Is self-organisation always appropriate?
Hello there fellow Scrum enthusiasts,
Throughout my experience as a Scrum Master, I've worked with many developers who were very happy to broaden their skillset, accept ownership of their team's success, and take the necessary initiatives to self-organize. However, I've also met developers who were in the field because they liked working with software, but who wanted as little to do with the "management and organization stuff" as they could. I've heard the phrase before "Can't we just have someone in charge who knows what they're doing, makes the calls and tells us what to do?" and I've heard many developers argue that, in their mind, it couldn't work any other way. You can show someone data showing that it does work, but if they're not comfortable with that kind of organization, it's not facts that will change their mind (psychology researcher Jonathan Haidt has a lot to say about that in his research).
I've read Dan Pink's Drive, and I am aware of what a self-organized team can achieve. Personally, I like to think that I strive for an intrinsically motivating job. At the same time, if someone tells me that what they prefer is a 9 to 5 job that pays the bills and where they can just do what's asked of them, then who am I to try to convince them that they should strive for something else, that they should aim for a different life? To me, that kind of value judgement smells of arrogance and elitism.
Some people might say that it's fine that some people prefer that kind of job, but that in building an agile organization, these are not the kind of people you want on your team. Alright, I can agree that it's important that people's values should fit with their employer's. What do you do, then, when a CEO decides that the organization will attempt an "agile transformation"? Can you really just ask people to adapt or leave? To what degree does the organization have some responsibility to be flexible with its employees different personalities?
There might be cultural factors at play too. From its inspiration in Takeuchi and Nonaka's article, Scrum seems to have been influenced quite a bit by Japanese work culture, a country where people, if I'm not mistaken, are often given a job-for-life, and a strong spirit of collectivity. I'm particularly interested in Geert Hofstede's research on culture's dimensions, two of which, the Power Distance and Individualism of a culture, would likely have a large impact on how tolerant people might be to have no central figure of authority and collective objectives. I've also been told by a management professor with cross-cultural experience in Thailand (and I might have understood this wrong) that the Thai Buddhist culture sometimes favours repetitive, brainless jobs, jobs where one can achieve detachment from desires; isn't that in conflict with the core assumption behind self-organized team that people flourish in stimulating jobs? Does it really make sense to try to copy and paste a set of value on people who do not necessarily share these values?
My impression is that there isn't a cut and dried solution, but I'd like to hear your opinions on the matter.
> I've heard the phrase before "Can't we just have someone in charge who knows what they're doing, makes the calls and tells us what to do?"
What was the answer to that question though, in each situation when you heard it? It may or may not be true.
If an organization actually needs a Scrum transformation in order to survive, then there seems little point in hedging, because the answer must surely be "no". The matter is then one of securing the necessary sponsorship for change, and of communicating the need for it. Scrum requires self-organizing teams which manage themselves using empiricism. The communication of such a necessity is ultimately the responsibility of the organization's accountable officers. A Scrum Master can assist transformation in a number of ways, but there is no button for enterprise change which a Scrum Master can or should push.
> What was the answer to that question though, in each situation when you heard it? It may or may not be true.
If I thought I had the definitive answer to that question, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
> If an organization actually needs a Scrum transformation in order to survive
Isn't that a pretty big "if"?
If there is no immediate threat to survival, and Scrum transformation is seen in the context of performance (which fits my personal experience), then I believe there is a case to be made for the moral responsibility of the organization towards its employees, which in some cases could be at the expense of some performance. Some people will argue the organization has responsibility towards noone but its shareholders; that's a whole debate on its own...
I completely agree with you on the necessity for change sponsorship, and for the communication of the organization's desire to have self-organizing and empirically managed teams. That is, if the organization actually wants those things.
You've made me realize that if the organization does communicate clear values and a clear management philosophy, if the organization clearly expresses a desire for an agile transformation, then it is probably reasonable to expect employees to follow those values, even if they are not their own, and to adapt to this new organization.
Where I am still hesitant: While I am certain organizations are aware of the potential advantages of an agile transformation, I don't think its potential impact on employees (sometimes positive, sometimes not), and the risks associated with a culture change of that magnitude, are usually well understood. We know agile organizations are usually effective, but that doesn't mean that making your organization agile will be a positive change.
I don't think comparing Scrum with Thai buddhist culture is the right thought they both have their own purpose.
Scrum became popular because its strength lies in the core principles and set of ingredients that make it effective. Once of those ingredients is a self-organizing team.
If team member(s) do not believe or do not want to self-organize or take ownership and responsibility it is the role of the SM to patiently wait , coach, train and advocate the benefits of being a self-organized team. I think your opinion about avoiding conflict (a big NO for scrum!) w.r.t their belief system will change once you read books about how to coach your agile team (Coaching Agile Teams - the book - by Lyssa Adkins is what helped me, but there are others like The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Patrick Lencioni which helps you understand how to deal with team members of different emotions)
Remember that SMs are not usually given a team of 3-9 CERTIFIED Scrum development team members. I follow the following steps to expose such individuals to the Agile/Scrum IDEOLOGY.
1) There are numerous online resources/videos and shot exams that will challenge their knowledge of scrum and teach them in the process. Many organizations have certifications and tutorials to pass every year (HIPAA, PHI for example). Talk to management about the problem and propose a certificate program for becoming a scrum development team member. Just like out beliefs have transformed through out coaching and training sessions, their opinions will change too!
2) Hold lunch and learn sessions and attempt the online exams as a team. As you answer and reason the wrong answers the information discussed and the concepts of self organizing team will repeat and stay ingrained in our minds (example = you and me!)
3) I never force the belief, I always wait for the right occasion or moment. Some times it could be happy hour discussion about a great football game where the team is in awe of the team effort of players on field! Use that moment to draw analogy of how it can be employed to your team! Use examples of online collaborative video games where people share resources/troops as an example of the experts can train others and others can seek help without fear and hesitation so that all team members acquire and grow their knowledge to form a solid team will all members having multiple skills. As this happens the team automatically becomes self -organized as well!
4) Team building events greatly helps. When people know about each other other than their job persona things will be eased and they can start taking ownership of things and even enjoy getting things done a a group. The feeling of yours vs mine should be abolished to build a harmonious self -organized cross-functional team.
I didn't mean to compare Scrum to Thai Buddhist culture (it's not a question of whether one or the other is valid), I meant to point out how one's culture and the values carried by that culture can be in direct conflict with the values behind Scrum. My questioning was: in such a case, can you force a set of values upon an individual? If they are the organization's values, perhaps (Dr Mitchell's convinced me here), but what about the cases where that part is not so clear?
Both Patrick Lencioni's book and Lyssa Adkins are great. They've shaped a lot of my opinions on what makes a great team and what makes a great coach. I'm not saying I don't believe in the strength of a self-organized team. However, what I do believe is that it's not always in the best interest of all when an agile coach attempts to take a team there.
A glaring difference I see between agile coaching and some other forms of coaching is that the agile coach must keep in the back of their head the interests of the organization (and the agile transformation), whereas a personal coach, for instance, always puts the coachee first. This makes a difference in the (maybe rare) cases where, for example, it becomes obvious that the coachee does not want to self-organize. If, as a coach, you come in with the belief that you know what's best for the coachee, and disregard their own stated opinion on the matter, is that really coaching? If you have an agenda other than the coachee's interest, when does coaching become salesmanship? When does it become manipulation?
Just to be clear: I'm not saying to avoid conflict, but perhaps to be mindful of the causes and consequences of that conflict.
I think you had exactly the same question like I did " If, as a coach, you come in with the belief that you know what's best for the coachee, and disregard their own stated opinion on the matter, is that really coaching? "
I was not convinced it is possible until I read Coaching Agile Teams - the book - by Lyssa Adkins . In one of the chapters on coaching techniques She advocates of meeting them half step not even one step. What she meant based on my reading is when we have a rule to be followed and even if they have some aspect of it that they like we will stick on to that and build on top of it with patience. Even after all this some people will not be willing to change like you mentioned.
I guess the only option at this time is to respect each others views and agree to an arrangement that is best for both! I mean I have seen some individuals who do not even believe in Agile to the extent that they wont even yield to have a quick read of my suggestion or join me to an agile webinar or event. Obviously they may want to pursue career at an organization that is not agile. there is no option there. But I would try everything before I come to that conclusion :)
Another way to put it is, coaching only comes into play when opinions have to be tailored and conditioned, Right? Other wise they may not even need coaching. I remember those who get it right away! These people actually help my cause by setting example, being there with me during the lunch and learn and training sessions, helping me and adding their own reasons and experiences of why Agile is best. They help me coach and train.
Lyssa also differentiates between coaching and training , where she attributes training (as if you are training a fighter who WANTS to learn fighting) and coaching as how to best use the skills they already have. Obviously, coaching is a way to apply learning in an informed way. Training is used for things like new-hire orientation, changes in processes, procedures, or technology, and new governmental regulations. So first you train even if they have questions about why they have to do what they are doing (compare this with wax on wax off of the karate kid movie). I guess if the employees are not willing to get trained that means they do not want to CONSIDER agile and therefore do not want to be with the company. As simple as that.
And the best way out of this situation is when you hire the new employee with an Agile need. Now that you mention this hardship of coaching I remember how the new employees always are willing and adapting to the process without much complaints! Because they already know what they signed for and they are in the training mode where they are ready to learn an entirely new or foreign concept with minimum questions (orientation style) unlike the existing employees who need to be connected through their pain points and should really believe that the change will help resolve the problems they are facing in current process. In my experience thought different teams and persons took extremely wide range of times ( days to months and years) to finally get it, they all either got it or left before getting it, but were always engaged in the discussion, because the process of training and coaching never stops for a SM.