pencil management. Wear them down to a nub, go get a new one. In fact, if you do the research on where the word resources was first applied to human beings, it might shock some people. So I don't talk about that openly. They'll have to find me privately. I'll be happy to point you out the reference. And once I do, it's like, ooh. But one of the jokes I'll crack. And this is one of the ways that you can start to shift the language. If people call you resources, because you know that turns you into an object, start calling them overhead.
Brian (11:23)
Yeah. Ha ha ha.
Bernie Maloney (11:48)
Okay, it can kind of make the difference there. Okay, so, but you know, if things are moving faster and they're harder to plan and predict, that mental model needs to shift. In fact, in agile, we talk about you need to move to sense and respond. When things are moving faster, it's kind of like Gretzky, skate to where the puck is going. You need to sense and respond to the situation. So a better mental model instead of a mechanism is an organism. Because think about organisms, like cut yourself, it heals, okay? It senses and responds. Or like a forest fire comes in, wipes things out, and nature always kind of fills things back in. Sense and respond. This gets reflected in the language. So Brian, do your clients talk about metrics?
Brian (12:37)
Of course, yes.
Bernie Maloney (12:38)
Okay, cool. So do they talk about efficiency?
Brian (12:41)
I would say a lot of businesses will talk about that. Yeah, sure.
Bernie Maloney (12:44)
Yeah, cool. That's the language of machines. Probably better language is diagnostics instead of metrics. That invokes some of the curiosity. And probably instead of efficiency is effectiveness. One of the things I'll say is scrum is not efficient. It's not about utilization of capacity. It's about the production of value, which is all about effectiveness. See, efficiency or effective. Do you go to your doctor for an efficient treatment? or ineffective treatment, Brian.
Brian (13:16)
Effective, hopefully.
Bernie Maloney (13:17)
Awesome. Do you go for blood metrics or blood diagnostics?
Brian (13:21)
Yeah, diagnostics for sure.
Bernie Maloney (13:23)
Yeah, so now you're starting to get some hints about how you can start to shift the mental model. What you're really doing with Agile, y 'all, is you're shifting the culture, and culture is hard because it's not visible. The tools, the processes, the practices that folks like Brian and I will teach and coach, they're super visible, they're super valuable, but they're often not enough to start to change things. So, Brian, would you say most of your listeners are familiar? familiar with the language of Tuchman of forming, storming, norming, and performing.
Brian (13:56)
I'd say there's probably a good percentage, yeah.
Bernie Maloney (13:58)
Cool. I actually like to draw a Satir curve. So Bruce Tuckman, Virginia Satir, they were contemporaries. They were both just researching human systems. So Virginia did a performance axis on the vertical and a time axis on the horizontal. And the way Virginia described it is you're kind of going along in a certain status quo. And so you're kind of along that baseline. And then a foreign element enters and some change. And then you descend into chaos. And you can't see it. like your performance goes down until you have a transformative idea and then through some practice and integration, you rise to a new status quo. This happens to people all the time when they introduce changes in their life like New Year's resolutions. I'm going to get fit and healthy this year. You know, it's a beach body time. And you start doing it and it's like, this is so hard. You're in chaos. And what human beings want to do is they want to go back to the way things were instead of moving through. OK, this happens when you introduce agile into your organization. You'll hear Agilist talk about this as the Agile antibodies. You introduce it, this is so hard, and people want to go back to the way things were instead of kind of moving through. So the tools, the processes, the practices, they're really good, but they're not powerful enough. You got to start changing the culture. Culture is like what we all swim in, but climate is something that you can start to affect. So climate is a little bit closer in to your team, and you can start talking about these mental models. Like when I was at TiVo, I was hired into TiVo to bring Agile in because I had shipped TVs, I knew about Agile. And I was hired in on, I think I can say this now because we're more than a decade past. Have you all ever streamed anything? Yeah, okay. So TiVo was working on that in like 2009, 2010. I got to see that stuff and I was like, really wish I had taken off for them. But that program...
Brian (15:42)
yeah.
Bernie Maloney (15:54)
disbanded, okay, and the culture kind of spread in the organization. And I knew that this was a possibility, so when I brought it in, I made sure I didn't just work with my team that was doing a Skunk Works project, where we were just kind of doing some internal development that we weren't, you know, or stealth is probably a better word these days. So a stealth program inside of TiVo that you couldn't talk about. I knew that... when Agile would spread, it would hit some of this resistance, these antibodies. And so I made a case for bringing in people from outside my team so that it was familiar. And when that program disbanded, it organically spread on the cloud side of TiVo because of some of this stuff. So within your own team, you can kind of create a climate. And then when you start to see results like that, that's going to start attracting kind of the rest of the culture that's there. But these mental models, like shifting from mechanism to organism can really help an organization recognize where their limiting beliefs are about how things go. And it's going to be reflected in language. So if you like dive into anthropology a little bit, you're going to recognize that it's really well established. You can change a culture by starting to change the language. And all of us, okay, if you're observing what's going on in Eastern Ukraine here in 2024, that's what's going on. with the Russian occupation, they're changing the language because that's going to change the culture. That's why they're doing stuff like that. So, and even language starts to shape the mental models that you've got. A good example of something like that was when European, you know, when European explorers is the language I'll use, came to the Americas, the natives didn't really have a language for ship. And so they saw these people coming in floating on the water. And that was the way that they could describe it. So even language kind of gets into a cultural sort of a thing. So these are techniques that you can put into your toolkit. Start shifting the language to start shifting the culture, which can kind of help with the mental models. When you got the mental models, that's where the language starts to come from. If you don't have the mental models, you're probably not going to have the language. And I encourage all the folks I work with, start shifting from the whole idea of mechanism to organism. Okay, Brian, was that 15 minutes? Did I go on for as long as I predicted I would?
Brian (18:27)
About 15 minutes. Yeah. No, but I think that's a good point. There's a thing that I'll talk about a lot of times in my classes where I would all say, you know, the waterfall paradigm is one that's based on manufacturing. And there's a false understanding of what we're doing as manufacturing and it's not. It's more research and development. So you have to kind of shift the process to be one that's more conducive. to research and development. So that's very much in line with what you're talking about here. I love that.
Bernie Maloney (19:01)
Yeah. Do you think people would appreciate some book references that can kind of like help you? Okay. So specifically on that whole ethos of experimentalism that you just touched on, Brian, I'm currently going through Amy Edmondson's The Right Kind of Wrong. Really good book. Now, Amy is well known because she helped establish psychological safety as a super important topic in organizations.
Brian (19:07)
absolutely. Absolutely.
Bernie Maloney (19:30)
So she was coupled, I think, with Project Aristotle at Google. And in this book, she unpacked some really interesting stuff. She talks about failure, and there's types of failures. There's basic, there's complex, and there's intelligent failures. OK, intelligent failures, they're just native to science. You know things are going to go wrong. You're going to have Thomas Edison, the I Found 1 ,000 Ways. to do a light bulb wrong, sort of. That's like intelligent failure. Basic failure, she breaks down into, let's see, neglect and inattention. And those are the things that you really want to start to squeeze out of a system. With that mental model of a mechanism, I would say a lot of, call it management, tends to think of a lot of failures as basic failures. And that's where blame starts to come into a system. Okay, so now we're back into psychological safety. Okay, where you want to establish, you know, that was an honest mistake. Hence the talk title of make new mistakes. Okay, so you can have processes and procedures that can kind of squeeze out some of those basic failures. Complex in the middle is really interesting to talk about. As I'm getting into the material, she unpacks... Now, complex failures are those chain of events, you know,
Brian (20:30)
Yeah. Yeah.
Bernie Maloney (20:54)
This thing and this thing and this thing all had to line up and go wrong at the same time for this catastrophic failure to go on. And in medicine, which is where her original research was, they talk about it as Swiss cheese. And she says, if you go into a lot of medical administrators' offices, you're going to find some model of Swiss cheese there. Because they talk about it's like all the holes have to line up for something to go sideways on you. So complex failures. It's a chain of events, a bunch of little things. And she points out that in the research, these often happen when you have an over -constrained system where there's no slack, where you're trying to operate with, get this, Brian, 100 % efficiency. You're trying to load everybody up. So that is just like, it's not just juice on psychological safety, but like, looking at the whole idea of intelligent failures that we want to encourage versus constraining out basic failures versus working to reduce those complex failures and not just thinking complex failures are basic failures, but they're systemic failures that then might be part of the system, might be part of the mental model that's going on that's there. So super juicy stuff.
Brian (22:11)
Yeah, yeah, that's really good stuff. I've always loved Amy's work and I feel, you know, silly calling her Amy. But Amy Edmondson's work has always been great. Yeah, Professor Edmondson. She, the work on psychological safety, I think was just amazing. And the examples she used in her research are amazing. And, you know, all the stuff with Project Aristotle.
Bernie Maloney (22:20)
Okay, Professor Edmondson, yeah.
Brian (22:36)
I love the concept of psychological. I mean, again, not to make this the topic of our podcast, but, you know, I love the idea that they, they, they found that psychological safety was, so foundational that nothing else mattered. That if you didn't have that, that not no matter what else you layered on top of it, it would not fix the problem that you didn't have psychological safety.
Bernie Maloney (22:58)
Yep. And that's one of the reasons why I say Agile is actually a social technology more than anything else. I mean, that's why it's people and people over processes and tools. This is really a social technology that we deal in.
Brian (23:10)
That's a great way to put it. I love that social technology. Awesome. I love that.
Bernie Maloney (23:14)
So kind of talking about Amy and psychological safety and kind of all these systems that we're talking about, another mental model that I like to give particularly my product owners, going back to that Mobius loop. and like on the right hand side is all about delivery, okay, that's where you give team solutions to build. That's what a lot of organizations do. Versus on the left hand side with discovery, it's all about problems to solve. So I like to encourage my clients to instead of just giving people solutions to build, give them problems to solve. Now, for product owners, if you imagine like an onion that's kind of stretched out left to right, so kind of an odd long little onion.
Brian (23:41)
Yeah.
Bernie Maloney (23:58)
and on the far right is your sprint. And then as you go to the left, you're at a release, and further out to the left, you're in roadmap, and way further out into the left, you're into these vague things like vision. So product owners kind of deal with this whole span of things. And in between, product and sprint goals start to make things a little bit more concrete. Okay, and... One of the things I'll do for my product owners is I'll take that Mobius loop and I'll overlay it on a planning onion like that and go, do you get to see how, like what we're talking about here, you're starting out way vague in discovery and you're getting way more concrete as you get into delivery and into the sprint. And really the job of Agile and Scrum is both. It's not just about turn the crank on the machine. In fact, I think it's unfortunate that there's a book title out there of twice. the work in half the time. I actually like to pitch this as more it's about twice the value with half the stress. Okay, now as you imagine that Mobius loop kind of overlaid, one of the things I'll unpack for folks is when you're way out in that vision area, there's a lot of uncertainty that's there, okay? And you're actually going to have to do discovery. You may have to run some experiments.
Brian (24:58)
Yeah.
Bernie Maloney (25:24)
Okay, and it's only as you get closer into delivery that you want to get closer to certainty. And really, that's kind of the job of a product owner is squeezing uncertainty out of the system. Initially through discovery of the problem to solve, who to solve it for, what the market is, but it's the job of the whole team in Agile to squeeze that uncertainty out of the system. Brian, I'm sure you've had folks like talk about spikes. You ever have people get wrapped around the axle about like including spikes in their product backlog?
Brian (25:48)
Yeah, for sure. yeah, for sure.
Bernie Maloney (25:54)
Cool, the way that I frame that up, okay, so here's a mental model. That's just technical uncertainty that you've uncovered. Great, okay, so now we've got to go squeeze that uncertainty out of the system. So stop getting wrapped around the axle on stuff like this. Just like stop trying to plan and predict things. Instead, kind of get into sense and respond on all of them. And there, I've kind of brought it around full circle for you, Brian, for where we started.
Brian (26:09)
Yeah, no. No, that's great. That's great stuff. And I love the fact that we can bring it back full circle. Well, this is fascinating. And like you said, we could press play and go on this for another half hour very easily. But we'll be respectful of people's time here and keep it to our normal time length. Bernie, I can't thank you enough for coming on. I really appreciate you sharing your experience with us. And... what you've learned over your years of working in this profession.
Bernie Maloney (26:50)
Thank you so much for asking me, Brian

#106: Innovating Through Economic Downturns with John Barratt

Join Brian and John Barratt as they delve into the current state of the agile industry, exploring the impact of economic downturns on agile coaches and Scrum Masters, and discover innovative strategies to navigate these challenging times.
Overview
In this episode, Brian and John Barratt dissect the current state of the agile industry, focusing on the effects of economic downturns on agile coaches and scrum masters. They discuss the reasons behind organizational layoffs and cost-cutting measures, emphasizing the need for innovation to thrive during challenging periods.
The conversation shifts to redefining the roles of scrum masters and agile coaches, highlighting the importance of delivering value and outcomes rather than merely facilitating meetings. John introduces two essential resources—the Agile Coaching Growth Wheel and the Agile Coaching Code of Ethics—to support agile practitioners in their professional development.
The episode concludes with a discussion on the significance of mentorship and continuous improvement within the agile community. Tune in for invaluable insights and practical tools to enhance your agile journey.
Listen Now to Discover:
[1:08] - Brian welcomes Certified Scrum Trainer®, Certified Team Coach®, & Certified Enterprise Coach®, and host of the Clean At Work podcast, John Barratt.
[4:42] - John reveals the core issues behind struggling organizations and shares how innovation can allow an organization to thrive during challenging times.
[5:50] - Brian and John analyze the impact of economic downturns on organizations and agility, offering strategies to navigate these challenging times successfully.
[10:04] - Brian and John explore the role of Scrum and Agile in an economic downturn.
[16:08] - Join Brian and the Mountain Goat Software team for not only a Certified ScrumMaster® class but a full year of membership, learning, and support from Mike Cohn, Brian, and the Agile Mentors Community. You don’t have to lead alone.
[17:09] - Brian poses an opportunity to expand the definition of done of Scrum leadership.
[19:43] - John introduces the Agile Coaching Growth Wheel and the Agile Coaching Code of Ethics as powerful resources to help Agile practitioners and leaders enhance their skills and progress in their development.
[23:42] - John shares the tool of Agile Scoping, based on From Contempt to Curiosity by Caitlin Walker, to lean into Scrum success within an organization.
[32:25] - Brian shares a big thank you to John for joining him on the show.
[33:04] - We invite you to share this episode with a friend and subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast.
[33:57] - Do you have feedback or a great idea for an episode of the show? Great! Just send us an email.
[34:16] - If you’d like to continue this discussion, join the Agile Mentors Community. You get a year of free membership into that site by taking any class with Mountain Goat Software. We'd love to see you in one of Mountain Goat Software's classes, you can find the schedule here.
References and resources mentioned in the show:
John Barratt
Clean At Work podcast
Scrum Events Meetup
#93: The Rise of Human Skills and Agile Acumen with Evan Leyburn
The Agile Army - John Barratt
Agile Coaching Growth Wheel
Agile Coaching Code of Ethics
Agile Scoping
From Contempt to Curiosity by Caitlin Walker
Agile 2024 - The European Experience - Manchester
Agile Coach Camp UK
Certified ScrumMaster® Training and Scrum Certification
Join the Agile Mentors Community
Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast
Mountain Goat Software Certified Scrum and Agile Training Schedule
Want to get involved?
This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input.
Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one.
Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com
This episode’s presenters are:
Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work.
John Barratt is a Certified Enterprise Coach® (CEC) and Certified Scrum Trainer® (CST), passionate about helping individuals, teams, and organizations achieve their best through agile coaching approaches. With a background in the military and a keen interest in systemic modeling, John constantly seeks new ideas and innovations to support organizational resilience and agility.
Auto-generated Transcript:
Brian (00:00)
Welcome in Agile Mentors. We are here for another episode of the Agile Mentors podcast. I am with you as always, Brian Milner, and with me today, I have a good friend of mine that I've been trying to get on the show for a while. Mr. John Barrett is with us. Welcome in, John.
John Barratt (00:14)
Thank you for having me Brian. It's been a while. We've been trying. We're here today. I'm really pleased.
Brian (00:18)
Yeah, very, very excited. John and I have seen each other at conferences for years. We've crossed paths. And I kind of jokingly said to him, I'm threatening to have a conversation with you not at a conference at some point. And that was kind of how we started this. For those who aren't familiar with John and his work, John works with a company called Agile Affinity.
John Barratt (00:34)
Hahaha!
Brian (00:43)
He is a certified Scrum trainer, a certified team coach, and certified enterprise coach. So he has the holy trifecta of Scrum Alliance certifications there from the guide community. He's a coach and trainer. Couple of interesting things. First of all, we'll talk a little bit about this, but John has his own podcast called the Clean at Work podcast that we can talk about here a little bit. But another interesting thing that he told me before, I didn't realize this, but John actually started in the military. So do you want to say anything about that? How long were you in the military?
John Barratt (01:19)
Yeah, so I was in the military for six years, joined accidentally when I was 18. So I went into the career office with a friend who was joining. And they were like, you're a bright lad, you can earn all of this money. So it was either go to university and getting lots of debt or join the army, get lots of training and get paid and see the world. So no thoughts of joining before that day accidentally joined. Did six years including a tour of Iraq. And the important thing about that for me is when I left, I felt really isolated. So Army is all about team, right? Team focus. Left the Army, was in IT, and it felt totally different. People were there stabbing me in the back, not supporting me. And then I found this thing called Agile, which was about teams again. And this thing called Scrum, where it was a team game. I was like, this is what I've been missing. Where's this been for the last two years since I left the army? And the rest is history. I did do a keynote at Central Agile Spain. I'm not sure what year, but it is on YouTube for anyone who's interested in hearing more about how the army is actually rather agile in my humble opinion.
Brian (02:22)
Yeah. That's awesome. We'll find that and put that in the show notes here. So if people are interested in finding that, they can go and watch that.
John Barratt (02:45)
Yeah, we'll have to dust it out of the archives.
Brian (02:48)
Well, yeah, yeah, I'm sure we can find it. But we were talking before this about our topic and I think this is going to be a topic that's interesting to a lot of people. Really, really kind of diving into the state of the industry right now and what we're seeing as far as the economy in the agile industry. You know, there's there's several organizations that have laid people off You know, there's there's less demand at the moment in the coaching kind of realm So kind of what's behind that the the shifts and you know What might be driving this kind of thing? So I know John you got some opinions on this. So let us have it
John Barratt (03:18)
Mm -hmm. Yeah, so I don't want to talk too much about the global economics. I don't pretend to be an expert on why we're seeing a recession. We can talk about, you know, COVID and the cost of that and also the war in Ukraine and, you know, all of the pain and suffering that that's caused much more than, you know, what we're seeing, which is, you know, a few people being laid off. So I don't want to go into that. But what I do want to really explore is, so if an organization is struggling, there's two elements. for that. Do they try and cut back as much cost as possible or do they try and innovate themselves out of that recession? Do they try and do something different and in a unique way? Unfortunately what I'm seeing a lot of is the first one which is cut back, reduce cost as much as possible and that's to the detriment of the the Scrim masses and and agile coaches that we see and I'm going to talk a little bit why they are the ones that often are in danger in a minute. Instead of where they should go, which my bias opinion should go, right? What I'm trying to do in the company that I run is to actually lean into that as an opportunity and try and innovate and see, well, what is possible in this new, exciting world that we're perhaps moving into? Where do we need to go when organizations are struggling? What are the opportunities, an example, AI that we've seen and what difference will that make in the next few years? I mean, who knows?
Brian (05:14)
Yeah, yeah, I think it's fascinating and you know, there's something I've talked about with some friends for several years and that is that I think there's sort of a, boy, I don't know how deep we want to go on this, but you know, you have a lot of executives now that get hired to come into a company and it's gamesmanship because the idea is I've got to increase our... our stock price by however many percentage points. And my bonus is tied to that. The more I can increase it, the more I get a bonus. Well, it's kind of like if you go to a team and tell them, hey, can you do more story points? They can certainly game that and all of a sudden have more story points. Well, the same thing with a short -term kind of executive. If you're in an organization and you're only going to be there for a couple of years, And you know your site is, if I can raise it three percentage points, I get a bonus. Well, there's a lot of easy cuts I can make that all of a sudden I've gone up three percentage points. But the long term of that company has not benefited. It's only the short term. And it just feels like, I don't know if it's a day trader thing, if that's really why this is kind of becoming more prevalent or not. But it seems like investing is kind of more of the short term. Now, and it used to be when you buy a stock, you'd buy it for 10, 20 years because you believed in that company and you expected to pay off over the long run. There's still a little of that, but it seems much more short -sighted. And I think that's trickled down to our, like I said, I don't know how deep we want to get on this. I think that's trickled down to our executives. And I think from the executive, that's trickled down to the employees. And that's really affected how...
John Barratt (06:41)
Mm -hmm.
Brian (07:06)
you know, when we've had layoffs and we've had downturns in the economy that just, hey, this is an easy way for us to show an increase in profits.
John Barratt (07:15)
Yeah, I think that's a really good point. It reminds me of Craig Lammon's laws, structure leads culture. And when we talk about structure, we don't ever just mean the hierarchy, we mean the bonus system, how people are rewarded and paid and all of those things. And so if you're rewarding shortism by giving these execs bonuses based on
Brian (07:34)
Yeah.
John Barratt (07:41)
profit for this year or as you said stock increase by 3 % then they will cut costs because what looks good for short term and for stocks is to have the minimum operational expense possible right if they can keep that as low as possible then that looks like a solid company because they're keeping controlling costs they talk about and and If they're working on margins and profits start to go down, which is what we're seeing as a trend at least UK, US, I can't say if it's completely global, but it seems like a large percent of the company and the organizations are going in that way, then what they do is to keep their margins so that they get their bonus is they start to reduce that, right? Because they need to keep that buffer. If they were to do what I'm suggesting, which is to lean into that and perhaps spend a little bit, spend some money to make some money, or at least keep it lying and try some innovative stuff, then that's high risk for them. Hmm.
Brian (08:50)
Yeah. Yeah, I've seen things before that have said that when there is economic downturns, that their evidence shows that the companies that invest more during the economic downturns actually end up increasing their positions to a much greater extent when the downturn starts to turn around because...
John Barratt (09:02)
Mm -hmm.
Brian (09:14)
they haven't just set idle or they haven't tried to reduce, they've tried to invest and now they're positioned to really take advantage of it once the economy starts flowing again. I'm not like you, I'm no economic expert, I'm no economist. So I don't know all the ins and outs of what's causing that. But it certainly has caused pain in our sector. And I think a lot of sectors, because I have I know lots of people who have gone through layoffs, not just in the tech industry recently. So I guess kind of the question that I ask about this as far as the agile community is concerned is, if we were delivering value, right? If it was undeniable that what we were doing was increasing profits, increasing value to our customers, I think that would make it a lot. harder for these kind of layoffs to happen. So I don't want to entirely say, hey, it's bad leadership, right? I think we have to take ownership a little bit.
John Barratt (10:23)
Yeah, and I'm going to say something I think is quite controversial here, which I actually blame servant leadership for this. So I know in the latest version of the Scrum Guide, we use the word true leadership, but I still like the word servant leadership. And I've actually changed my mindset and how I teach these things over the last few years because of this, because we've started to see this trend.
Brian (10:28)
Go for it. All right.
John Barratt (10:51)
And I've seen it in organizations where I've worked, I've left one year later, and then they've made all the agile coaches redundant. And I think it's down to how we use and perceive servant leadership. So historically, I was always, you know, Scrum Master or Agile Coach is the great person in the background. They let everyone else take the credit. They're there to help and support the team and to do all of that stuff, which is great, right? until someone with a balance sheet comes along and goes, what are all these scrum masters who aren't delivering any value, right? They're an overhead. They're seen as an overhead. Not delivering any value. No one can even tell me what value they've created. These developers over here, they're doing great. And the product owner is really maximizing the value of this product. But these scrum masters, they don't add any value. Because that's what we told them to do, right? We taught them to...
Brian (11:29)
Yeah.
John Barratt (11:49)
give everyone else the credit and serve everyone else and be in the background. So I think we've got a lot to blame, Brian, as trainers for, well, I don't know how you've taught it in the past, but I feel a little bit guilty. Don't worry, I've got the answer, but I just want to hear from you, what you, where you are with that one.
Brian (12:04)
No, no, no, no. Yeah. I'll tell you my opinion and you'll tell me if I'm correct or not. Yeah, no, I agree. I definitely think that's part of it. But maybe this will be a little controversial. I kind of spoke about this recently at the Scrum Gathering in my talk. In the trend that we've seen, John Barratt (12:15) Yeah!
Brian (12:40)
that I kind of talk about the diminishing of the perception of value of the Scrum Master. And I think that there's kind of multiple parts to that. I think part of it could be, hey, leadership doesn't really understand the value. But I think that there is a secondary part of that, that they're not seeing the value. And if they're not seeing the value, then I think that that's
John Barratt (12:48)
Mm -hmm. Mm -hmm.
Brian (13:08)
that rest on us. I think that we have to partly do a better job of helping them to understand it, but partly doing a better job of delivering it. And again, don't want to get too controversial here, but in our industry, in our training industry, You know, we've done lots of two day classes. We've done lots of things where we get people out the door and then they're in place and they're doing things. And the follow -up, you and I both know the follow -up is so important. You can't just take a two day class and then you're set for life. It's two days, but that's a kickoff and you got to continue that. and if I, if I take a two day class and I kind of slide backwards a little bit from that class and I get in and I'm a scrum master, there's, John Barratt (13:43) Mm -hmm. Yeah.
Brian (14:01)
Unfortunately, I think there's a lot of scrum masters out there who see their job as meeting scheduler. I'm here to schedule meetings, and that's the value I bring. Well, I can't blame a leader for letting that person go, because anybody can schedule meetings. It doesn't really take a lot of skill to do that.
John Barratt (14:08)
Mm -hmm. Yeah.
Brian (14:26)
The skills that we should be adding are those soft skills, the conflict resolution and understanding the personality types that make up our team. And essentially what I talked about in my talk was that first phrase of the Agile Manifesto, individuals and interactions over processes and tools. It's about individuals and interactions. We have to know the people that make up our team, not every team in the world, but our team. And we have to know. how they work best together. And I think people who do that, there's enormous value for that. So I would propose to you there's a shared blame, right? I think there's a blame there that we need to do a better job of showing the executives, but we also need to do a better job of actually providing value for the executives. John Barratt (14:58) Mm -hmm. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, I'm just, I was just, you know, I'm new to running CSMs and things like that. And one of the things I've brought in is a follow -up session. So, you know, a month after the training, they can have 30 minutes and we can talk about stuff. And that's really where you appreciate that the CSM isn't enough, right, to be a Scrum Master because you... There's only so much you can do, but the thing that always lacks, at least I haven't managed to perfect it yet, is those soft skills, right, which are the things that are important because you can't cover that in half an hour, an hour, right? All of those things are a full one, two, well, I'm being generous, just touching the sides with a one, two day course in some of those. And it's good to see the Scrim Alliance moving into some of those, you know, competency based or what they call skills based. courses where we can go a bit deeper into those key things. Because they're talking about, well, how can I do this? And in my head, it's obvious, but it's clearly not. So there's a huge gap between putting someone on a two -day course and thinking they can be a scrum master. And we do see a lot of bad scrum masters in the industry. And it certainly does cost everyone, even the good ones, some credibility. Right? Because... And if there's more ones, and it's not bad because they're bad people or trying to do a bad job, it's just that they haven't been equipped to do the job, right? Yeah, it's as simple as that. Brian (17:03) Yeah. At one of the tables I was at at the recent guide retreat at the Scrum gathering, we were having a discussion around this. And one of the things that kind of struck me as that was going on was, you know what it sounds like? It sounds like we don't have a stringent enough definition of done. Like when we think about someone who's you're now ready to be a Scrum master, well, that definition of done right now is a two day class. Right? And.
John Barratt (17:22)
Mm -hmm.
Brian (17:32)
I think we have to put in the expectation that, no, this is a component of that definition of done, but there's actually more that you need in order to, you know, this is an important role. This is somebody who is shepherding and guiding a team to be successful in this. So if someone's not qualified in doing that, it's no wonder that we see a bunch of bad scum out there because the person leading it isn't qualified, you know?
John Barratt (17:38)
Hmm. Yeah, and actually, I was just thinking an apprenticeship approach would be a much better idea, right, for this type of work. I often give the metaphor in my classes that agile coaching is a craft, Scrum Mastery is a craft. And imagine you're a carpenter, you don't get better at being a carpenter by reading lots of theory about good joints and all of this stuff. You know, you pick up a few things, you get better at Scrum Mastery or agile coaching.
Brian (18:07)
Yeah.
John Barratt (18:29)
by working and getting feedback. Our work is with the people, right? And people are a lot more complex than would, so we have to do even more of it to get any good. And of course, in carpentry, you wouldn't think about, we'll do a two -day training course. You would do an apprenticeship, right? And they do it for years before they become like a master carpenter. Yet we have scrimmasters after two days.
Brian (18:58)
Yeah. Yeah, no, I completely agree. And for the organization, I know when you've seen organizations that have sort of that layer, that hierarchy of we have Scrum Masters, but we have coaches, and we have enterprise coaches. When you have that kind of structure where you can have the phrase we use as mentor and be mentored. And if you can be in that place where you mentor others and you're also being mentored,
John Barratt (19:21)
Mm -hmm.
Brian (19:28)
That I think is really key to reaching the next level, to being able to kind of grow into what it is that you want to become in this industry.
John Barratt (19:39)
Yeah, I mean, I can't solve that problem very easily myself. You know, we've got a certified team coach and enterprise coach in the Scrim Alliance. It needs to be a bit more of a gap, I think, between that and CSPSM and we'll see what comes out in the next few years. But there is a couple of resources that I have worked on to try and help with this. So I've been on a mission to try and professionalize the world of agile coaching for at least five years. And the two things that I've found that have helped most people, is something called the Agile Coaching Growth Wheel, which you may have heard of. We'll put the link in the chat to that, which has kind of all of the competencies that we think you need in Agile Coaching, which is the set of competencies that a Scrum Master needs. So not Agile Coach, Agile Coaching, Scrum Master, Agile Coach, or any, you know, job title could be anything, right? It doesn't really matter. So that's a really useful tool. gives you all the areas, but it also gives you guidance, like a one to five guidance that almost uses the apprenticeship type thing. I can't remember all the levels, I think it uses like the Drift for scale, but it says at level one, you should be able to do these sorts of things. At level two, you should be able to do these sorts of things. And that gives people at least a starting point. You don't know what you don't know, right?
Brian (20:58)
Right. No, I think that's awesome. And we definitely will put that in our links and make sure that people can find that. Yeah, you're right. That kind of apprenticeship idea, I know that I could not have gotten to where I am without the mentors I've had.
John Barratt (21:15)
Mmm.
Brian (21:18)
And it's people who have, for no benefit of their own, have taken their own time to say, I'm going to invest time in this person and help them reach the next level. And I've tried to carry that forward as I've grown in this career as well, because I think it's important. I think we have to help the next group that's coming along. Yeah.
John Barratt (21:44)
Mm -hmm. I was thinking becoming a CST is almost like that apprenticeship type system, right? Where you have to do the co -trains with different people. They're like mentors, right? Different diversity, different types and groups. And you learn, both people learn from doing the co -train. And I think personally, it'd be a shame if they ever...
Brian (21:54)
Yeah.
John Barratt (22:16)
remove that concept because I think it's the closest we've got to an apprenticeship.
Brian (22:21)
Yeah. Yeah, and it works, right? I mean, I think that it does a good job of getting people to the level they need to be. There's still a lot, I mean, that doesn't do it all on its own, but it is, you know, I think anyone who's been through it, I think you would probably agree with this as well, is, you know, that was a foundational part of becoming a CST for me, is being able to observe and watch others and learn from them and... get feedback on how I was doing it. So I think you're right. That could be a very intriguing addition if there was someone who kind of incorporated that into the process. And I think that would give organizations kind of a confidence to say, I can trust this person.
John Barratt (23:10)
Which is what we really want with the CCCTCs, right? It's that stamp. I can trust that person. Second tool I wanted to highlight was the Agile Coaching Code of Ethics. So this was an initiative we did with the Agile Alliance. And the beauty of when we created this code of ethics, it was for people who were just starting out as well as experienced professionals. So you can read through that and that's kind of your rule sheet of
Brian (23:25)
Yeah.
John Barratt (23:40)
I'm new to this. This is the minimum standard we expect from a Scrum Master or an Agile coach in this industry. Because you don't know what you don't know again. But we've tried to make it as simple as possible. A simple list of these are the things you should definitely do if you want to be ethical in your work.
Brian (24:00)
Yeah. Yeah, that's a good resource as well. And we'll make sure we have that linked. Was there another resource as well that you wanted to mention, or is it just those two?
John Barratt (24:12)
So it's the Agile Coaching Growth Wheel and the Agile Coaching Code of Ethics. So we've talked a lot about the problem of where we're at, and we've given a couple of pointers. I wanted to talk a little bit about how I've changed my direction from this original kind of servant leadership type focus, which seems to be having some...
Brian (24:36)
Yeah.
John Barratt (24:40)
traction and benefit and value to people. And it's a couple of tools combined. So I created something a couple of years ago called Agile Scoping, which was based on Clean Scoping. So Clean Scoping is something that Caitlin Walker created based on Clean Language around how she scoped out a new piece of work. If you want to know more, then I highly recommend her book from Content Curiosity.
Brian (24:44)
Awesome.
John Barratt (25:10)
Bit biased, but one of the best books I've ever read. Not an agile book at all, but just a truly incredible story about how she's used clean language and something we call systemic modeling, which is using clean language in groups, with youths that have been kicked out of school, for example, and how they went from all individuals to suddenly kind of helping and supporting and understanding each other.
Brian (25:31)
Hmm, yeah.
John Barratt (25:40)
So great book. But anyway, Agile Scoping was based on that and it starts off with a discovery phase. We call that initial scoping, which is setting out kind of, is this work set up for success? So is the person in charge actually got enough influence over the system to actually make any change? So if you are doing Scrum. Do they have permission to actually change the structure into something that is actually going to help Scrum succeed? Have they tried different things before? And also this thing called congruency. So it's what they're saying aligned to what they're doing. So asking for those examples of, okay, you're saying that this, have you tried that before? Those sort of things. Very high level, just checking it out. And you can do that in an interview as well. So this isn't just for an external person. I always think that interviews should be two -way, right? It's not just a one -way thing. I want to check that if I'm signing up 40 hours a week or however many, that this is an organization that actually wants to be agile. I mean, I always put my hand out to the people on my training and people I meet at conferences where they're really struggling, right? And it's a really hard environment. And I always think, wow, you've got way more patience than I have. I really respect that. but my patients' levels are very low. So if I'm going to work with a client, I need to have a feeling that they can work at a pace, right?
Brian (27:20)
Yeah, right. Right.
John Barratt (27:21)
So that's level one and that's fine. Then we do an organizational scoping phase where you work with as many people as possible. You're looking at the problems that the organization says they've got, what the culture is now, where they want it to be, running some workshops, finding out what's happening. And again, we call it scoping because you can scope it to the level that you've been brought into. So if you're a Scrum Master working with one team and it's... One product owner, small product, that's fine. That's your scope if it's a whole organization, much wider. At the end of that, you create a coaching plan with the organization. So you have a session and you agree up to four outcomes is what I've found. So we move into outcome -based approach. So even if you skip all of the other stuff, what I would say is move away from any output thinking. As a scrum -rosterer,
Brian (28:10)
Yeah.
John Barratt (28:18)
even if it's just in your yearly appraisal, make it clear these are the outcomes that we're looking for. And these are more business related outcomes or things that are going to actually make a difference to the organization. So it could be things like make more money for the organization, could be increase employee engagement, increase customer engagement, number of active users in your mobile app, whatever those are. But they're nothing to really do with Agile, they're to do with...
Brian (28:42)
Yeah.
John Barratt (28:47)
that the organization wants to set. Those go into a coaching plan. We have a coaching agreement canvas that you can use to put all of that in. And then it's really clear, like these are the things that I'm going to help and support you with as a Scrim Master or Agile coach. There's a bit more risk, right? Because if you don't meet them, then you've got to have a conversation, but at least then it's visible, right? These are what I'm saying I'm going to help with. This is what you've said you want help with. And now we're going to do a number of experiments to try and get there. And that's where we get into that continuous improvement cycle of trying to involve, adapt, inspect, work on all of those things that are happening within your team, within your department, within your organization, depending on where your scope is, constantly evolving and looking at. where we're at. We might have some lead -in indicators as well, perhaps in there to help us cycle time, lead time, throughput. Those can be useful, but really we're looking at end value and we're measuring our performance of a Scrum Master Agile Coach based on the value being given. We're not letting the product owner take all of that praise and credit. Of course, we don't want to be too arrogant and go too far the other way. It's a team effort. but we're at least putting our, you know, more, I think skin in the game is the thing. What I've seen in the past is, you know, bit of a puppy dog type thing, Scrum Master, ooh, shiny over here, great, shiny over there, no, skin in the game, this is a partnership, and we're gonna work on this together. Sorry, I spoke for a long time, though.
Brian (30:16)
Yeah. Love that. No, no, no. I love that. You were saying great stuff. And I mean, I love the bit about outcome -based kind of approaches to it. I think that's really, really important. I've always thought, you know, like the performance, I'm always really hesitant about performance -based kind of metrics. And I always want to shift more to output outcome -based kind of metrics, not output. And I think that because that's, You're right. A business doesn't care how agile we are. A business cares if we're increasing our bottom line, if we're increasing our membership, all the business goals that you might have. That's what they care about. And agile -ism means to that.
John Barratt (31:17)
Yeah, I have a big shiver when teams have like agile maturity models. Like the word maturity, first of all, like if I say to you, Brian, you're immature, Brian. You know, that's just like, why would you do that? And also if I, you know, it's many people have said agile is never the goal, right? We're never trying to be agile for agile sake. We're doing it to help organizations and, you know.
Brian (31:23)
Ha ha ha.
John Barratt (31:44)
Therefore, why would you want to know how mature a team is when that's not actually that important, right? Could be a very leading indicator, perhaps, of where you're trying to get to, but it scares me when I see those sort of things.
Brian (32:04)
Yeah, this is great. This is great stuff. And there's so I mean, from what you've said, there's so many good links that we're going to be able to put in our show notes for this. We'll also, by the way, make sure that people can get in touch with you, John, if they want to follow up and learn more individually from you, because that's always really important here as well. And I know it's conference season. There's a lot of conferences going on. And you were telling me you're going to be at the Europe.
John Barratt (32:12)
Mm -hmm.
Brian (32:33)
Agile 24 conference, right?
John Barratt (32:36)
Yeah, so I've decided to do my part for the environment and not fly out to America for the third time this year. So I'm going to be in the Agile Alliance Manchester in July. I'm doing two sessions there. One looking at product refinement using clean language and the other one how to help and support self -managing teams with Caitlin herself. So if you like the idea of the stuff I was talking with Caitlin. and that's the session for you. Also going to be in Agile Prague this year, Agile Coach Camp UK, which I run, but unfortunately that is full. So there is a waiting list if you did want to try and sneak into that. And I'm sure I'll be at a few other places as well. There's also my monthly meetup that I run with a number of other colleagues called Scrum Event. It's actually the second largest Scrum Alliance user group in the world.
Brian (33:33)
Awesome.
John Barratt (33:34)
and we tend to have some pretty cool speakers there, so watch out for that.
Brian (33:40)
That's awesome. Yeah. We'll try to link to all of that so that people can find it. But yeah, if you're going to be at any of those conferences or if you're on the fence about going to the conference, you can hear great speakers like John there. So make sure that if you do, that you go up and say hello and tell them that you were listening to the podcast and heard this and were interested. And that's why you're there. Well, John, I appreciate your time. We're recording this on a Friday afternoon for you. And I know that's really precious time at the end of a week. So I really appreciate you giving us your time here and sharing your knowledge with us.
John Barratt (34:19)
Thank you for inviting me and having me. It's been a blast.
Brian (34:24)
Absolutely.