For scrum to work efficiently. the year-end Appraisal system of the company need to change
Scrum is too idealistic. Isn’t it? Reading about scrum makes me think that it does not live in the real world.
For example, scrum expects:
- People should be transparent and share knowledge: Really!!?? Transparent? In a world where you are judged by your level of knowledge, why would you share it with others? How will my appraisal process be done in that case, when all start working efficiently as me eventually, more or less.
- Be courageous enough to say i don’t know how to do a work item or i couldn’t complete that work: There goes my appraisal rating. Isn’t it bad on me when i say i don’t know. And, if i say so, isn’t it easy for me to get a poor rating in the year-end appraisal.
Just a few examples on how a normally distributed appraisal system can jeopardize the scrum values. A system where out of a team of say 9 people, only one may get that golden bonus, 2 silver and the rest nothing. How is such a system going to be a motivation for a supposedly cross-functional and self-managing team? Wouldn’t the one with the most skills/knowledge try to hoard it in order to get that fat sum? Wouldn’t a colleague use every available opportunity to make the other look bad? (even though, Respect is also a scrum value)
I believe that this sort of Appraisal system which basically throws a bone to be fought over, cannot help build a successful scrum framework. The change needs to come from the top else it is all just a farce.
Any thoughts on how to tackle this problem?
Reading about scrum makes me think that it does not live in the real world.
Perhaps Scrum is just very good at highlighting problems in the real world very quickly.
The change needs to come from the top else it is all just a farce.
Any thoughts on how to tackle this problem?
I'd suggest that you may have answered this question for yourself, right there. The change needs to come from the top, or else it is all just a farce.
I've found Scrum to work best in a small organization where somebody from the C-suite is the actual Product Manager. That way, things actually get done and there is hardly any bureaucracy. One exception to this is Elon Musk, who runs large initiatives well because HE is involved at every step.
With larger companies, you're going up against traditional roles and processes all of whom think in terms of process and haven't been trained to focus on the product or the client.
Teams are important but I've also seen teams where 20% do 80% of the work and there are those who just cruise by and then the team is rewarded as a whole. I'll be a contrarian here and say that individuals who perform and produce should be recognized and rewarded for their work. This is exactly why so many intelligent, young people want to attend elite colleges and then get a job a investment banking. There, they are rewarded for their individual performance as well as the desk's performance.
Scrum require a real mature system and a real mature organization.
those problems you highlight are typical for a classic waterfall organization.
Scrum embrace teams not individuals, if there is a problem scrum account the enviroment not the single... those are just few that came into my mind...
IMO if the organization is not ready to embrace those concepts, scrum will fade away quickly
Hi,
You're right! The annual appraisal stuff is a real problem. Not only for Scrum, but many smart businesses are https://www.inc.com/thomas-koulopoulos/performance-reviews-are-dead-heres-what-you-should-do-instead.html (or fundamentally changing) their performance management processes.
In that light, a friend of mine published a thoughtful alternative that Scrum teams might use even in the most conventional enterprises. He and I have documented the idea as a workshop here - with complete facilitation guide and helpful tips for teams: