Howard Sublett: Scrum Alliance Now and Then | Agile to agility | Miljan Bajic | Episode #9

Howard Sublett

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 00:38

So who is Howard Sublett? How would you describe yourself?

Howard Sublett 00:44

Can you ask somebody else that question other than me, I see, I’m just a guy that’s not been on a linear journey for anything, right? I’m, I’m born and raised in a small town in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and somehow fell into this into this amazing world of Iterative and Incremental work. And I’ve been on an adventure of my lifetime. So I, I consider myself a husband first to my bride of 30 years. Two grown kids that are both happily married to boys. Looking forward to grandkids one day. And for me, I guess the thing that’s always driving me is like, every job, everything that I’ve taken on is usually something that scares the crap out of me. It’s something that I’ve never done before. But I, I tell myself, that I, that I learn it and I’ll figure it out. And that’s what that adventure of a career growth is for me as trying to figure out what’s the next thing that is just that one increment more than I’ve ever tried before that I believe that I can achieve. So just just a, just a small time guy on a journey. Really,

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 02:01

that’s it’s been an interesting journey. Like I think you mentioned a while back, like a friend invited you to coffee originally. And you come from non software background and they told you about Scrum Alliance. And can you maybe share how, how you get introduced to Agile and Scrum Alliance?

Howard Sublett 02:22

Yeah, I’ve done a little bit of like everything. I’ve been kind of an entrepreneur, most of my life, I’ve had a real estate appraisal business and a real estate brokerage for around 30 years I, I built up and grew a, like a cleaning chemical business and then sold that I’ve done everything from student ministry, I’ve done just about everything things that like when an opportunity shows up, I think is interesting. I’ll try that because I think that’s the need that somewhere, I can make an impact somewhere. And a friend of mine wanted me to go to coffee one day here in Hot Springs. And if you haven’t visited here, you should come it’s a wonderful place to come visit. And he said that he had this thing that he wanted me to help him do. And it was at a company called Scrum Alliance. And he thought that the skills that I had could help them in their organization.

I thought it was a joke. I thought the name was so weird. I was pretty sure it was like multilevel marketing. So I was like, I’m not going door to door selling Amway. I’m not interested in pyramid schemes. And he goes, No, no, it’s not that. And he started describing this thing that didn’t even sound real and and I said you’re going to show me so we went to go see a group of people that were working in a scrum rhythm. And so they were talking about their day to day work, but more importantly, they were talking about the way that they used to work and how that they hated to get these things that they didn’t know how it connected to a customer and they would do a task and they had no way to map that to the to an impact in a way and now they’re talking about we as a team collaboratively solve these complex problems and we talked to the and I’m much happier they were right and then we talked to the to the business leaders were there they’re like I you know, I’m able to delight my customers better now and my employees are happier and and we’re the whole product isn’t getting out in a quick way but little increments are getting out we can test the right thing if we’re building the right thing and and it was hard to get here but we love it and I’m like I don’t know what this magic way of work is it seemed like a little unrealistic to me but where employees are happier customers are happier and and owners of companies are able to delight their customer. I’m like, I don’t know what this is, but I want to part of it. I want to help. So I came on just as a contractor at scrum Alliance back in 2007 maybe early 2007 Eight maybe. And we were a very small staff at that time everybody was contractors, we were all remote quickly grew into basically a directors operations role. And then product owner for the website really started loving our community, the talented people that we have and the impact that we were making as an organization. And basically then just handed over the keys to my, to my other businesses to other people’s sold them off because I like once I once I drank the Kool Aid, I drank the Kool Aid, like I was all in because this was a different way to impact a world of work.

So then from there on often did did consulting and coaching over in Eastern Europe for a while. And then came back and helped build a consulting and coaching practice. Based on Agile and Scrum out of Boston. That company was sold to one in Seattle, and we became the largest pure play agile consultancy really, I think on the planet. I think we had 265 or so full time agile coaches and trainers. And then that company sold to Accenture. All the while I’m I’m watching what’s happening at the scrum Alliance keeping in tabs with all of the trainers and coaches because this is like it’s still part of that movement. And then the opportunity opened the door to to come back into a role that was actually a roll. I don’t I didn’t know that I would ever get. But yeah, that was two and a half years ago. And and I’m here.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 06:38

Yeah. So maybe just to go back to 2008 2009. How was it to work with Ken Wilber? How was the experience? Or maybe not just saying but what was the setting? What was the key? I think a lot of people will probably love to know what a scrum Alliance look then and how did the interaction and everything, especially like I’m interested to hear about your experience working with Ben and others at scrum aligned at that point.

Howard Sublett 07:07

Yeah, it was. It’s interesting because Ken was involved really heavily, I think up until 2006 When we became a nonprofit and can Rubin then became the first managing director. After a year Ken rolled off, and then they hired somebody named Jim Cundiff as the managing director at that time, and I was hired. Shortly after Jim joined. I didn’t really work directly with with Ken Schreiber at all. Ken was a member of the Board of Directors back at that time, I worked directly with with Jim Jim worked for the board of directors, I didn’t necessarily work with them. And Ken was a member of the board, but he wasn’t actively involved in what was happening, you know, the day to day operations where we were going, what we’re building, what we’re recreating was was Jim and us as the team. So I didn’t really have many interactions with Ken at all during that time. Yeah. Yeah, I wish I would have I wish that. But I didn’t really

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 08:15

what is it? I was talking to somebody recently about the scum gathering in Stockholm. And I think this is when the first time maybe the or maybe this is when the CFD took the CSM exam for the first time. And I think you were involved in some capacity maybe without maybe not. I don’t know if I but what was the Were you part of creating the per CSM exam? Are you involved with that process?

Howard Sublett 08:45

I was I don’t think that was Stockholm, though, because I wasn’t in Stockholm, where we were running beta tests. I remember. I remember making a trip to Bloomington at the big insurance company there. And Tom Mellor had made headway there for us to run, to take the auditorium and have a whole lot of their employees come beta test the test that that the psychometricians and the subject matter experts have created. And I remember one moment where I’ve got this whole group of people taking the practice test and learning from that real getting real user interactions and an email pops up from somebody that’s having trouble with their profile. And I noticed that their email address had the insurance name in it. And I’m like, wait, like, so where are you at? And they’re like, well, they told me what where they’re at. I was in the same building as them. So we actually met and it was a really interesting thing for me because I had had a lot of interaction with our trainers and coaches. But this was somebody that had recently taking a CSM. So we actually sat side by side and worked on his profile together. So yes, I was Part of the first test I remember part of it. I don’t think that it was in Stockholm. But it may have been before I got there that they ran some sort of a beta at that time.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 10:09

Yeah, yeah, I wasn’t sure I was talking to somebody and dimension I thought it was talking, but maybe not. But one of the interesting things was, they said, every CST had to take the exam. And the only person that didn’t want to take it was Ken. And he’s like, and he was like, I don’t want to take it because it’s a lose lose situation. If I get 100 Everybody’s gonna think, you know, I was involved. And if I don’t get 100 People gonna say he doesn’t know his stuff. So he refused to take which I would have done the same thing, probably. And I thought that was, that was funny. So I didn’t know if you were part of that. And if you knew that story,

Howard Sublett 10:51

I was not but I don’t doubt that that story would be true. I’ve never heard it before. But that seems like a pretty plausible story because that would be a lose lose situation for him. That’s for sure.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 11:04

That’s for sure, though. So you know, from that time scrum Alliance has gone a long way a lot of people know scrum Alliance through CSM cspo. And they think that all scrum alliances that called Scrum Alliance stands for the Hey, you take this open book exam. That’s, you know, and there’s a lot of misconception about that. And that scrum alliance is just certification body that just makes it easy throws people through the classes. And that’s it. You’ve been part of the first coaching program that was developed at scrum Alliance. When you first came in 2018. You Your biggest, in my opinion, your biggest focus was how do we you know, get back to coach? Would you talk about why is coaching important to you?

Howard Sublett 12:03

Yeah, so, Scrum Alliance created the very first coaching certification in 2008. We created the very first agile certification for this with a CSM. But we also created in the very first coaching certification. And it’s been one of those things that we’ve had. But it’s never, I don’t think the organization ever applied much effort to that, for various reasons through different leadership structures. Yet all of us know that you cannot simply offer a two day training and help an organization transform, it takes more than that. Training. Classes and courseware are really good. They’re great for knowledge transfer. furnance. They are, they’re something that’s important for people to level set, and taking on advanced courses and such, but still application of Agile principles and values within an organizational system. Take somebody that’s kind of in the midst of it with you. And that’s where the role of a coach comes in. At the same time. I’m, you know, coming from my background and working with different coaches. There is a real difference in somebody that says that there’s an Agile coach and somebody that’s actually been peer reviewed and validated as an Agile coach, the success of the clients is exponentially better, the chance that the investment that they’re making is are actually going to produce that ROI.

The something like the most recent statistics that I read was like anywhere between 60 and 80% of Agile transformations fail for one reason or another. And I think I my hypothesis is that it has something to do with the caliber of the people that are helping I just last week I looked there are 401,000 people on LinkedIn at LinkedIn is predominantly the United States and a few countries it’s not globally 401,000 People that say that they’re an Agile coach in their title presently, they’re an Agile coach. Even the recent surveys that we’ve done with our state of agile coaching survey, like less than two or 3% actually have an expert level credential in Agile coaching that actually have been trained that actually been peer reviewed, that actually had been validated with their work product. And I don’t know that buyers have services of agile coaching services understand that there’s a difference. And I like we set the bar for what a two day training a two day course would be. We’ve created a lot of fast followers. It’s helped move the industry forward. I believe we lead a scrum Alliance through that and I think it’s time for us to lead again and to help help businesses help individuals know that there’s a difference and that there’s another bar that they need if they’re going to call it As an Agile coach, that they need to rise to that bar. And if we help, if we help move that bar up, other organizations will do the same. It’s not about them all coming to us. But if we elevate the practice of agile coaching, other organizations will do the same thing.

And a rising tide will rise all ships, I think it will be good for our industry, more agile transformations will be sticky, because we’ll have people that are pure validated and actually know what they’re doing and know how to help. Rather than, like, one of my favorite one of my favorite examples, got a coaching gig that I had to go to that had a expert level organizational enterprise wide transformation coach, and how people put those crazy titles on their business cards. Right. And they had assessed this organization, true story, they had assessed this organization as 97.2% agile. I’m like, this is fascinating. Number one, what does that mean? Like? Why not point three what what is like, this was the most interesting thing like this was an Agile coach that helped this company, and the leader of the company was so proud. Because they were 97.2%, agile, or whatever, whatever that

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 16:17

have to do with the leader. I mean, that’s exactly like you’ve deleted that looking for that, that stuff. It’s almost like you’re feeding them what they want,

Howard Sublett 16:25

right. And so here’s this Agile coach that they spent a lot of money on, giving them this magic number, whatever this specific number was. And then they were really proud to show me their most agile team their own. And they had different software applications, whether it was Windows or Mac or whatever, but and the different mobile apps, but they wanted to show me their Windows product. Milan, this was a this was a scrum team of about 85 people. They had sprints, but they were three months long. They had daily stand ups. That lasted hours, hours had daily daily scrums, that lasted hours, they did have a prioritized backlog because it was only one thing in the backlog. And it was like 180 Something page, a spec, where everybody’s assigned months.

Now it we are on halfway through the third sprint, so we’re seven months in, and they’ve yet to release any software at all. And this was their most agile team at 97.2%. And so this coach was the most important things was Do they have the role? Do they have the events? Do they have the artifacts? And yes, yes, yes, they’re agile. And you and I both know, that’s the least agile company or team ever. I don’t think that that company got what they paid for. I mean, they spent a lot of money for that person to help them and help guide them and to provide advice yet. They didn’t move the needle at all, and delighting their customers or working in cross functional teams or anything, there was nothing iterative and incremental about it. They missed the agile mindset, and they missed the heart of this whole thing. And that’s what I’m afraid of, I’m afraid that if we don’t if we as an organization, like I keep looking at what other organization is actually going to invest the money and time, energy and effort for this. Like, for us as a nonprofit or as a for impact. Organization, it seems like it’s our obligation to help move the agile movement forward. And this is something I think that’s really important for us to do.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 18:43

Yeah, I completely agree. And it’s like, I talked about the spectrum in culinary from a book to a chef, right, and everybody hates their chef. But you know, how well do you understand ingredients? And how well can you create recipes. And I think Scrum Alliance has, you know, in culinary, you have James Beard Awards, and Mac, visual type of standards. And I think most people don’t fully understand and I cover this in classes, but the the progression or the journey from a scrum master product owner, that we’re trying to get more people to that certified team, coach, enterprise coach, and those would be your, you know, cooks with a lot of experience or maybe potentially chefs. And that’s not the perception out there. And I know scrum Alliance has done a lot a lot of work and marketing is still continues to publicize it. But I don’t know if people want to become chefs or it’s, you know, goes back to like, what is the demand out there? And what are you currently seeing I know you set some goals as far as creating more of experience coaches creating platform for people that do want to develop those skills. And I think what’s important about it too, is that it’s not by taking the exam, it’s evaluated by the peers. And that’s, I think, what makes it different than probably anything else that’s out there.

Howard Sublett 20:17

Yeah, definitely, if if, if you’re validating whether somebody is a coach by a test, you’re doing it wrong, just saying. Yeah, we were trying every different way. And it is a very complex thing. It’s not linear. So there are two day courses, and then you’re a coach, that’s not with us. That’s not what I’m interested in. And it is a multi year process, you’re going to have to have multiple years of practice of experience reports of successes and failures, you’re going to have to have lots of other courseware up underneath your belt, some from us, some from a lot of other organizations. This isn’t just like a specific, it is something you’re it’s a multidisciplinary kind of an approach. And then you’re going to have to be able to be vetted by your peers and go through some pair coaching situations and other things that they do to help ensure that it’s like we’re seeing like, even in that recent survey that we did one, there was something that we learned that agile coaches are some of the ones that take the most continuing education kind of courses, they take more courses, more self learning things than almost anybody else out there in our industry, which was really good to hear. I’m so we’re, we’re appealing to both sides of this. If you’re a coach out there, and you’re somebody that calls yourself a coach, and I believe all of them are trying to help, right? I believe that they all are trying to do the right thing. Like they, I hear time and time and time again, people that said, I’ve been a coach for six years, eight years.

And then when I started the process, and I started looking at all of the things I needed to learn, I realized what I didn’t know. And it really challenged them to learn a whole lot more like that whole Dunning Kruger thing that you don’t know what you don’t know kind of a thing. And as you get more in it, you realize what you don’t know. So this was a big eye opening for them. So helping to challenge those that truly want to make an impact to their clients and to the customers to get that peer validation. But also, if we’re appealing to the to the companies out there. So we are seeing, just in the last year, a substantial increase in job requirements that require one of our certified agile coaches as a prerequisite that has grown big, many orders of magnitude, it’s still not as much as I would like, but we’re starting to see that. So we’re appealing to companies that when you’re when you’re talking to a company, and I get to talk to a lot of companies and I start asking them, you’re going to invest what, half million dollars, million dollars over the next few years, whatever it is, in shifting your company’s way they’re working communication pathways, from here to where you want to go to solve problems. Do you want to trust somebody that just calls themselves an Agile coach? Or do you want to trust somebody that’s actually got a decade or so of experience and gone through a peer validation and continual learning requirements?

Like, where are you going to bet it’s a little bit like, like, one day in my life, I hope to like climb one of the big mountains like Everest or Kilimanjaro or something like that. I want to hire a Sherpa that has hiked that thing a lot. I want to know that they know how to get up that mountain, and where to step and where not to step I want to, I want them to help me pack well. I don’t want to just hire somebody that’s on the side of the road going I’m the cheapest out there or I’m the this out there. It’s it’s not a journey I want to take without a trusted guide. And so we’re appealing on that side as well to businesses and we’re spending a lot to try to get in front of the right businesses to help them know that there’s a difference.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 24:15

So if we consider the guides, the coaches, right, and in this instance, in your hiking or climbing experience you you’re the leader, right? How much how much do you think the leader needs so if you want to high climb the mountain with this guide, you can just say, hey, Milan, I trust you that you have to do a little bit of learning yourself. Right. So you’ve developed or some alliances developed over the last maybe six 710 years, the Cal therapy agile leadership courses and what I’m at least seeing and I’ve talked to others is a lot of people that are coming to these courses are middle management. And that’s great. But what we’re not seeing is C suite. And those people that are very busy and you know, we started talking about at the beginning of this interview before I think I started recording, but we don’t know how busy these people are people don’t know how busy you are, it’s until you start and put yourself or tie yourself to that person, then you see you can empathize with with the with the people that are in C suite and how busy they are. But they’re still filled this concern of I don’t have time to learn, or I only have two hours. So what do you think, from a perspective of certify agile leadership? Pat and Calpe? Pat, how? What are you doing to get more of those seats we in introduced to these concepts? So they know, they don’t have to say, hey, you know, I trust this as a good coach, but they have a little bit more insights or what it takes actually to transform and also hire people that can help them transform. Yeah, that’s

Howard Sublett 26:13

that’s always the rub, isn’t it? How do you reach all of the decision makers in organizations, you know, this agile movement 20 years ago, started out with with teams and developers, and it’s grown to this spot. I, I do think we are starting to see leaders of organizations start to start to understand when you start seeing agile on the cover of Harvard Business Review, when you start to see like, I think we’re on the cusp of that to where real senior leaders in organizations need to start understanding, and they need to start understanding the the risks and the costs involved, like this stuff isn’t easy, or cow program is good for them to go to we moved it in this year, while I say 2020, we’re in 2021. Now, last year, we moved it into shorter modules to make it much easier for those that are higher up in organizations to consume, it used to be multi days, and now they’re done in little one day modules, we broke it out to make it a little easier and more consumable for people that have very little time on their hands. And those things can actually be taught in little one hour increments over a period of time if the trainer wants to.

But we’re starting to see that because if you think if you’re a CEO of a big company, and you’ve heard about this agile magic thing, and and it’s a three step thing, and I’m just going to snap my fingers and hire some people and make it happen, you’re you’re sorely mistaken, it this is not an easy thing to do, it takes a lot of time and you as a leader yourself are going to need to change the way that you lead. There’s there’s changed that you need to do, there’s changes for your finance department and your HR department and everything else to help support a truly agile organization. So knowledge and understanding of those things would be great. And we’re also working with some of the business schools to help make sure that agility, at least as a concept and a term are actually taught within each one of those core business schools as people now move the new people moving into the workplace.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 28:24

That’s awesome. That’s great to hear. Because I’ve been working with schools, I thought, actually see it sent for undergraduate for graduate and also for continued education. And it’s amazing, like when I taught like, in undergraduate like these 17 1819 year old kids, like, it’s so much different. Like they don’t have all the bags, they don’t know, like, you know, they don’t have work experience. Maybe they worked at the you know, fast food place or golf course or whatever it is, right. But it’s so interesting, but it’s also helpful for them when they get out of the school. They know all the terminology. They’re already ahead. Developers are now learning in school, on, you know, some of the extreme programming practices, I think, at least I’ve tried to work with universities and tried to get, you know, Headstart for kids because it sets them up for success. When they get out of college and they’re looking for jobs. You mentioned the you know, and we talked about in the past as far as how strong Agile is reaching outside of software development. I’m working with a company here in California. That’s one of the biggest construction companies in California, and they’re using Scrum Kanban agile, really the principles and of Lean and Agile. And what are you seeing out there as far as other industries I know you’ve, you know, education is one that’s close to you, but like what else other industries, and you seem to are adopting or want to do and be

Howard Sublett 30:10

I think a lot of a lot of I think almost every industry wants to be able to delight their customers more quickly, and to produce increments of work now whether some of them can can achieve that within their constraints or not, I don’t know. I’ve been amazed that, like the US government as as slow that they are actually wanting to figure out how to move quicker. Education for sure, I’ve seen real changes in how teachers are teaching and students are learning, I did have a call at one point in time with, with a science, whether it was an agricultural scientific research thing where they were funded over a, like a five year or eight year process in order to get a result at the end of that time box. And they’re like, how do we? How do we do scientific research where we can show incremental progress along the way, when the experiment may take eight years to be able to do so?

Like, I didn’t have a real simple answer for them. But I was able to connect them to people that might be able to creatively come up with a way through the constraints that they had to be able to do that. I don’t even even people that are managing their home life for their kids homework, and whether the kids have have done their guitar lessons, or whatever it is. I’ve seen those kind of elements and just about anything, you know, my wife works for Habitat for Humanity. And they’ve got a real simple information radiator up there of what’s in progress. What are they working on? And let’s, because somebody influenced them, and just a little bit of a way to where they can map how many vacant lots do they have, what stage of a construction is a house in what are their needs, and it kind of focuses their conversation. And it’s pretty simple. It’s not it’s not perfect Scrum, but it helps them to think about how to deliver that increment, what’s most important, some of those simple, simple kind of things, those principles and practices that can really help. Sometimes complex systems be a little bit more, less scary, if you will.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 32:21

I’ve tried to get my wife to run and I even told her she can be a product owner and I haven’t been successful. So I don’t know how you if you succeeded that with your wife, or if you’ve given her that opportunity, but well,

Howard Sublett 32:39

maybe maybe Milan I can I can recommend a really good Certified Scrum trainer that can help you because you evidently can’t.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 32:46

Yeah, exactly, um, maybe some hacking. So a lot has been going on and the COVID obviously has impacted everybody. And I think we were all pleasantly surprised. You know, about a year ago when we started teaching online, how well it went. How satisfied the participants were after taking the class. What are you the unsure you get, you know, athletes question always, but what do you think how it has COVID-19 permanently impacted the way that scrum Alliance operates and how it’s going to operate in the future?

Howard Sublett 33:36

Yeah, this was the when I came in, like that was the one untouchable, unchangeable rule that, you know, CSM cspo, those are our beginning level certifications and must be in person, they must be over two concurrent days and they must have a lot of must be is in there. And that was like, even our community was convinced that it couldn’t be done in any other way. And I was really pleasantly surprised. I wasn’t like it was something it was a need. We had a need. We had customers that that had that need. And we either inspect and adapt or we don’t. And so not everybody was pleasantly surprised. By the way I did have a pretty good swath of hate mail. But it felt like it was the risk that we needed to do. You’re right. The net promoter scores have been phenomenal. The search surveys from every single participant. I mean, I skim them every once in a while. And the only negatives I’ve heard are like, well, that one guy in the class didn’t mute. Or like I mean, it’s it really isn’t about that they didn’t get an impactful Fire Igniting training. It was something technical, like something that, okay, like those kinds of things happen in class that you have somebody that talks too much But I do think that it’s it’s it’s probably impacted us forever. We’ve, we’ve been able to reach people in a way that I don’t think we ever thought that we could we’ve been, if you think about our particular business model in order to be a trainer, it is a, it is a ridiculously rigorous journey, like we as an organization have prioritized, impactful learning from experts in the field over the pursuit of revenue.

Like, if I was in a pursuit of revenue, I would just be minting everybody to make them trainers, because then my revenue would go way up. But like, it’s a, it’s a multi year, multi year process that even once they get to the first step that maybe have met all the prerequisites, it’s like a 10% chance that you’re actually going to make it through on your first time to do it. And some people have tried five, six times and still can’t meet that bar. So we’re prioritizing that, that impactful learners journey and now and so, because of that, in places like Nigeria, we had to fly somebody Nigeria to be in person, and now we don’t. We had to have trainers in certain markets. And now we don’t, we’re able to reach people that that couldn’t afford to be on a plane, or we couldn’t afford to fly somebody somewhere. Like it’s opened up a world that maybe we didn’t even know was a need, right? The number of emails that I’ve gotten over, over the accessibility that this caused, and people now able to do this in a timeline that works for them, they can do it every evening for five evenings, let’s say or whatever the timing is, to where they can, they can get something achieve something they’ve always wanted to achieve. But couldn’t do that, because it took two days out of their work, you know, and I think it’s changed the way we deliver courses. Now I’m looking forward to in person courses as well. Right. That’s, I think that there’s still a pent up need for being together. And there’s something magical about being around a table together?

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 37:14

Well, you would think so here’s what I just did. This might be interesting to you as well, here’s what I’ve been asking at the end of each class. So I would ask for question, how many of you would now prefer to do it to do the class online, like we just did for the last, you know, two days or whatever it is, right? And about anywhere from a third to half of the people raise their hand, right? And then I say how much, or how many of you would be able to pay that would be willing to pay maybe 30% More for in person class. Because it costs more like we have to travel we have to run? And pretty much all of the hands go deaf. And I’ve done this for the last couple of months. And I’m like, What is this really telling me? Right? Like the ratio or the value that people see in in online is way more than they’re willing to pay? And actually, because it’s a hat as much as we everybody loves. And there’s nobody that says, I mean, there’s few people that say, I don’t miss the human interaction. I don’t miss. But it should like it goes back to what I said. Like, we all get the price how well the online training is. And those experiences tell their friend. And it’s really interesting where the marketplace is gonna go if that’s where customers want to go.

Howard Sublett 38:44

Yeah, and I like I’ve heard for many trainers. Like if you were to you said your San Diego if you were to schedule a class in person in San Diego, you have mostly people from San Diego, you may have one or two that flew in for that, but mostly it’s people there. Now if you’re hosting a class on California timezone, you’re gonna you have a chance to have people from Canada and people from New York and people from Asia that are attending your class and, and, like, you get a different view of how companies are adopting things when you bring people from all different parts of the world together and having that those discussions on online forum, which is another benefit that I didn’t even imagine like that i i didn’t know that there would be a difference in your right in surveys. I didn’t know that. But I’m not surprised. But as you know, surveys are one thing but there’s a day coming when they’ll actually vote with their money they’ll make a decision on the buying decision, and then will truly know whether they will or not like that’s because rarely when you ask would you pay more money for this people going to add on pay more money. So we’ll see and it’s going to be a really interesting model. Get dynamic, because I know of many, many companies that are waiting until that trainer can come back in that building and train their teams. Because they because they’re going to be working together and they want them in their space. And that’s important for them. So, um, but I also know do

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 40:17

Yeah, I think there’s definitely going to be so if there is need for an in person, I think there’s, there’s definitely people, it’s just, again, I’ve been surprised by the feedback that I’ve been getting, just from that. So the scrum Alliance has a, the project that you described the level of expertise and knowledge, the power of Scrum alliance is so amazing. I mean, you have some of the people that have been, you know, part of the movements in the beginning. But we also like any organization have our own challenges, and your job is not easy, we don’t make it easy for you, that there’s probably good things and bad things like everything else, what are some of the things that you enjoyed the most about the computing community, our community, and what are some of the things that kind of drive you crazy and make you want to have a drink and cancel the day

Howard Sublett 41:26

who said I don’t have drinks at the beginning of the day. I, I love the passion that that our community has, and and the the collaborative nature and the passion that they really have to make a you know, to make a dent in this bringing humanity to the workplace like that. The people that are our trainers and coaches are not here, it’s, it’s not a job for them. This is their passion, this is what they’re, they didn’t just attend a course and get a sticker to where they could go teach. This is something that that that’s in their blood, right? These are people that believe in a movement, and that’s always a thing. Um, but because of that, sometimes their passion is so much it overflows, and they can be pretty demanding stakeholders. So in a in an interesting way, when you have a bunch of expert agilus As some of your customers, they’re pretty critical of how agile I might be or SS an organization might be or they’re, they’re really quick at pointing out flaws in the way that we’re trying, like every organization is trying to be far more agile as they go along. And we’ve still got a long ways to go. And I realized that sometimes I don’t necessarily need, you know, 500 stakeholders telling me that like, I already know that like, thank you. But their passion is is is so infectious to be around. And that they’re there, they really want to help people, that’s always you know, the the other thing that is the tension.

So we’re a membership organization of about 1,300,000 members around the world are as a for impact organization, you know, every bit of revenue that we get is a byproduct of impact. So we make an impact in the world, and the byproduct of that is revenue, that revenue, then I have to make sure that every dollar is spent towards making more impact. And so as many of you in our community that are agilus, you want us to go faster, you want us to innovate, you want us to create new things. Well, then the moment that we create something, our lovely community ago, well, you didn’t ask me about that. Why didn’t you ask me about that, you know, I could have contributed different to that you should slow down. And then but if I go slower, and I involve the community to help build products, it takes me a long time to get something new out the door, then I have the tension of I’m not going fast enough. And so there’s a that that that demand to be highly collaborative, which is a good thing, yet move extremely fast. When I’ve got stakeholders all around the world, there’s a tension there, like there are times I need to move fast, which is going to mean it’s going to be slightly less collaborative, I’m going to take a very small group to get as as much SME need as I can in order to move quickly. But then I’m going to make the rest of the community may be upset because they weren’t involved. So it’s there’s that tension in having to move the organization forward at a pace that I believe is far more agile, but also involving all of our key stakeholders and and members of the community in that slowest down in a way, but maybe because build better products, but it’s a much longer loop.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 45:10

Right? No, it is. And I think it is that passion is that the buyer also, you know, remember last year when the COVID head how quickly we got together to figure things out. Like, you know, we’re jumping on calls where, you know, so like when we need to, I feel like we do jump and we help each other. But that’s what I like about the community. I think as far as, you know, the like any, you know, community that that’s, especially with the guides level, you know, where you have hundreds of people, it’s always challenged, but it comes with the goods and Bad’s and sometimes, like you said, you might have to have a drink in the morning. But, you know,

Howard Sublett 45:53

I I was well versed in this community and their passion and their idiosyncrasies, right. So I didn’t I didn’t take this role with blinders on. I knew what I was getting into. So it’s okay, right, I think that the, the, the that sometimes annoyances of those idiosyncrasies or that passion exuding is worth it, for the impact that we can make as an organization and our mission. So it’s okay, I’ll take it. I would rather I would rather have really, really, really passionate, engaged people that have very strong opinions than people that don’t care. Like I, I can

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 46:44

engage people, this engage people is the worst thing, right?

Howard Sublett 46:48

Yeah. And we do not have that we have very engaged people. So I’m, like, I actually see each one of those interactions, even if there may make me want to have a cocktail. At the end of the day, I actually do look at them as a blessing. Because they are very engaged, and they’re passionate in the care. And all of them have a perspective that is valuable and interesting. And something that I need to consider. It’s, it’s, it’s a good thing. It’s a good thing.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 47:18

I think so too. Yeah, that’s always healthy. Maybe what a last question here. You and Melissa did a great job, in my opinion, when you came in 2018. I think if we reflect back, it’s just amazing what you’ve been able to do together. And recently, you introduced the role of CEO. Could you maybe just talk about like, what is the current vision for that role, and maybe vision for scrum Alliance? Just briefly in a couple of minutes. I’m sure people would like to know, just from that perspective,

Howard Sublett 47:57

I guess. Yeah. And thanks for that what Melissa and I wear a lot as Moses was a ton of fun to work with, like we were able to dream and create. And we were both co CEOs of the organization as product owner, and Scrum Master and CO CEOs can have complications. Anytime you have both people with the same decision making ability, it makes it, it can be difficult, but we were able to move the organization a long ways and into truly cross departmental teams. It was not an easy lift, and she carried a ton of it now. And it move forward. She’s moved on to something else of her own choice. She’s, I don’t even know the name of the company. But she’s working at another company and seems to be having a ton of fun there. My role mostly is external facing, right? I need, I need to spend time with customers. I need to spend time with stakeholders need to understand where the industry is moving, I need to start thinking three to five years ahead. And I needed somebody to help me on the operational side to help see what was what’s happening internally, like how do we actually deliver in an incremental way in a better way than what we have and I needed somebody with some experience in, you know, operational experience and truly understanding organizational systems budgets and those kinds of things. I was very fortunate that Renee Bozek was available. She was here for five and a half years earlier, she was chief of operations before, she had come from a very large company of around 600 employees on a global scale that she was chief of staff directly to the C E O. And she’s been a wonder to come in and like her charge really is to help us. Make sure that we’re still working in a scrum rhythm that we have great Scrum Masters and product owners that were falling within budget. We’re hitting our KPIs that we’re delivering towards our goals. It was the role that she had had before. And it was a role that she needed. I still, I still call myself a product owner, even though I, you know, legally, I think I hold the role of CEO as well. And she’s not, she’s not working as what you would think of as a traditional organizational CEO might. But I needed somebody to have a title that was decision making ability. For us as an organization that didn’t always require me to weigh in to make a decision on something or, and I didn’t necessarily want us to have another situation where we had a two headed decision making things like, I think co leadership, by the way, could be extremely powerful in a large company, when you could divide, like every example that I’ve found Milan have, like, two CEOs, but it’s a company of 1000s and 1000s of employees, and you have somebody that’s basically co CEO of like a European division, and somebody that’s got a North American Division. And they they bump into each other on a on a, on a rare basis, with 55 employees having a CO CO like, we were we were overlapping like that, that Venn diagram, the overlap was larger than the other parts. And that made it more difficult sometimes, and we need it. So it’s not that Cosio was a bad thing. But we learned a ton from it. I learned a lot from Alicia. So yeah, it’s been very helpful

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 51:35

pressure they Yeah, it I think, you know, everybody saw that is a very interesting experiment. And I think, you know, like anything else, there’s no silver bullet and anything that we do. So some type of balance. So

Howard Sublett 51:50

we’re, we’re, we’re still running in cross departmental Scrum teams, every team still has POS and Scrum Masters. We’re, we’re just about to finish kind of our first quarter. We didn’t get started right on January one with this. But we’ve got a retro at the end of that, to look at our organizational structure to see what we can learn from it to where we can maybe make a slight tweak. So we’re, instead of saying this is our structure, this is how we work. We’re saying this is what we’re trying for this season. And we’re going to look at what’s an increment we can do to shift to help help our team be more joyful to be more prosperous, to be more sustainable in the work that we’re doing. And we’re involving the whole team involved in that to take that retro and I think that’s coming up mid April. So our structure now is what it is based on products. We’re going to see what the shift is, I don’t know exactly what it will be. I have the feeling we will make some slight shift.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 52:46

Yeah. And I think that’s what’s great about the you know, what’s been going on as much like I’m sometimes frustrated with some of the things that are happening again, without any knowledge. But I just think I really admire this content, the relentless improvement and continuous search, or, Hey, we know that we can be better or you know, let’s let’s try something else. I think that’s something as a member of the community that really stands out. So we’re out of time. I know you probably have another meeting to run to but I do. This has been fun. I hope you had a good time sharing and talking to me, and I’m sure I’ll see you soon.

Howard Sublett 53:33

I’m sure you will. I’m sure you all thank you so much.

Aino Corry: Retrospectives, Mob Programming, Laugh | Agile to agility | Miljan Bajic | Episode #8

Aino Corry

Speaker: Milan Bajic 00:36

Who is Speaker: Aino Corry? What’s your journey? How did you get into this Agile world? How did you learn about the agile, maybe we can start with that?

Speaker: Aino Corry 00:50

Well, I sort of stumbled upon the Agile. It’s difficult to make that journey short. So I always wanted to be a teacher in mathematics, because I thought the world needed better teachers in mathematics so I wanted to be a teacher in primary and secondary school. But then I hated to be in primary and secondary school myself, so I thought maybe I should be a high school teacher instead. I studied at the university to become a high school teacher in mathematics. But then I had to learn programming as part of the mathematics course, that was the beginning of the 90s. I didn’t know what programming was, I didn’t have a computer, but I really liked it. I really like programming is very, very interesting and satisfying to program. So I ended up doing the masters in Computer Science and the minor in Maths for teaching in high school.

When I finished my masters thesis, I really wanted to continue working on what I was working on, which was to sign patents and language constructs in object oriented languages. So I started a PhD to continue to work on that and I finished my PhD and I thought that I wanted to be a university teacher in computer science and I already started teaching at the university. But then I was headhunted to industry and it just happened to be a company in Denmark, a small company called Eos, that’s not a trifle that work together with Kent Beck on extreme programming right in the beginning of extreme programming. And they made these special tables for pair programming and things like that. So you could say, from day one, when I came out in industry and started as a developer, it was just agile development. I never really tried anything else. That being said, the first course I taught was actually in RUP, the Rational Unified Process, which is definitely not Agile. I taught that with only ever having tried agile, so that was weird. But that’s how I stumbled upon Agile and then I was working on different things like development and inviting speakers to conferences and teaching object oriented analysis and design and Java programming, software architecture design patterns. Then I saw a presentation with Linda Rising about retrospectives and I liked that and then I focused on that. I guess that’s my choice.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 03:30

Nice.. So what do you think, I mean, what you just mentioned about some of the aspects of extreme programming, even today, like kids are learning and it’s pretty, in a sense, natural for them. But when we look back 10, 15, 20 years ago, that wasn’t the case. What are some of the things when you work with developers? How should developers be working, maybe the question is not how but what do you see like the divide between the younger generations of you assume you’re a full stack developer versus what we see with older generations is maybe like, I’m a specialist in this specific application or for backend piece of it. Yeah. How do we get these to align?

Speaker: Aino Corry 04:30

It’s not easy, is it? Because previously, it was all about being a specialist. And having that job security and you being the one who knows how to change the system, this legacy software is yours. And whenever there’s any support needed, it’s your job, right? So it’s job security for you. Some people thought like that, and then come these new waves. And I sort of zoom into a company and I talk about track numbers and I talk about pair programming and maybe even mob programming and their like, it’s such a waste of time, it’s better the expert just does this. But then the expert is sick two weeks or on vacation and then we’re sort of in a problem. So I think it’s definitely something that people have to learn that sharing knowledge and learning and getting the track number down is really important for the long run. I understand that in the short run, if you look like one month or two months ahead, it’s pretty obvious that it’s really convenient to have somebody who can just code this with the experience that they have. There are two major problems with that one problem is that, what about the novices? What about the newcomers? How are they supposed to learn if you sort of keep it tight to yourself? And the second problem is also well, what if you’re wrong, right? What if the beautiful thing that you made actually is flawed? Maybe you should have somebody to look at it. Maybe somebody could make some tests that could reveal something you never thought about. But I guess that’s part of the problem. That what if it turns out that one of the things that I made isn’t really 100% perfect, so maybe I don’t want people to look at it. So it’s definitely clashing. But I have to say it’s not just the young and the old. It’s also something about personality, I definitely see some of the young novices in this field, who do not want to do pair programming, because they think it’s better if I just have this on my own, I own this software and I just work on this. So that shared ownership of software, with extreme programming is kind of difficult to explain. And I think especially to newcomers, because they haven’t felt the pain of the problems that can come out of being siloed is the problem.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 07:03

But also at least my experience has been, people are resistant until they try it. And they a lot of times change their opinion about either paper, especially mob programming. For a lot of people, it’s just doesn’t make any sense. This is crazy. Yeah. So have you seen that too, where it’s like?

Speaker: Aino Corry 07:27

Yeah, definitely so. I always try to introduce mob programming. Pair program is what people mostly know, but mob programming, I think it’s so productive and it’s so interesting. I always try to introduce it to the companies that I’m a consultant for and in the beginning is always like, people who are not developers should actually touch the keyboard, really, I mean, shouldn’t I be the only one who’s programming here. So in the beginning they don’t get the point and they don’t think it’s a good idea that everybody, maybe we should explain what programming, everybody is in the same room looking at the same screen only having one keyboard, and they share the keyboard, and everybody has seven to 10 minutes at the keyboard, even those who don’t program normally. And when you’re at the keyboard, you don’t have to do any thinking, the crowd around you should tell you what to do and help you through it. So even if you don’t know how to do this, you can just relax because people will tell you how to do it, and even how to make those weird symbols on your keyboard. You don’t have to think about that. So people are worried that it’ll be a waste of time. But I have to say that in the places where I introduced mob programming, and I said, let’s just try it out. We don’t have to change the way you working. But let’s just try it out as an experiment. Mostly, they’ve liked it. Of course, I’ve had some teams who just didn’t like it. And also if they chose, okay, we got this list of bugs, we need to debug. That’s great for mob programming, we can get that done. No, that’s not really the point. I mean, it’s better if you have a new feature you want to develop or an idea you want to try is much better for that. So if you can make people try it out on a new feature, or something that gives value to the users that will give you the most feedback, the most positive feedback as a staff. So take that as an experiment. And then once they try it, they notice this is actually brilliant. It’s fun. And you don’t have to wait for the architect to answer, you don’t have to wait for the data analyst, you don’t have to wait for the UX or the UI person. They’re just in the room. So all that waiting for each other you just eliminate that and you can just work together so once they notice that then normally they like it. What’s your experience Miljan about this?

Speaker: Milan Bajic 09:54

Well, it’s just in general that as a coach and trying to help teams understand, there’s a lot of times people confuse being busy with getting stuff done. And a lot of times, it just when you expose the whole kind of system to itself or the whole end to end process, people start realizing, oh, yeah, holy crap, this is not what I was thinking. And as you know, in Agile and in Scrum, we look at it from a customer perspective. So I think when people see in the quality perspective, when we see people appearing, it’s about learning, it’s about being vulnerable, right? Trusting each other. That really a lot of times it’s about that trust and creating a team rather than just group of people and individuals that do their own job within that team. That’s been my experience in the sense of just how powerful it is when it comes to developing teams that actually like working with each other. And they’re looking forward to pair programming with another person because they know they’ll learn.

Speaker: Aino Corry 11:07

Yes exactly. But it’s sort of a circle because you learn to trust each other by doing pair programming and mob programming. But you can’t really start doing pair programming or mob programming before you have a certain level of trust. It’s a circle like that. But once you get the circle started, it really evolves.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 11:27

If you think about it from a vulnerability standpoint, a lot of times we talk about how you develop trust is being vulnerable. So if you’re a junior guy, and you have a senior developer, or maybe you’re both senior, but you don’t want to expose them, you’re going to say, all my things, I’ll look bad, whatever it is, right? There’s some fear, and actually letting go of that fear and just sitting down with somebody and sharing and exposing in a sense, like how you do things or whatever your opinions on certain things, or how you solve that problem can help with that. Yes, definitely. You’ve written a book on agile retrospectives or retrospectives anti-patterns. There we go. How did you get into facilitation because obviously, one big part of retrospectives is facilitation.

Speaker: Aino Corry 12:29

Yeah, it is. I guess I always facilitated a little bit, because I’m an older sister in the family of a lot of people. So I guess that facilitation was sort of inbred with my childhood. And mediating and things like that. But the retrospective spark came with a presentation by Linda Rising that I watched in Denmark many years ago. And she brought this book by Norman Kerth called Project retrospectives. And she gave me that book, and it was just bedded cover to cover. And it was really inspiring. And I thought, Wow, can you do something like that? Can you actually make people share and appreciate each other and learn and come up with small changes for the good of the team. And I started facilitating retrospectives. And then Diana Larsen, Esther Derby’s book came out about Agile retrospectives. And I started doing those retrospectives. And I took a course with t Diana Larsen taught the course with her. So I just made more and more retrospectives. And I just got really excited about the retrospective structure that you have set aside time for reflection in the team, in order to find something that you together can help improve the team, instead of finding a scapegoat on the faults, you try to figure out how can we improve as a team. And I think that, it’s team building and it’s fun. And it’s really important, and it’s strengthening for a team to do these retrospectives. It’s really important. And I have seen so many retrospective really help people also seen a lot of retrospectives go really bad. Which is my book is called retrospectives anti patterns because it’s, how can it go wrong?

Speaker: Milan Bajic 14:27

Yeah, exactly. And I think, in a sense, the retrospectives are the core of lean thinking, it’s like, how do we get better? How do we relentlessly improve? And a lot of times there’s not that buying from the whole team, in the sense of some of the anti-patterns that you’ve described are exactly that. So maybe we can look at couple of works, some of those anti-patterns. Could you maybe talk about the prime directive ignorance anti-pattern and share with us what is that anti-pattern?

Speaker: Aino Corry 15:04

I hope you choose them. So the prime directive ignorance is we go back to the original book by Norman Kerth project retrospectives, where he wrote the brand directive for retrospectives, which is a long text basically saying, “Remember, everybody did the best they could”. And it’s that mindset that’s so important to bring to a retrospective, but it’s difficult. So you have to think when you enter a retrospective, okay, we know that in this team, in this sprint, in this project, some things have not gone as good as we hoped for. some people maybe have made mistakes, or have blundered or have forgot to do something. But what we need to figure out now is why did this happen and how can we support everybody in the team so that it doesn’t happen again.

But the problem is that we’re sort of brought up with finding a scapegoat. Like, when we were children our parents would ask who started that fight, who broke that glass and things like that. So we are brought up with trying to figure out who is the culprit here? Who can we attack and put into jail or something like that, instead of trying to figure out, what’s the problem here? How can we change the way this team works together? And the prime directive ignorance is because when you enter a retrospective, you’re supposed to, as a facilitator, really and truly believe that everybody did the best they could, but also, impart to the team. Remember that, you have to have the mindset that everybody truly did the best they could. But then there are some people who will say, I don’t think everybody did the best they could, I mean, somebody were lazy, somebody slack. And I know that even myself, I don’t do the best I can always. So it’s about having the courage as a facilitator to say, when we enter this retrospective, you should strive to have that mindset that everybody did the best they could because if we don’t have that mindset, we’re trying to subconsciously find the scapegoat, and find the one that needs to be punished and that can be maybe fulfilling for you but it’s not very constructive for the team in the long run.

What’s constructive for the team in the long run, is trying to figure out how can we support this person or these people, so that this will be better in the long run. And that prime directive ignorance anti-pattern is that, the facilitator chooses to ignore the prime directive and not talk to the team about it before they start the retrospective. And in all my anti-patterns, there’s refactor solution, and the refactor solution here is, bring the prime directive to each retrospective. Either you have it on a board, if it’s in real life, or if it’s online, then write it in the email, or at least say it at the beginning of the retrospective. Remember, we’re not trying to find a scapegoat, we’re trying to improve the system, which is us.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 18:03

Who along those lines, do you know, one of the things at least I experience with Scrum Masters or facilitators is that they’re not familiar with the role of neutrality in facilitation? Are you familiar with that? What are your thoughts? Can you say that getting the like is in a sense being neutral, when you’re showing, you know, neutrality and being biased, and that’s something that a lot of times they contribute by jumping in and then pausing maybe certain things or ideas,

Speaker: Aino Corry 18:39

It’s really difficult. It’s really difficult to stay neutral. But you have to, you have to be objective. As a facilitator, you’re supposed to just facilitate the team learning and facilitate the team decision making, and facilitate the communications and the discussion so that nobody leaves the retrospective feeling really bad about it and so that everybody leaves the retrospective feeling that they got something out of it. Now, sometimes as a facilitator, if the team is discussing a problem, and you know, if only they did this, it would be so much better. You have to try to hold yourself back and perhaps you can ask them if they want a suggestion, but you should, first and foremost, try to hold yourself back. And the reason being, that if you’re the one telling them what to do, then perhaps the motivation for doing it will not be as high as if it was something they came up with themselves. And I realized that the Toyota Kata that some people may have heard about, is something where it’s a bit like a retrospective, but it’s more controlled, in the sense that somebody perhaps together with the team, perhaps just choosing for the team chooses somewhere that they should be, this is like the star that is where we want, this is what we want to achieve. And then the Toyota Kata is Okay, so where are we? Are we here? Are we here? Are we here? And then we find the smallest action that can get us towards this without thinking that we will ever reach this. But what are the small actions, and some people prefer the Toyota kata when you can be more hands-on with helping them to say, this is where you should go. But I think it’s two different things. I think a retrospective should truly be where you as a facilitator are neutral and the team should figure out what they should talk about, what they should learn, and what they should do. If you want something else, call it something else.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 20:41

Yeah, or just be aware. Like, in the sense, a lot of times the lack of awareness or understanding of this neutrality. So like, if you’re stepping in, you can say, Hey, guys, I’m putting on my non facilitator hat. Right? Yeah. And just be aware that you’re doing that versus just unknowingly imposing things or showing your bias.

Speaker: Aino Corry 21:04

Yeah, that Yeah, I agree. That’s also why is it? Sometimes you can ask them if they want input? Because if they don’t know how to do this, they can you can say, Well, do you? Do you want to hear what other people have tried? But as you say, it should be a conscious decision, instead of trying to manipulate them into something.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 21:24

Could you talk about your wheel of fortune anti-pattern, what’s that one about?

Speaker: Aino Corry 21:30

Yeah, so the Wheel of Fortune anti-pattern is, you should think about being in the Tivoli, or a fair, and there’s this wheel of fortune, and the Game Master turns the wheel of fortune, and if it hits these three numbers, you won, and if it hits any of the others, you’ve lost. But if you hit the one where you want, you can choose a little teddy bear or some candy or something like that. And all the others, you just lost your money. So that’s why it’s called a wheel of fortune.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 21:58

Hit or miss?

Speaker: Aino Corry 22:00

Yes, mostly miss. So in a retrospective, sometimes people feel well, we don’t have a lot of time for this, because coding is what we should really do, that’s the real work. So let’s just rush through the retrospective as fast as possible, right? They say, well, the quickest thing is to just put up three posters and say, what should we start doing? What should we stop doing? What should we continue doing? And then the team members, they write these post and notes, and they put them up on what should we start, what should we stop, what should we continue doing. And then sometimes you see something like, well, on the start, we should definitely start having pair programming and on the stop is, we should have less meetings or something like that. And then if you really want to rush the retrospective, then you just say, Okay, if we need to have more pair programming, we just make the Action Point is we’ll make a schedule, while you have pair programming three hours a day, three days a week. And that fixes it. And for the less meetings, we’ll just cut away half of the meetings, and then we’ll be fine. And then everybody leaves the retrospectives and they’re happy. But the problem is that sometimes these things that you see are only symptoms of problems, they’re not the actual problems. So if you solve the symptoms, the problem is still there. For instance, in the in the pair programming one, if the problem really was that people forgot to do pair programming, then surely a schedule would work, a schedule would solve the problem. But if the lack of pair programming is a symptom of something else, for instance, a symptom, that there’s a lack of trust in the team, as we talked about before, people feel uneasy having other people looking at them when they code, then scheduling the pair programming doesn’t really change anything, right? It just…

Speaker: Milan Bajic 23:56

Yes, just add more attention to it…

Speaker: Aino Corry 24:00

Yes, it would be even worse. And with the less meetings, if you just cut away some of the meetings, you think, oh, we can easily solve this. And perhaps it’s not the quantity of the meetings, but the quality of the meetings, maybe it’s just a symptom that the meetings are bad, they’re badly led, there’s not a good agenda, the wrong people being invited, things like that. Maybe you should think about these things before you jump to conclusion. So the Wheel of Fortune is where you go directly from the gathering data to deciding what to do instead of having that really important part in between which is generating insights about the data.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 24:42

I know you talk about the pro version and convergent and it’s the groan zone, right that you’re talking about him being

Speaker: Aino Corry 24:51

Yeah. You need to have this groan zone open where you can talk about why did this happen? What is causing this? Could this happen again? How often does it happen? All these things you have to look at before you start running into action and solving things. But often I see, actually today just a few hours ago, facilitating a retrospective with developers and asking them to gather data about things that went wrong and they write the solutions directly. They don’t even mention the problem, we should start doing this. Why should we start doing this? So we had to start with why?

Speaker: Milan Bajic 25:34

I mean, that’s probably the anti-pattern or anti-patterns in the sense of it’s the mindset of relentless improvement and understanding what goes into relentless improvements, not just oh, yeah, this is it. Let’s jump into it.. But like you said, it’s like really understanding the why, and being able to spend at least some time exploring that area, rather than just jumping to conclusion, and then having a team commitment to fixing these things and exploring these things. I think that if I reflect back and facilitating retrospectives, or just in general, at least in my opinion, that’s the mother of all anti-patterns when it comes to retrospectives.

Speaker: Aino Corry 26:22

Definitely, yeah, just jumping to conclusions and it’s so easy to do.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 26:29

Also, we live in an environment where we don’t have time, we’ll just keep moving, do it fast. And sometimes, I joke around, but it’s almost like marinating things, sometimes it’s good to marinate things and let us sit and discuss it because something much better comes out of it.

Speaker: Aino Corry 26:50

Yeah, and I often see that we’re in the retrospective, and people start talking about one of the things, one of the incidents, and they want to end the conversation, and I start saying well, what caused this? And they say, oh, but what else could have caused this? I mean, you could do the fishbone diagram to find that out but you can also just ask the question, and I can feel in the beginning that, why is she stopping us? Because we’re so close to the conclusion, we’re so close to the solution. And I’m trying to still okay, so, but why are we here? What happened? How did we end here? And then they reach a point at some point where it’s like, oh, yeah, yes, that’s right. Yeah, it was actually, because we hadn’t talked about that before, or we didn’t know who was responsible for that or, oh, we were both responsible for that. But I thought you did it and things like that. As you say, it’s a marinating thing but brains are slow sometimes and it takes time to go back to that reflection state where you can actually really understand why things have happened. Because you’re so focused on the solution always.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 28:07

It is but especially developers should know that. As a developer, you know that it’s rare that you can just sit down and just solve a problem. Unless you’re in the state of flow. Usually, you’re thinking about it when you’re riding, walking, it marinates in your head as far as how you’re going to solve this problem so it’s similar. Like the problems that we’re talking about in retrospectives are just different types of problems but they’re still problems. So that should be familiar to people that are solving problems.

Speaker: Aino Corry 28:43

I think you’re putting the finger on the point there because it’s different kinds of problems. And I think that the developers, they appreciate that programming is hard and it takes time to figure that out. It’s only in the shower, as you say, in the long walk that suddenly it occurs to you or maybe in your dreams. But I think the one of the things that I’m trying to make them understand is that all problems are actually hard. Also, just people problems like soft problems actually also really hard problems about how to communicate, how to give feedback, how to trust each other, it’s really hard. And it takes a while to think about it and to reflect in order to find the right solution.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 29:34

How is this related to do it yourself anti-pattern?

Speaker: Aino Corry 29:40

Yeah, so do it yourself anti-pattern is a person that sort of explains the anti-pattern solution is that, it’s always the same person who is facilitating the retrospective and in Scrum, it’s often the scrum master who is the one facilitating the retrospective every time And the problem is that when you’re on a facilitator, you’re really busy. Like you have a schedule, and you’ve written down maybe some points about things that it would be nice to touch upon. So maybe you can ask these questions and you have to look at people’s body language. And it’s even harder now when it’s online, because you can only see the face and sometimes the hands.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 30:24

You’re lucky. I don’t know, sometimes it’s difficult to get even people to turn on their cameras.

Speaker: Aino Corry 30:33

Yeah, got some issues about that. I can come back to that later because I agree. That’s actually a different anti-pattern called peekaboo. But the do it yourself is that if, you are doing the retrospectives facilitation yourself every time for your team, then either you can choose to be the facilitator and then you don’t really get a retrospective as a team member, or you can choose to also be a team member but then you’re not as good a facilitator, because a facilitator is really hard job that you have to really focus on everything people write, everything they say, every little movement, and the agenda, the time, you have to make sure that you go through all the important stuff and then you come up with action points at the end, instead of dragging it on half an hour later. So do it yourself is try to not always have the same person facilitating, or at least not having the same person from the same team facilitating because if you’re in a team, you’d like to be in the retrospective yourself.

So maybe you can swap with another team and you can help facilitating each other’s or within the organization, or you can have an external facilitator. But the thing you said about the video is really important as well because a lot of people are not on video. So in the beginning of COVID, it became really, really important for me to have people being on video because all the retrospectives were online. Previously, perhaps a half of the retrospectives I facilitated were online, but the people who were online then, they knew how to work remotely, and then you it was important to be on video. But now everybody had to do that. And a lot of people didn’t want to do that. I want to just say, let’s just force everybody to be on video but then I heard the people backlash of people saying you can’t force people to be on video, maybe it’s psychologically unsafe to them to be on video. And I say, Okay, I appreciate that. To some people, very few. it feels very bad for them to be on video. But I think again, like in the Wheel of Fortune, we have to think about what’s the difference between the symptoms and the problems.

The symptom that we see is that they’re not on video. What’s the problem? Let’s find out what the problem is, before we start solving symptom. I mean, you can do all sorts of things with the symptom, you can enforce that they’re on video, or you can say, let’s have a game in the beginning where everybody show something red from the office or find something blue or something like that. And that makes them turn on the video, and then it’s easier to have the video turned on. But if they continue to not be on video, then I think you have to figure out what is the problem behind this. And then for the people that I’ve asked, I’ve had different excuses or like presentations of what the problem is some people say, oh, I don’t have a webcam. I mean, that’s easily fixed. If that’s actually the problem, we can very easily buy you a cheap webcam, which will be sufficient for being in a retrospective. But then if you tell them that they’ll say oh, it’s okay. I, I’m fine with this, because I’m actually taking the meeting from a car. And you’re like, okay, so the lack of video is a symptom of a problem that you don’t take this retrospective really seriously.

Because if you take a retrospective seriously, you don’t do it from the car. Because a retrospective is a is a time that you set aside to really learn about your other team members. And you’re probably having some sort of shared document online that you’re supposed to be able to write into and look at. And you can’t do that while you’re driving a car. And you also can’t look at the other people in the team while you’re saying something and see their reaction while you’re driving the car. So if that’s the problem, then that’s just a symptom that the problem is they’re not taking it seriously enough. And also when they say it’s because I’m in a café, I’m taking it from Café. Okay, well, then that’s another problem. You’re not taking it seriously.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 34:49

Change the time maybe or something like that. A lot of times people are in different time zones. It’s too early for me, I don’t want to wake up my, so I’m just listening and turning off my camera, maybe because it’s dark, and I don’t look good, whatever it is, right? I agree with that. It’s just finding the underlying reason or maybe it’s a new team and whatever it is, I don’t like how I look in the morning, and it’s winnable from that standpoint.

Speaker: Aino Corry 35:24

Exactly. Fair enough, then we’ll deal with that.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 35:29

I saw your talk. I think it’s maybe a couple of years, importance of laughter. I wanted to talk to you about that. Could you elaborate on that idea of importance of laughter?

Speaker: Aino Corry 35:46

Yeah. I always try when I’m facilitating retrospective, any meeting, actually, to make people laugh for several reasons. It just makes you feel good when you’re laughing, and feeling good is always a good start of a meeting. But also, if there’s any tension in the meeting, which often is in the retrospective, then laughter is a very good tension release. So if everybody laughs, then we can start talking about things. But also, if you’re asking a question, and it’s completely quiet, nobody knows what to say, it’s probably because the brain is just a bit stuck from the tension. But if you can make people laugh, it relaxes them and it allows the brains to think about it while they’re laughing. And then probably, they can come up with something. It’s also because in my experience, the team that laughs together, is a good team. I’m not thinking about if they laugh at one of the people in the team, of course, but if they laugh together, it’s a very good way of gelling the team members together. So I think that, among other things, there’s a lot of importance in laughter. And if you’re not funny, as a person, you can find some funny cartoon and show or a funny video clip and show, it doesn’t matter. You can just steal and rob and lend. You don’t have to be funny to make people laugh. And I think it’s really important for everybody to do that.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 37:15

Yeah, I mean, if you reflect on any team that you’ve been on, that you really liked, that you’re like, this definitely felt like a team, definitely a lot of laughter, a lot of jokes and your expense jokes and other people’s expense. And I think that’s part of that trust, right? Like, if we laugh together, in some ways we’re developing that trust, or we have that trust, right.

Speaker: Aino Corry 37:45

I don’t mind playing the clown a bit as a facilitator. I don’t mind doing something stupid. It’s easier when it’s in real life, because I’m really stupidly clumsy. So I always fall off something or not something so and then we can laugh about that. And then when I’ve been silly, everybody else can be silly. So it also takes a bit of the seriousness away. And I think actually, we take ourselves too seriously. Why do we have to be so adult and serious in order to be important? Why can’t we be childish and have fun? I would like that.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 38:17

Yeah, it’s a good question. You know, in a sense, like in I think all of us have that child in them, that wants to have fun that wants to laugh. But I don’t know if it’s conditioning over the years that like, you’re serious about work. You’re all it’s all business, that the expectation and part of the culture, and how we behave becomes a norm.

Speaker: Aino Corry 38:44

It doesn’t mean think about me young. When was last time you laughed so hard that your stomach hurt?

Speaker: Milan Bajic 38:51

Yeah, I don’t know.

Speaker: Aino Corry 38:53

If you remember that feeling, don’t you?

Speaker: Milan Bajic 38:55

Yeah. I can. It’s a good question. That’s a really, I don’t know. I can think of a couple of times, it’s usually on my own expense too with other people that I trust or something in common that we have. But yeah, that’s a good litmus test against you know, (inaudible 39:19)

Speaker: Aino Corry 39:20

I don’t know if it’s a good team, that you’ve heard. I’m not sure that’s a litmus test, but just thinking about it. Laugh today. It’s good.

Speaker: Milan Bajic 39:29

Yeah. I don’t have any meetings after this and it’s like, it’s setting me in the right mood. On the East Coast here, it’s still morning. So there’s something to be said about, just the mood that puts you in and it’s not just short term, but it might be like if we’re laughing and having a good time as a team, we might be even more productive, right?

Speaker: Aino Corry 39:55

Yeah and you can start by laughing at something silly and then you laugh and then you know, the smile lingers on your face after the laugh. And that smile sort of sends signals back to your brain that you’re happy and that okay, well, I’m happy apparently. And then you become happy and optimistic. And if you’re happy and optimistic, you are more resilient to problems, so you work better. So actually the bottom line in every organization is improved if people laugh every day.

Dave Snowden: | Agile to agility | Miljan Bajic | Episode #7

Dave Snowden

“Everything needs a capitalist or a trigger point. I think COVID has triggered the shift from systems thinking to complexity thinking, and you can see that starting to work.”
– Dave Snowden

Transcript:

Miljan: Dave how has COVID 19 impacted you? In what ways, and have you changed what you do, how you see things, isn’t this what we needed as a society? Maybe?

Dave: That’s a very big question. I mean, personally, I’ve never been in one place for this long since I was really at university. I was traveling over 250 days a year in hotels, and now I haven’t traveled for over a year. So that’s different. From the point of view of what we work on, it’s almost like our time has come because we work on complexity and uncertainty and nobody’s really denied that that’s now important. So the big thing which happened a week ago, which is going to be formally launched in April, is the joint handbook or field guide on how to manage complexity in crisis, which we jointly published with the EU commission. So that’s big. And we’re currently building assessment processes and follow through processes around that with a series of partners. So I think from that point of view, everything needs a capitalist or a trigger point.

I think COVID has triggered the shift from systems thinking to complexity thinking and you can see that starting to work at least a non-casual uncertainty from a societal point of view. I think it’s a wakeup call. It’s not the worst plague we’ll see in my lifetime. And I’m about to be 67 and it’s not the worst thing which is going to happen. So I think if we can’t get it right around this, then we really are up Creek, as they say. And I think it’s also a challenge to some of the orthodoxies. So the whole rational basis of money within neo-liberalism has just been destroyed by COVID. So what comes out of that is going to be a really interesting

Miljan: I don’t know what your thoughts are so far on the response, but the response general across the world has been pretty bad. So maybe this is the learning experience, but what are your thoughts? How did we respond to this crisis as a society?

Dave: It’s been bad and good. First of all, I mean the shared number of things, which government or society should possibly plan for is beyond our capacity to handle. So it’s all very well with the benefit of hindsight to say, we should have done more on pandemic management, but to be quite honest, we couldn’t afford to do it. Not if you add in all the other things which might fit simultaneous, there’s just this one hit. Now I think there were governments who managed it very well, like New Zealand, for example. Partly because they did, this is a key part of the field guide it says, the role of a leader is actually not to make decisions in a crisis, it is to coordinate other people making decisions, except for the early decisions where you have to make some fairly drastic stuff to create options for the future, which is what the New Zealand prime minister did.

She actually broke the law, but she realized it was necessary. The people that really fail were the big properties, governments, like the UK and the US and Brazil, and they fail because the reality is that the condition didn’t match the myth they were spreading. So if you live a populist myth and the world, all three leaders would in varying degrees of narcissism, then they try to ignore it for a long time. I mean our minister went around shaking people’s hands to prove it wasn’t an issue. And we won’t talk about the US president or the Brazilian president who kind of wind up in the same category. So I think it was mixed. I think actually as a species we’ve muddled through a lot back to that could have been predicted. People accepted lockdowns without riots on the street far more than we thought.

And we managed to do a type of brick collage, you know, radical repurpose. And we managed to kind of like get through in some countries, without people dying outside hospitals, unable to be admitted. Now it hasn’t happened in others, but so it’s a mixed package. So I think there’s a lot of learning out of it. But I don’t think as a disaster, I think we actually get better than anybody could have predicted. The vaccine development, we got five working vaccines when you would normally expect, you’d be lucky to get one. I think it indicates the speed of development of science and the ability of science to provide solutions where you create connections. And if you want one really good thing, which came out of Kirby I think, is kind of like made people respect scientists a bit more. I mean the populist thing was denying the value of science and kind of like, that’s a lot more difficult to do at the moment, if we ignore anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers and all these people.

Miljan: Is that a paradigm shift? Maybe to just quote you, one of the things that I reached out to the stood out to me, you posted on Twitter a couple of maybe weeks ago, maybe a little bit longer, I’ll quote you here. And I want to hear your thoughts on this. You said “a problem for people who have invested their whole career in a particular discipline or paradigm, is that when the world turns they can accept things have changed.” Can you elaborate a little bit on that?

Dave: Yeah. I was hitting about five separate targets with that. Four of whom realized they were being attacked. So that was quite cool, really. One of them still hasn’t, so I was even more entertained. I think it goes back in with something, two really important bits of the sort of theory behind what we do. Naturalizing sense-making. One is people only observe 3 or 4% of what’s in front of them at any one time and they match it against previous patterns. So we do a first fit pattern match. So actually it’s very difficult to see novelty. You’re not expecting to see it. So you won’t, unless your attention is drawn to it and at a societal level, if we ignore the total nonsense of things like memes. What you actually have is what I call tropes or assemblages. So you have patterns of narrative that people live in that they find difficult to escape from. So I don’t find this particularly surprising. So we know that’s just 1 0 1 neuroscience or oncology neuroscience, so we should expect that to be the problem.

Miljan: What are your thoughts? I know in the past, you’ve commented on this, but just on cognitive development psychology and specifically on spiral dynamics or any of those popular cognitive development frameworks, or maybe just share your thoughts on what you think is going on in the context of cognitive development and paradigms?

Dave: You lumped in an awful lot of stuff together there, so let’s just run through it at a high level.

Miljan: My question is really about what is your take on adult cognitive development or development stages?

Dave: I think most of these things can be useful at an individual level, but they don’t apply to organizations. And I think there are major issues on trying to bring psychotherapeutic techniques sideways into organizational design, because anything you bring sideways from therapy assumes that somebody needs therapy and privileges a therapist. So for example, if you take Kegan’s models of adult maturity, I would use that in leadership, but not as a linear progression, but as a series of separate modulators. And you could also oscillate between them, it’s not a linear process, it’s a non-linear influence. And there, you can find Caitlin stuff quite useful. At the other end of the extreme, you’ve got things which establish pseudoscience like Myers-Briggs, Which has no basis whatsoever in any science, she’s established as a pseudoscience and then you get things like spiral the dynamics nonsense.

Now, if you go back to the original research, then that would be great. I mean, that’s been invalidated because he only researched his own students without proper controls. So it doesn’t count and you can’t take a culturally specific and very culturally determined framework and apply it to the rest of the world. And you certainly can’t take it and apply it to new age mysticism and cultism, which is what Beck did with Wilbert. And you can see how absurd it is because they decided they had to add turquoise to it, so they had a heightened state of alignment, and now somebody else has added Jade because they want an, even another heightened state of alignment. I mean, this stuff just farcical nonsense, and it made anybody takes it seriously.

Miljan: You mentioned Myers-Briggs and those are huge moneymakers. A lot of companies [09:47 inaudible] use it. You have your thoughts on McKenzie. I’ve seen another consultant companies that when it comes to organizational consulting and that type of things. How much have these big companies deluded or sprayed leaders?

Dave: I think substantially. And if you look at the origins of Myers Briggs, it was two people who were well intentioned, trying to create a general framework. They thought it was based on Jungian, but the argument is Jungian actually denied it when he sought validity. But I wouldn’t go with Jungian or Freudianism anyway. I mean, it was a cute idea in the 19th century; we’ve grown out of it. But what then happened is hay came along and generalized it, and they decided to go along with the compromise. Now you won’t find a psychology department in the universe who takes it seriously, because it’s got no research base. It operates the same way that astrology works. It says things in such a way that you self-identify and give it to authority. And that’s a known problem. Now we can give it perception.

So I think, yeah, there are other ones which were better. I sometimes work with say the original seven characteristic, belgian one, because it doesn’t make the mistake of saying that people are predetermined. It says dependent on the context, you’ll shift between roles, which is much more accurate. And I think you have to look at when Myers Briggs came in and it came in just when we were switching over to an engineering paradigm, things like business process re-engineering and HR departments wanted to treat their employees as widgets on the shelf. So they wanted to categorize them and Myers Briggs came along and it did that.

Miljan: So it’s essentially what we’re looking for. And you recently also said canaven is not about creating recipes, but about facilitating chefs. How much, I mean, like, we have such a desire for recipes. I talked recently about how scrum is a recipe as well. And a lot of these are things, these companies that deliver what we want. There is a demand for it. So what are your thoughts, in general how much we’re seeing?

Dave: There’s nothing wrong with the recipe? I mean, when I learned to cook at university, I had recipe books. I followed the recipe, but then I acquired skill and I didn’t need to follow it anymore. And I had higher adoption, so this is not a right or wrong thing, but the problem is, I can talk about something we’re doing in a second on this. So the problem is that each context has a high degree of uniqueness about it. So the minute you have a linear process and a linear recipe, you’re automatically gonna miss weak signals. So one of the things we’re doing at the moment for example, is to create not only our methods and tools, but other people’s methods and tools as the sort of facilitation kit, which allows people to produce different things in different combinations in context, it’s much more what the chef does.

So the chef says, well, I haven’t got sugar. So I’ll use honey. Is that ability to substitute and move things around. So you can take scrum for example, which is one of the most powerful software development methods sets I’ve seen. It’s not a framework, it’s a set of methods for making complex things complicated. And that’s this huge power, but there’s no reason why I shouldn’t break it down a bit and say, well, let’s take out the sprint and replace it with a three-month time box. And that’s the sort of way we’re working at the moment, is to look at what’s the lowest level of optimal granularity of our methods and other people’s methods. And then look at how you can combine and recombine those to give contextually appropriate solutions.

So that’s kind of like a halfway house between the gifted chef and the gifted recipe user, uses artifacts to create some structure. And to my mind, that’s key because, and it’s what we’re doing around the field guide. So we’re creating an assessment process, which starts off by recognizing that you probably did a lot of things, right. Rather than here’s a process you now have to follow. It says, let’s work out what you did right. And what won’t scale and what you did wrong. And then from that create a unique pathway and which is contextually appropriate.

Miljan: That means that you have to be willing to be a chef, like chefs know at the core, at the chemical level, how ingredients interact with each other, right?

Dave: You can mis it. I mean a real chef will sit probably about a 10 or 15 year apprenticeship. And this is what Aristotle called Saphir and panesis. So they have panises knowledge in their fingertips and they have a theoretical knowledge, but the theoretical knowledge is so ingrained in what we do every day. They don’t have to summon it explicitly. Equally the recipe book user is just saying, well, I need all of these ingredients and I need all of this equipment. And then I’ll follow the recipe. There is actually several stages in between. And this is where modularity comes in or granularity as we call it. So I can actually identify. And what’s interesting, I’ve gone back to my old object orientated textbooks in the nineties on this. You can actually, if you get the granularity, right, you’ve got polymorphism in inheritance and you’ve got input output.

So if you can get that definition, right. And people can assemble things, knowing what the output has to be for the input somewhere else. And you can give them a lot of the capability of the chef without them needing to go through that process. But you avoid the non-linear recipe. And one of the reasons why a few weeks ago, we put all of our methods into opensource in wiki which, we’ve now got several hundred people involved in, which is usually encouraging, is basically the, say the field needs to expand quickly. And we need to get this modularity into the space in opensource because too much of our job gets locked behind proprietary walls. One of the great success that Ken did with scrum when he launched it, is scrum was open source. So you tended to go to him for the methods and training, whereas safe is, is a lockdown. And then you get, some of the really crazy stuff.

I mean you got Agile 2 nonsense coming out now, which is just hysterically funny because they’re trying desperately to say they’re not going to create an accreditation scheme, but we all know that’s what they’re doing. They’re going down a well-worn pathway. And I think it was interesting because I was one of the three founders of DSDM when it started, which is one of the big things which went into Agile. So agile is mainly XP, scrum and the DSDM and DSDM was formed when three of us met at a pub in Cheltenham for a meal because we’re British. So we can do things over a pub. We don’t have to go to a ski resort for a week. But the critical thing was, we said that DSDM, which is now called something else I think, effectively between three competitors. Three competitors met and agreed to create an independent standard. We didn’t try and lock it down and make it proprietary and I think that was one of the really big mistakes that the agile movement made. And even scrum has now made it, I mean, the legal suits flying around in the scrum community at the moment, would be amusing if it wasn’t for the negative impact on the field.

Miljan: So, now I completely, I mean, I shared the same thoughts and one of the things that kind of inspire me, you and Andrea did the talk back in 2019, I believe agile to agility. And as you can see, that’s the name of my podcast. It wasn’t the thing that triggered it. But when I saw that you guys did it too, I was like, this resonated with me. I thought you guys had, I got the agiletoagility.com and it expired or somehow I ended up. But what do you think, for the last 20 years there’s been so much focus on big and agile and tools and these, what do you think are the next five to 10 years like? When it comes to agility, focus into agility?

Dave: Agile as a movement is coming to the end of its life cycle. It’s had 20 years and if you want the indications of why you can see the commoditization as safe and the fact that PMR didn’t have the guts to take it on, but are trying to imitate it. And that’s a mistake. Alright. The other thing is that the fact that the big consultancies have all adopted it. So they bought agile brand companies at ridiculous P ratios just to get into a market. Now, if you’ve been around long enough, and if you know enough about the theory of market life cycles, that means the market is in engineering commoditization stage, which means that’s the time when you introduce new things because the market’s stale. Now, you don’t do that by trying to be romantic about the past or trying to create your own new, special thing.

And to be quite honest Dean with safe, moved into that field before anybody else and owns it. I mean, it was unscrupulous, it was stolen off a pyramid selling scheme. He’s now trying to introduce quality, but that’s to stop other people doing what he did to get established in the first place. And, yeah, fine. The point is it, that always happens and it happens about that life cycle. Now what the new thing is, I think is open, if you want my view on it. I think first of all, most software development has followed the sort of engineering metaphor that underpins systems thinking. And it uses manufacturing metaphors in the main, in terms of the way it thinks. Now complexity takes an organic metaphor. So for example, if I look at some of the work we’re doing at the moment, we’re looking at mapping existing capabilities against the articulated needs.

Now that’s a complete switch away from traditional procurement and software design, but actually it allows you to progress faster, quicker. We’re looking at architectural issues in which, as I said, back in the eighties, but nobody listened to me then. People are objects too. So organizations and people and identities are objects. They have input output. They interact with technology. If you architect the system properly, then radical innovations will emerge through those interactions. And I think that’s the really important lesson of complexity. It’s not about things. It’s about how they interact, and if you change the interactions, then radical change happens. If you try and change things, nothing changes.

Miljan: So it’s really about influencing the system and designing the?

Dave: Designing the architecture. So for example, we’ve developed a whole typology of what’s called scaffolding. So for example, do you have an endoskeleton on an exoskeleton? If you have an exoskeleton, the thing is contained; you know what it will look like. If you go and endoskeleton, then you have a coherent structure, but a huge amount of variety can develop very quickly. And the issue is to make choices like that, and this goes way beyond things like perpetual arthropel, perpetual betray as well. If you can stabilize your objects, whether they’re people objects, or software objects, then allow the interactions to determine what the system, as a whole looks like. You’re effectively allowing things to grow or evolve rather than trying to define in advance what they should be.

And that means to create far more resilience. And if you look at it, that’s actually where the internet has developed. Things like hashtags suddenly became ways that you can act different things, right. And nobody designed that, it just kind of like happen. And I could go through other than examples. The key thing there was the creation of open standards, so the fact that all of these and again, open standards are interaction protocols. So if you can create a common understood interaction protocol, all sorts of exciting things can evolve.

Miljan: That’s really interesting. So coming back to the topic of what’s next, what’s the next wave, or maybe even paradigm going to be, it’s really focusing on like complexity management, living systems and the really trying to understand how patterns may be work. Would you say that?

Dave: Yes, no, you need to be careful because then people dive into [22:41 inaudible] and pattern language. And again, that was insightful, but it’s not where we’re coming from. And I think we’re in, I mean, if you look what happens in the eighties systems thinking, which is popularized as systems dynamics and cybernetics comes along and it’s considered highly academic, and esoteric one year, then three years later, it just dominates the world through business process re-engineering and through learning organization.

And we’ve had a whole series of micro patterns within that, you know, BPR, six sigma, agile is one of those at the moment. It’s going through exactly, blue ocean strategy. I could go through a whole bunch of these. They’re all kind of like, they all have this character and this has been a characteristic post scientific management never did this, he never made that mistake. So assume there was a solution to fit them all, one solution to buying them in the darkness to go back to talking. And therefore, when the solution fails, it’s bound to, so business process re-engineering evolved in manufacturing where it works. It was then moved into services where it’s a disaster. And so then when people come along with something new to replace it, and then that doesn’t work. So it’s an attempt to create universals rather than context-specific is fundamentally characteristic of systems thinking and the engineering metaphor. And with that, those things like corporate objectives, mission statements, purpose, statements, management budget, all of those sort of things. You don’t see any of them in the scientific management era. They’re all a product of post eighties.

So I think what COVID is triggering, is the switch from engineering to ecology is a major paradigm shift. And then there’ll be cycles within that. And during the major paradigm shift, all you can do is try and influence it, which is one of the reasons we went to open source because you can’t deter, to get my favorite example on this at the moment, somebody told me the other day, I have to go and watch frozen 2. Now my daughter is in her thirties and thinks I don’t understand delusion epistemology and I haven’t got grandchildren yet. So I’ve got no excuse to watch frozen 2. So I sort of covertly went into the sitting room on my own and watched it. And it’s actually quite a good movie. And the reason they said I should watch it is there is a key phrase in frozen 2, which is do the next right thing. And that actually is kind of like the key principles of complexity.

You can’t know the future, but you can move to the adjacent possible and you can choose where you move next and stay open to possibilities as you go forward. And I think that’s where we are at the moment. And to be honest on a major paradigm shift, success will go to those people that work across boundaries rather than those people who try and create boundaries because if you try and create boundaries, you can’t move fast enough. We went open stores on the Wiki. Now open source means anybody can use it, but we’ve done more in two weeks that we’ve done the previous two years when it was internal, because you’re bringing in a greater amount of people to that. The whole strategy at the moment is to open up boundaries, not to close them down. The other really big thing is to avoid platitudes. If I could say the worst thing I’ve seen in my career from the eighties onwards is the constant desire to write wonderful words on flip charts and then call them mission statements or purpose statements or objectives. And if you do an analysis on it, they all use the same rough, small number of words, and we can combine them.

Miljan: And nobody can recite them, or they just know that they exist?

Dave: The other thing is they’re actually bad anthropology. If you look at all the major world’s religions, none of them use that mechanism. They will all teach through parables. Now we’re actually launching a parable project next month. That’s part of our numinous project where every quarter we’ll present a new parable from a different religion and get people to say what it means to them in their current role and where they’re going to go. So we’re starting off with the parable of the sower. We’re moving on to a Sufi story of the [inaudible 27:00] and then we’re moving on to the [27:02 inaudible] rider, which is a wonderful Maori film.

And the point about parables is they give you a sense of direction without being absolute. And they can’t be gained. Anybody can gain a purpose statement. I’m saying the way purpose took off. So if you look at it, there’s nothing different in purpose from mission statements, they are the same thing. But somebody realizes in the market, they publish a best-selling book with lots of retrospective case studies, they give it a capital letter instead of a small letter. And they dine out on the speaker fees and the big consultancies pick it up because every three years they want you to complete redo everything. So you can have a large team of what I call semi house trained pole cuts at $5,000 a day working for you and the whole industry now. And it’s actually quite dangerous.

Miljan: Do you think that is going to continue? Cause it’s been like that for a long time

Dave: I think the big consultancies rose on the back of business process re-engineering, before that consultancies are small groups of experienced people with a very low ratio between partnership and consultant. What then happened is consultancy became industrialized because business process re-engineering created a market for large teams of people doing the analytical work and the business schools actually grew up to [28:22 inaudible]. I mean, people get this, the business schools and the big consultancies are a 30 year old phenomenon. That entire model is these large scale change programs. So I don’t think that will survive. I think we’re talking about alliances of small specialists in the future rather than the sort of big generalist.

Miljan: And at least when I look at it and I don’t know from your perspective, but a lot of these change initiatives that you just mentioned, a lot of these transformations, what we call even agile transformations, like most of them, 90 in opinion plus fail. They actually never work.

Dave: They consistently failed for 30 years, but people keep thinking if they do it again, this time it will work. I mean, it’s kind of like really rather stupid. But the other problem is it’s actually one of the things that safe sold off. So safe sold off three things. It’s a good illustration. One is the huge desire of agile people to have something they could train people in, because training revenue is high margin. So it starts off, do the five day course. You can then do the four day course, provided you pay me a royalty. And that was the pyramid.

Secondly, the desire of executives to say they’re doing something which they’re not doing in practice and the safe diagram allowed them to say they are being agile but have this huge bloody waterfall in engineering to deal with. But the really cynical bit is what executives really want if they’re cynical. And there’s enough of them around, it’s a major program, which will take three years to implement and cost several million dollars, because then they get all the kudos from having initiated it. But they move on before the consequences are known and that’s become a very scary pattern. And it’s partly the short-termism of executive employment.

I give an illustration too, when I was first a general manager. This is back in the eighties. I had to do a year in production, a year in support, and a year in sales and hit my targets. Until I’ve done that I wasn’t even able to become a general manager because if you haven’t and people should do this, if you haven’t, not known whether you can pay your mortgage or not because you haven’t made a sale. Until you’ve lived, you do not understand salespeople. And if you’re on a support line, you know that it’s not how long the calls takes on average, by the number of calls, divided by the number of people. It just doesn’t work like that. So that tacit knowledge was key.

And then we expected if you were in a general management role, you had to legally commit to be in it for at least three years. You couldn’t leave because three years, you can’t run out fast and the consequences of your decisions. Now you get somebody, you know, they’ll often get parachuted into a general management or a [31:04 inaudible] having done a BA in business studies and MBA and being at consultant and never got any real experience. And they ended up trying to run a company. And of course the only way they can do it is through spreadsheets.

Miljan: Or bring somebody else like a big consulting company to the actual.

Dave: Yeah, the one who originally employed them. And then some of them actually do that, they push people out if they can’t make partner, but they push them into industry and then they create an obligation.

Miljan: So you mentioned safe and you know, pretty much all of the agile scaling frameworks in my opinion are unsuccessful. Right? So like, there’s something about agile community that, and even scrum, I mean like you said, it’s a great framework, but it’s a team level and it’s trying to do almost like tame, like you said, you know, things from complex to complicated and that doesn’t work always either as great as the framework it is. It comes back to scaling, I really want to, maybe just your thoughts first on scaling and why did the agile community, why do we keep getting it wrong?

Dave: We did not understand the basic science of it, so you scale, you downscale a complex adaptive system and it is a complex system by aggregation or imitation or combination. You scale it by decompensation and reinteraction. So you actually break it into smaller components and then you allow those components to interact in different ways. And if you think about it, the whole of organic life form comes from four chemicals in different combinations. So this can be [32:42 inaudible] DNA, right. But they didn’t do that. So they held things. So if you look at safe, the way safe is anything, anybody wants to buy Dean puts on the diagram and sells you a certificate and just added time thinking to it. So the granularity is wrong, right?

If you look at scrum, the granularity is things like sprint retrospective. If you get that granularity, you can substitute. So we’ve developed three pre scrum techniques for agile communities because they deal with things which are truly complex. Whereas scrum deals with things which is still complex, but can now be made complicated. And for some reason, the agile community has completely got rid of time boxes, which were a major feature of DSDM and were hugely valuable. So you have a minimal viable product, a maximum product, and a minimum level restores the maximum. And you promise to deliver on the day, but agile got himself hung on this fact, nobody can hold us to a delivery date. And that’s a bloody nightmare if you’re an executive or you’re managing a large project, the time box method said, you knew on this date, you’ll at least get this functionality for this cost. Then you might get something out.

Now, as I say, you can start to do clever things with scrum. If you start to, for example, take a sprint and make it a time box retrospective in different ways. And I think that that’s where we’re going to go in future. It’s a multi methods, multi-vendor approach. And the key thing will be understanding the interaction between methods. And that will be unique in context. So if you look at the safe diagram, they can’t even fit their linear model on one line now. It’s sort of snakes in a big [34:22 inaudible]. If you start here you could go through here. By the time you get here, you spent about $5 million and you can’t go back.

Miljan: So is it really about, I mean, it’s about time boxing, but it’s also delivering within those time box, because you can time box things, but not delivering?

Dave: Yeah. But that was the contract. So as a team, you’re contracted to deliver at least the minimal viable product for the maximum resource. So you could vary what you deliver. Then you could vary the resource, but you had to deliver at least this on that date. I’ve actually works quite well because it’s event driven. And I’ve managed software and I’ve been a software developer. If you allow software developers, you don’t put fire under their feet on a time-based delivery, they never get around to delivering anyway. I mean, the only way I’ve managed software teams on my life is to have a client’s screaming and making sure the software development teams get the grief. So I’m not feeling from it and magically, they produce things or they make necessary compromises. So I’m not arguing that the time box is a solution, I’m saying they’re part of the solution.

So scrum is a key part of the solution as a collection of methods, but not as a framework. Kanban is a very useful technique. Time box is a useful technique. XP has got a whole body of stuff that everybody’s forgotten about.

Miljan: I was gonna say about that because that’s one of the things that people say like, oh, let’s do scrum, but they completely like when you look at their architecture, when you look at the technical practices, they’re not.

Dave: Remember the problem her. If agile being built in the back of XP, none of us would be talking about it now. What Ken did was codifications and abstraction. That’s what scrum was. So, because scrum was Codified and abstract, it could actually diffuse very quickly. This is how [36:17 inaudible] work. XP doesn’t diffuse because it’s not, co-defined, it’s not abstract and it requires high expertise. So as [36:25 inaudible] he said it [36:25 inaudible] that was in Scotland. I remember saying this. That was when I also upset David, because I said Kanban was a complicated technique, not complex, and sort of flurry of tweets come in from our founder on the sideline.

I remember saying that, if agile is scaled around the XP, it will be much more excited and if scrum and all the XP cheered me. So I thought I’d call this. I said, the problem is that nobody in XP can talk to ordinary mortals, so there was no chance that it would ever scale. They’re still trying to work out whether that was an insult or not. They haven’t made up their minds yet.

Miljan: Yeah, I think, and I mean, if I look back on the agile manifesto and what they did really did set the foundation, but without Ken we wouldn’t be where we are. Well you recently publish a report of the complex 21 trend sense maker report. What was the most interesting thing that you got out of that report?

Dave: You’d have to ask the team I wasn’t involved in that.

Miljan: You review it? No.

Dave: No we split cognitive edge into two, a commercial working dated network and the navin centre, which is the research, not for profit government group, which I run. So that was done in the commercial side. I think they published stuff and they run a webinar the other day, but I wasn’t involved in it.

Miljan: I saw you recently, and this is more of a fun, it got me curious and I don’t know really what you meant about it, but you twitted about having wine, rum and whiskey in the same day. And you said it’s that type of day. What kind of day requires wine rum and whiskey?

Dave: When I get on to rum then I’m in a very dark mood. It was about, too much time with lawyers, too much with people I trusted not being trustworthy and too much time with doing 18 hours a days. And those hit you from time to time. I’m probably better able to cope with them than 20 year olds, because I’ve been through too many in my life. And to be honest, twitter is great, I mean, I get into trouble for it from time to time. I regard social media as a wonderful way of letting rip at something and it gets it off your system. I mean, it’s amazing how you tweet something targeted at somebody? And you got all these emails from people that you say, you don’t mean me did you? I say well actually I didn’t but if the cap fits wear it.

Miljan: That’s what happens, you know, when you have a following. Another thing that the kind of stood out to me when I was looking about the questions to ask you, is you said the single most fundamental error of the last three decades is to try and design and idolize future, rather than working the evolutionary potential of the here and now. And you alluded to this earlier in our conversation, but would you maybe elaborate, like the biggest thing in the last three decades, that’s a pretty big statement.

Dave: It is most interesting, it’s fairly recent and it’s got the highest volume reposts of anything I’ve ever done anywhere on social media. So it kind of like, obviously, you know, struck a bell, as they say, I wrote a blog post on this in more detail, but what came in. And I think this is the, whether you call it systems thinking or systems dynamics, or cybernetics, or some other name, but let’s summarize that as the engineering metaphor, which came in in the eighties and the way that you handle uncertainty, and Sandy was one of the first to do this. Was to say, well, the way we’ll handle uncertainly is all too difficult. So we’ll decide where we want to be. And then people can close the gap. And that gave rise to the whole mission statement, value statement, future, and thereafter, every time somebody wants to do something, all the executives sit down and decide where they want to be.

And then they try and close the gap. And of course they never achieve it because it’s a complex system and you can only have another next right step. So in complexity, you describe the present, you identify where you can move. So you start journeys with a sense of direction. You don’t have goals because goals mean you focus on goal achievement and you miss opportunities you’d find on the journey. And if you look at it, every single method or every single approach, which has come out since the eighties, it always starts with the leaders sitting down and deciding where they want to be. And it hasn’t worked in three decades. So maybe it’s time to stop.

Miljan: And maybe that’s kind of part of the fundamental of complexity and complexity management of just things emerging and not trying to control.

Dave: You can manage them, it’s very important to understand this. I mean, some people use complexity as an excuse not to do anything. And the agile community are very prone to that is complex, so don’t expect us to commit to deliveries. Well, actually one of the ways you manage complexity is to commit to a delivery and find a way to do it. And actually human beings are really good at this. I mean I’ve done this all my life. You give a team a deadline, somehow they magically achieve it. If you say, use your best endeavors somehow you never get anything. So these tend to be event and that’s for anything. And I say, one of the reasons scrum was successful, it created shorter cycles. So there was more event driven stress in the system. So you’re more likely to get deliveries out of it.

So I think it is this concept of, if the world is uncertain, you can’t know the future, but you can know what direction you want to travel in. And I think that’s the big switch, which we’re now starting to people. COVID has helped that because nobody knows what’s going to happen a week out. Actually quite interesting. So a lot of this work came from work I did with Admiral John Poindexter when he was running DARPA programs. So I run a big DARPA program for him, with people at mailer park and others, on the human sensor networks. And that was before 9/11. I was actually in Arlington the night before, throughout that night and pick up the news next day. And it was about three weeks before I knew my team was still alive because we’ve been in that part which got hit.

So either way, it then got interesting. And we ended this big retrospective with Clinton’s Al Queda team, which included some very senior, very well-known names. Nice thing about US system is all the previous politicians are available for research when [43:32 inaudible]. So we went through the 9/11 report and from using Kenivin. And every time they went through it, they say, no, no, no because we should have known that. So everything became complicated because they had the benefits of hindsight. And John and I, and Las were beginning to despair, we’d never get them anywhere. And then over lunch, it was when the Americans were hitting somewhere in Iraq. I can’t remember. It was a major siege. Nobody knew what the hell would happen. They started to talk about it. And then they started to use Kenivin, because they didn’t know the future and that was actually really important because after that, we realized with the benefits of hindsight, everybody will see causality.

So you don’t try and do a retrospective. And some of our work, for example, some of the techniques, software techniques we’ve been developing is to create real-time continuous retrospectives in scrum rather than the one time. And again, that’s this concept of componentization and if you swap something out with something else. So you get rid of the retrospective at the end of the period, you move into continuous work recording, which generates retrospectives. Now it’s not that you always do that, but when you do it, it produces a different result.

Miljan: I mean, I think that going back to the combination and like understanding like the purpose and even in scrum, the retrospective is a formal activity to inspect and adapt. You don’t have to wait till the end to do that. So it’s just the knowing. What do you think, I would like to get your thoughts on the link between lack of resilience and organizational failure. You asked this question or what did you find as far as the link between lack of resilience and organizational failure?

Dave: Okay. So the more efficient you are as an organization, the more you’re optimized for your known context. So if the context shifts, you’re highly vulnerable. And two English words, which are the same interesting as Scandinavian languages, but different in English, which is efficiency and effectiveness. I mean, we have a saying in Wales, English is too good for the English, and we generally think most things are too good for them. But it’s this hugely rich language. I mean, Shakespear brought in 750 words from Welsh because he liked the sound of it. So you can be very, very subtle in English and English was designing for ironic conversations, which is an unfair tactic against Americans. But basically if you want to be effective, you’ve got to be efficient to a degree.

And the way I normally it illustrate this is the difference between a seawall and the salt marsh. So a seawall is highly efficient, because you can drain the land on one side, you don’t get leakage, you’ve got long form until it breaks. And then it would be better if the sea water hadn’t been there in the first place. A salt marsh is not as efficient because it uses some land badly. But it absorbs water and even when it’s saturated, it doesn’t release it catastrophic. And that’s it. And antifragile is just a subset of resilience for everybody unless you’re called the [47:01 inaudible] at which point you have to create something unique every three years to sell a new book. The reality is systems that succeed by failure or a type of resilience system. It’s only one type, but it’s a very dangerous type to emphasize. So the bones are actually benefited by stress until they break and then they never fully read it. You gotta be careful now. So one of the things we’ve been working on is how do you measure the necessary degree of inefficiency, Max [Name] and I did this. So how inefficient do you need to be in order to be resilient because you actually need surplus capacity in this system. And you need diversity in the system because, and this was one of the big problems with education. So education became very specialized.

And so we don’t have any generalists left, well if you don’t have any generalists left, how the hell do you synthesize things? And then people talked about T-shaped generalists. You have deep expertise in one field, but you’ve read a few books in 10 another fields, that doesn’t count because you’ll always privilege the field you’re an expert. Generalists know enough about multiple fields that they know when they don’t know enough and they know which experts to go and talk with, but they don’t privilege one technique over another. And again, I think, yeah, it was quite interesting. I was one of these in IBM until when Lou Gerstner was there. This was common. It went with Sam, is there was almost like a competition between senior general managers. And these are really important men, they are both VPs and IBM. Most of them have budgets. I mean, the one I worked for is rounding error every quarter, was quarter of a million dollars, was under quarter of million as it got rounded down to zero, which is how we hit things, including me.

But there was like a competition between them as to who had the most dangerous Mavrick, because it was almost like you could almost hear them a meeting and saying, well, yeah, my, Maverick is upset, they dumpsite more people and your Maverick accepts that and I’ve had 15 requests for him to be fired where you’ve only had two. This actually was a conversation. I overheard it once. And I was the one with 15. And it was quite interesting because they were holding people who thought differently. It was actually as a status issue to do that because it was an expression. Those were all eliminated when Sam came along, everybody got eliminated, who was different because the assumption was, everything could be found in the center.

And I still remember Sam at a session we had with him over on the West Coast. And he said the idea is that we actually have a computer program, which takes my strategic intent and implements it without people getting in the way. And I said, well, where do you think people like you are going to come from the future, if you get rid of middle management and he hadn’t thought about that. He just didn’t really genuinely haven’t thought about that in terms of the way it works. So either way I rambled around a bit. I call it requisite variety. And it shouldn’t be one of the key performance indicators for any organization. And the level of requisite variety will vary according to context. So you may need to build networks into other institutions to give you the variety.

Miljan: And then that’s also, again, like, you’d go back and it’s really like, this is all fundamentals of complexity management. Wha do you think the agile community, or in any matter, like what do we need to do to get better understanding complexity management?

Dave: You’ll need to go and rehabilitation programs to stop yourself being obsessed with credentials. I mean, I’ve got three sets of letters I can put after my name. They all came out of years of study from universities and I never bothered to put them after my name, agile people like to string 15 qualifications based on turning up to a two day course and filling out a multiple-choice questionnaire and then have an open book exam. So you really need to break that because it’s a completely false representation of knowledge. I think the most important thing is to break away from the vendors specific linear frameworks, which actually aren’t [51:15 inaudible]. Scrum, is in framework, whatever they want to call it. It’s the collection of methods. And it works for certain types of software development and it works for certain types of programs in HR or finance, but it doesn’t work for strategy.

It’s a really bad method of handling strategy because it’s too structured. So you need to have different methods in different combinations of methods from multiple vendors working in parallel, which is why things like safe to a lesser extent last ironically. And I would have said until PMI got involved, but that was probably even better, but PMI will structure things. It needs to get away from these highly structured single vendor solutions because they’re actually really dangerous. I mean funny story on this. I was lucky. I taught leadership with Peter Drucker. So the first time I spoke on the same platform as Peter Drucker, which was at the hotel down in Coronado, which is one of my favorite hotels in the world. So I’m speaking before Peter Drucker. So I think this is wonderful. I did a savage naive attack on Taylorism and I knew Frederick Taylor, but I knew people who knew Frederick’s Taylor speech, you know, like that famous put down at the American vice-president.

If you’ve ever been rendered into a puddle of humiliation by a 96 year old genius, when you were thought you were going to be accolated you know how I felt. Either way he decided that was retrievable and took me out for dinner. And then we actually taught three major courses together. And we saved my bacon one day because Lou Gerstner got an invitation to come to an exact invitation only seminar run by Peter Drucker and Dave Snowden. And he wrote the posted note. He told me afterwards, we said, who is this person I gathered he works for me? And that happened about half an hour before two people came in with manufactured evidence to have me fired. So that was really lucky. But one of these Drucker and I agreed is that scientific management and complexity they have a lot in common, far more than they’ve got in common with systems thinking because both of them automate what they can automate, but they actually have apprentice models of management and they respect human judgment.

And what happened with systems thinking is an attempt to remove human judgment from the system completely because it was all meant to be an engineered algorithm or a control mechanism. HR departments move from supporting managers, making decisions to producing spreadsheets about what salaries they could give to people.

Kevin Callahan: Agility in Government / Public Sector | Agile to agility | Miljan Bajic | Episode #6

Kevin Callahan

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 00:36

So, who is Kevin Callahan?

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 00:41

That’s such a great question.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 00:42

Many people don’t want to know that

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 00:44

Yeah, right who cares? Well, I mean I could give you a list of the things that I like to do which is maybe sort of not particularly interesting. What matters, I have a few really deep loves in the world. Of course, my family is one of them, where I live, we’ve chosen to live in a really rural area of Maine. Well, it’s not a really rural area of Maine by comparison to most other places, it’s very rural but by Maine standards, it’s actually fairly Suburban. And it’s like I was sitting out drinking a coffee this morning out on our deck and listening to the first of the songbirds arrive which literally has happened like between yesterday and today. Yesterday, they weren’t out there singing and this morning, they’re out there singing so maybe they’re out there yesterday just had decided to start.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 01:43

So, my time to go back to Maine is good.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 01:45

Yeah, your timing is perfect. It’s like the best time. Winter is behind us for the year. So yeah, I really value a deep connection to the natural world and the cycles of the natural world and being out where we live. And working from home has allowed me to be hooked into that really beautifully for the last year which is kind of one of those rare silver linings of this whole COVID thing. I really love music these days that looks like electronic dance music DJing, getting back into that. After a long hiatus, just really love the collage of taking other people’s art and putting it together in different ways that kind of gives contrast and flow to that. It’s fun, that connection.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 02:42

inaudible. I think it was you and your daughter like putting something I saw. What are you guys making?

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 02:54

My daughter and I are in a band so we play together. So that’s another whole angle on the music thing of actually playing live instrumental music. So yeah, that’s pretty cool. We do live Facebook streams and this year and before that we were playing out and about in the local area and played in pubs. We visited Ireland a few years ago. We played around in Ireland which was super fun.

So yeah, there’s a lot of I think multi dimensionality about the interest that I have from running chainsaws and intending forests and being active in my food system production and music and being outside and looking forward to getting back out in the mountains, backpacking and just sitting and looking at water. People like what do you do when you go backpacking, it’s like as little as possible. Sit and watch a pool for several hours is about the speed I like to go out and just take it all in. There’s so much to see and maybe that’s a good segue into agility because I think agility is about paying attention and being mindful, paying really close attention to what’s actually happening around us and being curious and having that sense of wonder about the world and the world of work and the people we are with and how are we together and how do we show up together and how do we be together?

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 04:32

Yeah, I agree. Been there and a lot of it is about awareness and I think it’s going back to the nature, I spoke with Dave Snowden last week or the week before and he made that connection to about complexity management and for so long we’ve used the machines as metaphor and we haven’t really looked at living systems and say how do we design organizations rather than like machines but more like living systems and that reminded me of that.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 05:08

Yeah, and it’s a profound metaphor because then there’s lots of different living systems, right? There’s highly controlled cultivated living systems like industrial agriculture which is starting to show some pretty serious drawbacks of sustainability in the long term. And then there’s like the living systems around my house which were managed by the native peoples lived here, actively managed those forests for a very long time. And you could argue that some of the forests of Maine are wilder now than they have been for 1000s of years because they’re just let alone and there isn’t an active human element of working with the forest for a specific purpose like a sustainable food production system.

So yeah, once we start scratching that metaphor a little bit and you start seeing the other kinds of intelligence I think that are not human in nature like ecosystem intelligence and ecosystems abilities to self-regulate and achieve stasis for themselves which doesn’t always go well for all of the inhabitants of those ecosystems. Some of you often have to give up their lives to achieve that balance though I think it starts giving us a bigger, more complete picture for complex adaptive response and then active predictive control-based paradigms.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 06:53

How do you define agility? You just mentioned agility. I may have heard you say that before but I’m just curious. We’ve talked a lot about agility from your perspective in context of business, maybe, how do you define it?

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 07:11

Choice! It’s not a state, it’s not a thing right like oh, we’re agile. It’s like well, do you have choice? What choices are available to you and based on what and invariably connected to choice is risk and commitment and reserves and all kinds of things, preparedness and some of those things seem counterproductive like well, if you really prepared for everything, have you created so much baggage? Like if I’m backpacking and I prepare for every single scenario, can I now carry my pack? Does it defeat the whole purpose of what I’m trying to do outcome wise of going out there and so it’s a constant set of tradeoffs of what do I bring, what scenarios do I prepare for, which scenarios do I let go with the ultimate that I can be allowed or just walk back to the car if things get horrible.

So, from a business perspective yeah, I think agility is the ability to choose and to constantly be refining that set of options that set of choices, being very careful about what commitments are made and being very clear about what risks we’re taking on which from a complexity perspective is often really difficult to know because you don’t know. You simply don’t know what’s really happening in a lot of levels and some of those things that you don’t know about could be black swans. They could really turn your world upside down and then you’re left and pivoting like crazy. And I’ve been part of those organizations that were disrupted out of the blue. They went from market dominance to struggling to survive in less than a year.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 09:16

And that could also apply to us right as coaches, consultants, trainers, independent especially like having options and exactly what you just said about organizations in a sense. We do have organizations, legal entities but in your case and in my case, it’s either small company or company of one and same principles I guess apply in that context as well.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 09:44

They definitely do like when I first got started as an independent several years ago now, six years ago, I took a gig. I had a gig, I had one contract is 40 hours a week and those things tend to run on an annual basis so then you lose your job every year. And it’s really stressful around October, November sort of like what’s going to happen in January and it takes time to line up the next gig and the tradeoffs of, you know, when my kids were young, I didn’t want to be on planes every week. And so, I was constantly trying to stay close to home but the model at that time was one gig which is no choice. And sure, it makes it easy to like you just show up and you do your work and it’s steady for that year and then when the year ends, it’s incredibly disruptive. And so, I’ve switched over the last few years, I tried a couple of times, it took some time to get it going of rather than having one big gig kind of have a large ish gig and then multiple smaller things doing some training, some smaller coaching engagements, just trying to spread the risk out across an entire portfolio and again, that gives me choice and it breaks the risk from one big risk to lots of little risks. And that’s always, for me a much more desirable kind of context to be and I think most organizations would like that as well if they can negotiate their ways into it.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 11:33

What about organization? I know this is going to get you laughing. Well, I hope it will but agility when it comes to government. I’ve worked a lot in the government space and you work decent amount. I’m concerned about where the government is and if I look next 10-15 years, how much ways how our government operates and when it comes to that agility and options. I’m concerned as a citizen. You recently worked with a state on a multimillion-dollar RFP, how was that experience in general? What are you seeing when it comes to maybe just government specifically and adoption because usually, it’s just the adoption of these agile practices within the government?

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 12:29

Right. So, my take is I think it’s symptomatic of large organizations that aren’t equipped to become complex adaptive entities and so I don’t think it matters. Certainly, what I’ve observed in my experience as a coach working in large enterprise systems that are either privately held organizations, publicly traded for profit organizations or public organizations like government or higher education. I think that those organizations are built to be stable and built to be predictable and built to operate in a world that doesn’t exist anymore. The ones that we pay for as taxpayers, we just I think have a lot more scrutiny and higher expectations over. Though, I see a lot of the same dynamics around governance and making big commitments based on timelines that don’t have any evidence behind them.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 13:40

Do you see any goal?

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 13:42

Yeah, so let me talk about the work. So, I’m currently a coach at State of Maine. I work in the Department of Education and Office of Information Technology and primarily, it was a classic agile coaching effort initially to work just with the software group and then there was a murmur at DOE about some federal money that had come in around longitudinal data visualization systems so data warehouse with a visualization on top of it. I got involved in that sort of to help them initially steer them in the right way. And then with COVID, the money to pay for a coach went away but there was some money available from this federal money around the data warehouse that we were able to tap into to keep me there.

So now, my role there is product development consultant. So, I’m a delivery consultant like a product owner basically for this data warehouse effort. And the first thing that we did was we wrote a request for a proposal because we wanted to vendor it out and I wanted to write this RFP in an adaptive kind of iterative “agile way” and that was totally novel there. I mean, they had heard of it up there, they didn’t really know what that meant or how to do it so I refer them to the US Air Force. I can’t remember the guy’s name, the chief software officer at the US Air Force he guested on inaudible(15:24) last podcast a couple years ago about how the US Air Force has become a total DevOps operation and how as part of that, they have figured out how they do Agile procurement to work with vendors in a really agile way. And so, I had read a bunch of that stuff and referred my stakeholders in the state of Maine. I’m like look, the federal government has figured out how to do this so we don’t have to figure out how to do. We just have to figure out how to do what they’ve done in our context. And people were actually really excited about it because state of Maine, there’s a lot of really smart people up there who are really dissatisfied with that big batch, pay for everything upfront, make all your commitments upfront and then kind of cross your fingers that in a couple of years, you’ll have some piece of software that is going to meet your needs.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 16:18

I’m assuming the client would be receptive to that too because like when you worked on both sides and as a contractor, you’re like let’s just win this contract and then we’re going to figure out what we do afterwards.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 16:32

Yeah, meet me as well and so one of the guiding principles for myself was I want to write the RFP that I would like to have responded to. And so, what we did with it was we kind of took a product development approach. And I made the statement that we should always have working software that creates value for us as soon as possible. Like let’s find something, let’s find a pain point that we can solve really fast for the department and then build on it over time and let’s make sure that we put the stuff that isn’t required for some of those high pain points but it’s incredibly risky at the very end so that if it all blows up, it’s just the tail that’s blowing up and we still have kind of a core of working software that’s creating value for the people of Maine.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 17:33

It’s back to those options, right?

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 17:33

Yeah, exactly. And so, what we did with the RFP is we broke it into some phases around like both chronologically, what do we need functionality wise and kind of comparing that with which parts of this work are known versus which parts of this work are unknown. And the parts of work that are known are really low risk like for instance, we know what the database schema is because it’s an open standard. We know we want it in the cloud. There are tons of cloud providers that know how to do that. We know all of the security that it needs and all the authentication levels that it needs and all of the governance that needs to be true to have that be a compliant piece of infrastructure. That’s all known like you don’t need to like I don’t think iterate on that or be like how much is this going to cost or how long is it going to take. The vendors that we want to respond to this thing will have done this before. And so while they might not know exactly, they should be able to say it’ll be somewhere in this ballpark.

So that’s one kind of work. The visualization libraries are all I mean there’s entire product sets that are just what we call cots. They’re configurable off the shelf products and that you just sit on top of a data set. It’s kind of like a barbell, right. On one end of the barbell, you have this known infrastructure piece of data that’s totally denormalized and then on the other end of this barbell, you have this known visualization piece that’s going to take the datasets that you extract out of that and kind of make it easier to consume them. It’s the middle part that’s going to be really hard because that piece has to be a visual report builder that is “intuitive and easy to use” and I have no idea what’s intuitive and easy to use. What’s intuitive and easy to use for me is totally different for someone else and vice versa. And so, we’ve got a divergent set of personas on this thing. We have people who understand for example the domain of education data really well and then we have people who like I don’t understand it very well, I just have kind of I’m curious about my local school. And so can somebody like me versus somebody like a data analyst at the department both get what we need out of this tool. I have no idea. And so that’s really risky, that’s really much more challenging and so what we did with RFP is to break that kind of risk into its own phase and say we don’t know how much this is going to cost but we still have a limited amount of time and a limited amount of money. So, we’re asking the vendors to tell us is in your experience as building interfaces, how often is your sense? Like how many iterations do we need and how much does each iteration cost?

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 20:54

And so we’re just trying to backtrack, it’s almost like you’re using inaudible(20:57) or just understanding level of complexity and then you’re saying okay, if this is low complexity, it’s pretty straightforward. We use one type of approach and one way. So, you’re kind of using some type of sense making to determine and then divvy up the work rather than one size fits all inaudible(21:17)

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 21:19

Exactly. So, one of the things that Dave Snowden is really clear on is things are not homogenous. You can say sure, this thing’s complex and it’s probably not entirely complex or this thing is complicated or ordered but it’s probably not entirely or all of the same type. Like there’s liminality and there’s fluidity and there’s pockets. It’s more fractal geometry than like clean boxes.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 21:47

It’s easier to put things into clean boxes.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 21:49

I know and then when you try to deliver it, it doesn’t turn out that way because that’s not the way the world is right and then you end up so it’s so frustrating. So yeah, absolutely. It’s kind of like let’s take this thing apart, let’s break it apart on the seams of risk and complexity and then have strategies and approaches that are fit for those different kinds of risks. And so, on lots of different levels, from the overall kind of like what I said earlier like let’s defer the risks that aren’t on the critical path, put them at the end because they’re nice to have really. I mean sure, we need a bare minimum of them for procedural reasons but from a business perspective and a money perspective, we don’t need them.

Oh, another interesting thing was the federal money that came in was supposed to be matched by state funds. Well, with COVID, those state funds like are not there, right? They’re vapor and so this idea was created pre-COVID, the federal grant was awarded pre-COVID and so now there’s commitments that have been made and then COVID happens and some of those fundamental assumptions have totally shifted.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 23:08

With the money you said you’re going to have.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 23:10

Yeah, like what do you do? And so even within that like we’ve still been able to adapt and have choice because of this approach that we’ve taken to say like well yeah, we need to be able to say that we’ve met these criteria of the federal grant that came in, we just won’t be able to do them to the same degree as we could have if we had more money which is no longer on the table. Maybe it will be in a few years as the Maine state economy recovers, we don’t know. But regardless of whether or not that happens, we’ll still have a core of a working system that creates value and that’s really important. I think that’s really important.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 23:52

Inaudible projects like well, it’s crazy how many times I tell. I was recently working with California DMV and it’s like they are projects in the works for two years. The code has never been seen any. It’s millions of dollars invested and nothing delivered. It’s like well, it’s so easy to scrap it and let’s move on to the next thing. We get the budget next year.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 24:19

Well, yeah and I recently consulted on a coach, it’s couple years ago now, this massive effort that I can’t really talk about the specifics of. It hasn’t turned out well I’ll put it that way and they brought me in about six months into the implementation phase of their multiyear project plan. And again, they had made a bunch of commitments based on spreadsheets and work breakdown structures and established the schedule based on dollars. Like nothing was based on the actual work. It was just based on guesses. And so, they brought me in and they’re like halfway through their calendar and halfway through their work and feeling pretty good. I’m like well, is the second half of the work the same as the first half? And they go oh no, it’s much harder. And I go but you’re halfway through your time and money but you’re not halfway up the mountain but you’re telling me you need to reach the summit? And they’re like yep and I’m like well, what can you cut scope wise? And they’re like nothing. It’s 100% or zero. And I am like so you’re telling me that you get 95% done is actually 0% done because you still can’t go live with it? And they’re like yeah and I’m just seeing like red flags everywhere. I’m just like I don’t know what to tell you like you hired me I think to help and so the way I’m going to help is to tell you that I think you have some fatally critical flaws in the commitments you’ve made and I think that this thing is already like if it were me, I would already be pulling the fire alarms on this project because I don’t think you’re going to make it.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 26:13

Yeah, I mean but like you were a developer first before you go into this stuff.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 26:20

Yeah, for a long time.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 26:21

If you go back 20 years, this is how large organizations operated too and I feel like the government is there. It’s not like it’s new. It’s just that large organizations that were there 10/15/20 years ago, they have evolved past that and large government agencies seem to be stuck there. And maybe just to broaden it a little bit not just contracts but like finance, the budgeting cost centers versus budgeting some type of service product lines, what is your experience in government or maybe outside of like how much does the finance team because usually HR and finance…

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 27:12

Oh, that needs to change drastically.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 27:15

So maybe inaudible(27:16) finance and then talk about HR. What are your thoughts on finance?

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 27:21

I would just make one other comment about what you just said around large organizations have evolved. Well, the ones that are still here have and a lot just couldn’t make it. A lot have failed and we know that the lifetime of companies like if you look at for profit publicly held organizations who are traded on stock markets that the life expectancy or the term expectancy of a company that makes the fortune 500, I can’t remember exactly how much shorter it has gotten over the last 60 or 70 years but a lot. Like it used to be that if you could make it to that level of performance as an organization, you’re up there for a while and that’s just not true anymore. The rate of change is too high.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 28:11

And I think COVID and the crisis that we’re going through will probably expedite that too.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 28:17

Yeah, any of them do and you know it’s very interesting. Like if we just look at here in Maine, there are some organizations that actually have done quite well like the grocery industry has done pretty well, the veterinary industry has done pretty well, the outdoor equipment industry has done extremely well. Go try to find a mountain bike right now, good luck. The local bike shops have done very well which has before COVID I mean that was like a shoestring of profit margin.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 29:00

I guess you always have to have luck too but grocery stores never saw themselves as technology companies and I usually talk about like how Amazon started thinking Amazon Go. So at least I was joking but somebody was telling me here actually in Maine a year ago, you would order your stuff online at the store, you would go to a grocery store, somebody would come out take your credit card run inside run out and then somebody would come out and inaudible(29:38)

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 29:40

Not even yeah

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 29:42

So that’s not options. It’s just but I joke around but like you’d said insurance companies, everybody sucks in your industry, you can make up for it. But if Amazon was more ahead and like if they had, there’s no way that any of the like even inaudible(30:07), these bigger largest grocery or supermarket companies in the world. They wouldn’t be competing because they don’t have the options. They consider themselves in one industry and haven’t really evolved to really treat themselves as a technology companies. So, I don’t know.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 30:39

Yeah, they’re getting there and another thing I do want to hit on getting back to this idea of government and it’s rate to adapt and shift and change and sort of evolve. Before we jump over there, one of the things, again I think Dave Snowden is one of the clear thinkers we have in our world these days and in our space so I’m a huge fan. I refer to his work extensively. I’m a member of the cognitive edge whatever they call their premium networks. I get access to a bunch of stuff and not sort of an authorized to teach the inaudible(31:20) framework which is always whenever I get pulled into an organization, that’s step one. It’s like we got to be talking the same language around complexity and at least having a working understanding of the fundamental dynamics of it. And so, one of the things he spoke about was more a couple of years ago. He’s talking about apex predators that ecosystems evolve to support a certain kind of basically an apex predator. And when the ecosystem changes, the things that gave that predator the advantages to be the top apex predator suddenly become liabilities and they tend to struggle if not just go extinct. So, the big example that of course is the dinosaurs. The adaptations they had for a world that world that literally just vaporized with this impact and the things that were able to thrive then were these little furry, warm-blooded mammals that prior to that moment were basically just like food for everything else.

And so, when the environment shifts and it does shift like it’s not always catastrophic like that. COVID was kind of like that. The internet was kind of like that but it took a little longer for it to really kind of roll in and disrupt everything but COVID was like that. It fundamentally disrupted the economic global ecosystem and some organizations that have evolved to be really effective suddenly were irrelevant. Think anything in the travel industry that entire industry just evaporated. Certainly, there’s ways that it’s coming back but there was a lot of pain in it.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 33:23

I spoke to him. I asked him about the question. He posted it while ago but essentially, the correlation between efficiency and effectiveness with agility and essentially his response and based on what he researched said that the more efficient you are and the more that you try to specialize in one, the less options you have because you’ve inaudible(33:56) and a lot of companies are trying to do that without thinking more diverse. I think if you look at Amazon is a good example of trying to go deep but also broad. That was something that kind of resonated with me when it comes to agility. It’s funny when I talk to Dave, he always picks on you know who he’s going to call out and he was inaudible(34:30).

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 34:31

Yeah, those two kind of go at each other a little bit.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 34:35

But he couldn’t come up with any other words so he was joking poking fun at Nassim about using the term anti fragile. But using the context of organizations and what is that correlation between being effective and efficient and being able to respond to change.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 35:09

So, that again I like these kinds of more open-ended conversations because they invariably end up finding threads anyway which is kind of a complex, adaptive thing. You let things emerge, you trust that the right thing will happen.

So, we started this talking, you asking me kind of who is Kevin Callahan rather than like from a LinkedIn bio perspective or sort of a professional persona like who are you really and what’s important to you about your identity. And when organizations optimize for any one dimension which usually these days is efficiency and profitability and that becomes the only force that acts on them and that’s the only force that they cultivate and kind of reinforce.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 36:13

Measure against

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 36:15

Yeah whatever, they hire for it, they fund it, they all of it, right. They fire by it which we had talked about before the recording, they balance their books according to it, when that is the only kind of operational force on that entity, you incur risk over time that often will take a very long amount of time to come to bear and then it comes to bear in the unpredictable combination of small things that on their own are relatively harmless but when they come together create catastrophic failures of that system. And there’s a guy named Sidney Decker who does research. He says, I study what happens when things go wrong and so he’s done a lot of research into the aviation and aerospace industries about major catastrophic failures. And that body of work I’ve seen it referred to as called resilience engineering. And so, one of the takeaways from that is you must actively bring multiple forces balancing forces to bear often in direct tension with each other.

And so like, if you want a true safety culture, a perfect example is up the state. I’m working right now with a group, we mob programming. I’m trying to introduce some more modern and have been really effective in introducing and people are starting to see the value of like behavior driven development and mob programming and test-driven development. And one of the things that I’ve been just really a hard ass on is like you can only do this for so long before you start having diminishing returns. And it’s time to stop when you start making errors, when you’re tired. And it doesn’t matter if you still have an hour left in your “work day” that from a capacity utilization perspective, we would count and it’s not like oh, you just screw off for the rest of the day. No, you find something else to do that’s valuable but you stopped doing that thing because you’re starting to make errors, you’re starting to write bugs and just continuing to pretend that you can go because there’s still time on the clock is false.

And so, a belief in quality is going to in some cases come up against your belief in efficiency or a belief in the dignity of human beings is going to come up against your belief and efficiency and that’s good. That’s we want. We want those to be countering forces and it seems like oh but that’s making us less efficient. It might be but it’s making you more effective and it’s making you more resilient and it’s preserving your optionality because you don’t know what’s going to happen.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 39:08

Or the belief in the flow being developed you probably can relate to that. There’s difference when you’re in the flow and when you’re not going versus when you’re not. So, being aware of that. It goes back to you started with that and when you introduce yourself, it’s that awareness, right. If you are aware what’s going on then it’s easy to step in and say hey, I’m going to step away from this and do something else.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 39:39

And so, to bring it back to the organizational perspective, it’s like well, how does that matter to organizational life? We definitely need to be measuring things absolutely because we have constraints. Even in in government, there’s still a finite amount of money and a finite amount of time and the currency that I’ve taken to speaking in terms of with my work in state government around helping people to articulate the why of prioritizing one piece of work to another piece of work is are there financial implications like with funding and often there are? And if there aren’t, well, how much time are we going to save like a superintendent or someone out in the district or how are we going to improve the lives of students or parents or whatever if we do this thing? Like are we putting roadblocks like I don’t know, does the government or government in general have a reputation for being easy to interface with as a citizen? No, it’s awful, right? It’s terrible. Like finding stuff is just atrociously difficult because our time is precious, our time is valuable. And so, if we start talking about time as a currency then that helps drive prioritization.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 41:01

I compare inaudible(41:03) to spectrum and the provider and people that might be outside of the United States, it’s an interim provided. You don’t have any options at least in the areas I’ve lived like they’re the only. It’s same like government. It’s like if they had any competition, they will be out of business if somebody was just doing a little bit better than them but because they don’t, it’s a good spot to be in.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 41:33

Yeah and I guess if we pull thread of this RFP like one of the things that was incredibly surprising to me is as we wrote this RFP and we were kind of in a little pod of like data managers and whatnot in DOD and we’re kind of writing this thing and I was terrified that when we brought it to like procurement that they were just going to be like that’s not how we do things around here. Go do it as a traditional RFP, like go redo it. And it was a beautiful surprise when we started showing this to other people like lawyers and accountants and procurement people that they were like people were really excited and they were like this is a better way, we’ve been looking for a better way. I think it’s important to remember is Berne Brown says like look, these are just people here. I’ve been working off and on in state government for a few years and sure there’s your kind of stereotypical bureaucrat there though that’s not everybody. Again, it’s not homogenous. There are huge amount of people who are incredibly passionate, very purpose driven far more so than in the public sector, that are mission driven, that are invested in the long term, that are invested in what they’re doing as public servants to make government work on the behalf of the citizens better. I think it’s just a really important thing. I think it’s really cool

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 43:23

What about going back to inaudible(43:24) and the system will be the person.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 43:29

And the system has also been built to not change, right. So, you have these incredibly passionate, mission driven people in a system that is literally I mean it requires a literal act of legislature to change it. I saw this in the large organizations that you and I met and worked in as well. The people that end up staying in those places for long periods of time have a resilience and a survivability that I respect very much. It’s like people figure out how to get stuff done regardless or in spite of the organizational structure not because of it. And especially when we start talking about agility and responsiveness like frontline people are always finding novel ways to get around stuff and get stuff done and make their customers happy. It’s just incredible.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 44:31

It is and back in 2011, I worked with the state of Idaho health and welfare. This is where Obama Care and state-based exchange came about. And it was a deputy at the state of Idaho on welfare essentially that really understood. He took a lot of agile classes trying to understand this agile way of working. Essentially, he created an agile structure on top of the traditional government bureaucratic and it was amazing. It was over a couple of years and you will have anywhere from 5 to 13 teams over that period. But it was just like amazing things can happen if you have senior support and understanding. I’ve been doing a bureaucratic and well, you technically can change the jobs but he was acting as a product owner as a deputy. So that was a big thing where he is involved and like understanding what needs to change, how do we get dedicated teams and if you have leaders with authority that can change the system even just layer on top of existing system, it makes a huge difference than having system that influences or dictates a lot of things you need to do.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 46:01

Yeah, it’s a great point. Some of the work I’m doing right now with that Dewey IT group which when I showed up was very much like an S&M mentality and has now shifted. I’ve been there for a while now the narrative has changed. They talk about we and they reach out to each other directly and they have conversations and they include each other. Of course, it’s not perfect. There’s still hard things and conflict and places for improvement though there’s been some really powerful coming together and collaboration which has been allowed and enabled and supported by the senior leadership of those groups.

The first place I worked as an agilest, we spent five years transitioning into a truly agile organization especially the technology group. They hired a new engineering VP about four years into that and he walked into the place and was like I feel like somebody just handed me keys to a Ferrari. You guys are amazing how fast you can pivot, how well you understand things, just our agile practices were humming and he was just blown away and then shortly, another year later, we had some executive changeover and the new leadership was not as supportive of what we were doing and what took us five years to build took about three months to just reduce to rubble really.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 47:55

You and I had seen that.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 47:57

Yeah, over and over again like and that’s a pretty common story. One of the people I work with she’s like yeah, it took us a decade to build a school district organization like a truly high functioning organization that with leadership change it just fell apart within a matter of months. So, the stuff is it’s really elusive. It’s really in its own way resilient but it’s also from an ecosystem perspective, if you don’t understand how to feed it, care and feed for it and keep it alive like it’ll die on you.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 48:37

It will die. It’s also like the disengagement numbers of the United States in general in the workforce, they’re high, right? And like it’s so easy for people to disengage when you spend a year, two years buying into something, leadership changes and it’s a completely different direction. And it’s like it’s demotivating as an employee to buy into something to support it and then we’ll have somebody come in and just completely shift. And then these leaders are asked to change it, right? If I hire you Kevin as a CEO or CIO, whatever, you’re not going to say oh, I’m going to do exactly the same thing as the other person to build on it. No, I mean you’re going to say oh, I have a completely different way.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 49:23

Well yeah, I mean it would be nice if that weren’t true if there’s a little more humility around like let’s find out what’s actually working about this place before we start changing it. Again, I think there’s a lot of pressure to not do that and just tenure.

Another thing that I’ve just seen time and time again is that people understand the fragility or the dependency on those senior leaders and if they’re not incentivized to stick around, it’s just constantly churning. And so again like one thing state government does really well is it’s very stable, right. And so, when you do have the right people in the senior roles, they tend to be there for a long time and they really care and they really want to build things that last and that work. And that’s very different from certainly the companies that I’ve worked in that are for profit, the senior level managers are constantly jockeying to try to get to the next level and like get the next thing and so if they stay in a role for one or two years like that’s…

Even in manufacturing, I did some consulting work when I was in grad school at a manufacturing facility and they rotate their general managers of their plants every two years and some of those general managers are really good. Like the guy that was there when I was working there was incredibly well respected and loved by the factory floor. He would walk out on the floor, he’d go talk to them, he knew who they were, he knew it was important to them, he respected the work they did and they were all concerned what happens when he rotates out and we get a new guy. Because the new guy like to your point like in the American system at least, I have not seen with the exception of one, the VP of engineering that I reference to who showed up and said I feel like somebody handed me the keys to the Ferrari, he spent the first month or two just sitting and listening and asking questions and just trying to figure out like what’s the game here like what’s the landscape in this company before starting to make changes to it. But most people I think show up quite the opposite. They’re like, I’m going to put my mark on it and here’s how I roll and oftentimes, they bring their own people with them and clean house.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 52:03

At least in the director level in government they are appointed roles. So new government comes in and they appoint.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 52:14

Well, at the commissioner and deputy commissioner in Maine are appointed and then once you get below that, at the director level, they are government employees. I mean commissioners and deputies they’re employees as well. But again, they’re appointed so they change with and then there are certain chief executive roles that also I mean they’re still hired, they’re not appointed. You have to get your hiring process with them. I’m thinking of like the CIO at state of Maine, people that have been in that role have gone across what do you call it when the governor changes? Just losing the word you know what I am talking about.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 53:07

I know exactly what you are talking about.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 53:08

Administrations right, they can persist across administrations whereas commissioners and deputy commissioners change out. Then when you get churn at that level, you get a lot of those same challenges where how do you get a coherent strategy when you go from a Republican to Democratic government and vice versa like it’s not just a small change. It’s like a paradigm change of values. And so, departments are trying to navigate that and again, like that churn if you think of that as sort of like oscillation or whatever in some ways get smoothed out by the bureaucratic structure beneath it and the people that are actually in there. They’re just trying to get stuff done for the people of Maine that’s why they’re there. And so, in some ways, they’re able to respond really effectively and in some ways they’re totally hamstrung.

So, again, it’s always a more complex thing. There are always more things at play than it seems on the surface and it’s easy to just, you know, I’ve had these conversations a lot of people who are like government this government that. It’s like you haven’t been inside of a large corporation, have you because large corporations operate in a lot of the same ways and are just as screwed up. It’s just you don’t have the transparency into it that in the same expectation but it’s all very interesting stuff. Scale is hard, operating at scale is really hard.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 54:53

Scale maybe the last question here. Scale and what I’ve seen over the years and even dating back to that engagement with state of Idaho health and welfare, that was a safe kind of initiative. I see more and more scaled agile framework in government. The state has now saved for government. What are your thoughts on inaudible(55:30). Have you had experience with that? It’s the last question here.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 55:37

Okay so my personal opinion of it is that the safe is an accretion or an accumulation of a lot of really amazing patterns that on their own are powerful and amazing and when you put them together, you get this just monster that’s incredibly unwieldy. I think it takes a very senior level agilest to be able to understand what’s happening with safe and what’s happening with all the different pieces and how they work. I’m over a decade into this work and there’s parts of safe that I don’t know that I understand that. And so, we’re taking something that’s difficult to understand and then just throwing it around like it’s a prescriptive solution and it’s not.

So, if you look at like the Department of Defense at the federal level, they released a draft, a white paper a couple of years ago called detecting agile BS which was supposed to give guidance to government procurement people who were working with vendors who are claiming to be agile and it’s like well, here’s some guidelines around some questions you can ask around what’s truly agility and which is just kind of like process change. And so, it had some stuff in there that safe violates like do your teams actually talk directly to your customers? Like show me a safe implementation where the teams have any access to customers.

And then the US Air Force, they actually have named the commercially successful scaling frameworks as problems and that you should actively avoid them. So, every once in a while, I get to talk to the senior decision makers who are deciding kind of what are we going to do and inevitably safe comes up and I go well, when you scale, you just get more of what you have. And so, if you’re trying to get a better business outcome but you don’t know how to do that but you’re going to scaling to do that for you, I would suggest that you’re not thinking about it correctly and you’re just going to scale your risk not your benefit.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 58:09

Sometimes, it’s about descaling and not scaling.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 58:11

Yeah, then that’s what inaudible(58:13) is about, right? Like do you scale first and so I always coach to say and back in the early days of safe I think like back in 2012, I went on a webinar with that inaudible(58:26) himself was giving and he was really clear. Some of those early proponents of safe were really clear like safe is built on the effectiveness of high-quality technical practice and really high performing collaborative delivery teams. And if you don’t have those, that’s the foundation that you scale off of. And so, if you don’t have those, I think the first step is like go figure that stuff out like go figure out how to build products that aren’t full of technical debt and that are high quality not only in how they’re built but they’re high quality and that they actually achieve the business outcomes you intend them to achieve.

So, they’re either making your money or saving people time or whatever that thing is and that you have high performing teams that you’ve invested in, doesn’t mean they don’t change their makeup. It doesn’t mean people don’t move around and Heidi Helfand stuff around dynamic reteaming is really powerful at that.

But regardless, you need to have a really high performing delivery capability that you protect and foster and cultivate and then you can start talking about how do we like amplify this out throughout the organization. So, I take a very evolutionary approach to scaling which is you’re going to have to figure it out in your context. Again, we know that from complexity, when you take things that work in one complex context and just map them into another is probably not going to go the same way. There’s a lot of reasons for that so don’t try to do that. Take the long view like take an organic view, grow an evolutionary process that you measure and can verify and have feedback loops into it every step toward strategic outcomes that matter to your business. And most places don’t even know the strategic outcomes that matter to their business are so it’s like well..

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 1:00:30

And I think this is what I have spoken to six, seven people that I consider thought leaders in our industry and they said the exact same thing right now which aligns with my thinking too that I pledge allegiance to no framework. Like you said, there are good patterns and there are better patterns, there are anti-patterns. But it’s really adjusting things to the context and the situation and like you said then start it off with the creating those options that are in some way positively contributing to your business.

Speaker: Kevin Callahan 1:01:18

Yeah, I think the thing that I would sort of wind down with is that agility I believe really comes back down to just sound business fundamentals. They look a little bit different but it’s still like do you have a strategy? Do you understand your purpose? Do you have systems in governance that allow you to action that purpose, do you have the people you need? You probably do because people are pretty resilient, pretty adaptive so are they able to perform as your business needs them to and if they’re not, how are you investing to shift that? And when you do all those things, the culture is sort of a trailing indicator of organizational effectiveness comes along and you see people starting to say different things about how they make sense and make meaning out of what’s happening. And when people start changing their behavior at that level, you know you’ve gotten a cultural shift, you’ve achieved a cultural shift. But you can’t start with that because culture is never something that you can directly change. It’s an outcome. It’s a result.

Tobias Mayer: Scrum, Co-training, and Metaphors | Agile to agility | Miljan Bajic | Episode #5

Tobias Mayer

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 00:44

Who is Tobias Mayer?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 00:49

When I saw that question, the first thought that came to mind was Tobias Mayer, who solved the longitude problem and has a lake on the moon named after him. So I thought, that’s who he is, if you google him, without the word agile, or scrum that’s who will come up. But who am I? Well, I’m someone who is involved in the scrum world. And I have been for quite some years now. I came to software development quite late in life, I was in my mid-30s. And fairly stumbled onto XP in 1997, before the book was written, there was some papers out there, and I was doing some research on process at the time. And it just grabbed me really, and as I moved into the States in 1999, and started working in that industry for the first time, really. And I never was able to really practice what I read in the book, but I found it fascinating and I wanted to and so I was always looking for opportunities to put into practice some of what I was seeing there, but I never really was part of a team or anything. But eventually, when I was made into a manager, [inaudible 02:12], I was able to introduce the ideas a bit more and some of the people that I was working with at the time, we were all into it, we were doing our best to try and create a sort of an XP team out of what we had, in a very top-down management driven organization.

That was my first real opportunity to get there. And also being a manager on I was like, how do I manage people? I had no idea, I’ve never really done this before. So I started looking into it via the XP groups and I came across Scrum. And that really touched me and I read Ken’s kind of might be his first book. And it just resonated with everything, all the values I had in life. And so I was hooked, I suppose at that point. And I did my best to start introducing scrum in the best way I could from just reading the book into the teams I was working with, or the one team really, that I was working with. And it was a blend of sort of XP-ish stuff and scrums staff. So we would meet. I don’t think we met every day but we did meet I think was three times a week, we got together as a team. And we did pairing with testers and developers side by side, which was a model actually, I came across from reading an article of Microsoft is how I used to work. Pairs of testers and developers and I thought that was actually really successful for reducing the number of bugs found. Yeah, because we were finding bugs as we wrote them, essentially.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 03:40

What happens when you get people together and just talk to each other and collaborate?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 03:44

Amazing. Yeah, it is. We had some personality clashes and we had to navigate our way through that. But it wasn’t XP, and it wasn’t Scrum. But it was better than we were doing. And we were able to show evidence that the bug counts in our projects were way lower than the average in the organization. And we got very few calls in the middle of the night to go fix things so clearly something was working for us and I was able to convince the organization then to try out scrum proper, as it were, and so I went and got certified myself 2004. And so I became the expert, the scrum expert after my…

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 04:29

I know many people maybe don’t fully understand but what did the certification look like back in 2004?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 04:37

It looked like a piece of paper that Ken Ken Ken Schwaber gave to you in the classroom, wrote his signature on it and bark like a dog. [inaudible 04:48] don’t know if he still does that or nor, the Sheepdog metaphor playing with that, right? Yeah, it was actually, my two teachers at the time, Ken Schwaber and Kurt Peterson, who was an early scrum adopter and trainer, dropped out of the scene for several years, maybe 5, 6, 7 years or something and came back a few years ago. And he’s back on board. I think Kurt traveled the world to find himself and he discovered himself back in the scrum community very well.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 05:25

Not many people do that, they leave.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 05:29

Yeah, so Kurt was a great influence on me actually. What was interesting about meeting Kurt, is that prior to being a software developer, I’d worked in youth and community work. And a lot of the work I had done was influenced by Augustus [inaudible 05:46], who was a theater innovator from Brazil, who did something called Theater of the Oppressed based on power for years, Pedagogy of the Oppressed work. And so that was my background I’d come to and I thought there was no connection between that and the software world.

And then I met Kurt Peterson, and Kurt introduced Augusta [inaudible 06:09] work into my scrum training course. And so I was blown away. I just thought, there’s a connection, everything links, and this is where I’m supposed to be. So it was really important for me that Kurt was one of the teachers, I think that really opened my eyes to the possibilities of what this really was, it was more than just a better way of developing software. It was a way of changing organizations I guess, that’s what it was. That’s what the realization was at the time, because the workplace I had worked and even before that were just top down the usual hierarchical-management-driven organizations that didn’t get much done.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 06:53

And how much, what do you think, as far as psychology like understanding people, how much does it have to do obviously, with the other side of things of understanding people and culture? When it comes to scrum? Yeah.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 07:09

[inaudible 07:09] it has everything to do with that, I think, isn’t it? I mean, that’s the route. I mean, Scrum of course came about several years before the Agile Manifesto was written. But the values that went into [inaudible 07:23] came out of Scrum in part and other things too, of course. Came back from developed Extreme Programming, Ron Jeffries, they were Signees and Ron and Jeff Sutherland, sorry, Ken and Jeff Sutherland were also signees so they were new with what everybody was doing, right? And so the value that says we value individuals and interactions over processes and tools that was alive, and that’s what they were doing. They were valuing people. And so the training was very much focused on that and focused on the idea of cross functional teams. So that was a novelty to me as well.

I remember one of the aha moments from that workshop. And it was several years ago now, wasn’t it? It was when I asked a question about a kind of don’t know exactly how the question was phrased. It has something to do with handoffs from UX and UI people. And I was told that there was no need for handoffs in Scrum. And I just couldn’t get my head around it at all. I thought, well, how can you possibly not have handoffs from UX? I got that you didn’t have to have handoffs to us, I can just about grasp, but the idea [inaudible 08:36] was a different world in the organization, I was in a different building, the people were strange, and we never talked to them. And they sent us emails, and we didn’t understand them. And they sent us mockups [inaudible 08:46] code, because it didn’t make sense. So the idea that we didn’t have to do that anymore was just, it took me a while to really figure that one out.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 08:55

So it’s a big mindset shift. And I mean, even the Agile Manifesto and I was just a participant or watch the first part that was organized for the 20th anniversary. And it’s pretty clear the six signers that were there, they talked about just how much it is about the mindset, the being part of agile rather than the doing part and it’s combination of both. But do you see that, what is what is your understanding? What’s the current state of agile or agile movement or whatever you want to call it? But reflecting back, what do you think, what is the current state and is it a good state? I know you’ve sometimes talked about that this is a necessary progression or that at least some of the things that I’ve heard you saying, right? That it’s not necessarily bad, it’s part of the change or I don’t know what the correct term is. But what is your thought on where things are today, 2021?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 10:10

Well, to be honest, I don’t really think about it that much. Because I spend lots of [inaudible 10:13] that’s the state of agility. But when I’m pushed, I do. And really, if we think about it, when was the manifesto written? 2001, right? So it’s pretty 20 years. Yeah, you just said 20 years. And scrum has been around since the mid-90s, early, mid 90s. And there have been various other efforts put in before that to try and shift the way we do things, but it’s all pretty new really, isn’t it? It’s relatively new compared to everything else that we know, that we’ve followed on from going way back into the Industrial Revolution, so on some of the management methods that we’ve pulled from that. So it’s going through [inaudible 10:55] problems, and it will for some time, I think it’s the idea that we could expect it to suddenly transform things. I know I naively did.

And many of us do and good for us that we have [inaudible 11:08] that we get started with it, and we were all cynics and never work, we were all naive. We have been and more enthusiastic, we’re passionate, as well. And that’s where this does work. Even though it doesn’t work, it doesn’t really shift things, it doesn’t really change anything because the organizations are so rooted in business as usual, the way things are, it’s very hard to move that. But there is successes of course, anyone listening to this probably go well, that’s not my story, my story is different. My story is to say it was successful, and we did make a shift and we did change things. And I’ve had some experiences like that too. I’ve seen shifts in people, more than I’ve seen shifts in organizations. And I think the organizational shift will follow, inevitably must, if you shift enough minds and enough hearts, the organizations that contain those people have got to change, they will be able help themselves. But it’s a slow process. So one of the problems we run into with the larger organizations, and this was my experience over several years of seeing change take hold in an organization and be championed and that’s key, right?

We talked about needing a champion. But then the champion leaves, the champion is usually an executive, was fairly senior executive and the champion leaves and is replaced by someone else, who is bringing their own style, their own ideas, their own people into the organization and they don’t want to just pick up what they see as the mess that was left behind by the last guy, [inaudible 12:37] we’re not going to do that. So they fire all the Agile coaches or Scrum Masters and the teams just have to report back to their managers, no more self-organization, because no one can track that and they bring in better tracking tools and then it all goes away again. And then after several years, this is a true story of an organization I was with. So years go by and it comes back again. And it comes back in force because someone else is championing it. And then they go through the same thing. So it goes up and it goes down and it goes up. And then I went back to that organization.

I didn’t know 9, 10 years after they fired me for trying to do Agile. And they hired me as an Agile coach there. And so they were back on the upward slope. But they’d also just hired a new CEO who didn’t like agile. And so during my two years of being there, I saw it crumble again, it wasn’t my fault. It was on the cards already and I just got on time there. But while I was there and the people I worked with there, I could see a great desire and a passion to move away from this kinds of structures they were forced to work in into something that gave them more autonomy. And I think that, to me, that’s the bottom line. Working in an environment where we have autonomy, we have some control and when people don’t have that, they get ill, they get mentally or they get physically ill and they get burnt out. And so people are recognizing that and people are requiring it and they’re demanding it, in fact.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 14:07

Yeah, and working with the senior leaders in companies to like they don’t have it easy. It’s easy to point the finger to the executives and say, hey, you don’t get it, but what is your experience? What did they go through? What type of pressure? How the system forced them to act in a way and I’m talking about organizational system, to act in a way that they do?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 14:35

Well, I’ll answer that in a moment. But it’s also important to know that it’s not just management and it’s not just executives that resist this. It’s also people in the grassroots of an organization who don’t want to change the way they do things. They like what they do and they’re comfortable. They’re in their comfort zone, right? And we’re pushing them out of it. And that’s not always the kind thing to do. And I thought about it once when I was trying to worked with a group of people whose management basically saying you can do what you like, you can figure this out, you can self-organize, you can tell us what’s wrong, and we’ll fix it. And they couldn’t do it, they couldn’t do any of it. And they didn’t want to. And it took me a while to get my head around that, why don’t they keep this, it’s a massive, brilliant opportunity they’ve been given here. But then it dawns on me that when they were hired for the job that they’re doing, they were hired under a contract, essentially, right?

And the contract was, here’s your manager, you’ll do what he tells you to do. And at the end of the year, you’ll get rewarded if you’re good. That’s a traditional way of doing things. And suddenly, they’re being told that’s not what you are anymore. Now you have to make decisions. I didn’t get this job to make decisions, I got this job so people could tell me what to do. And so suddenly, they’re making decisions, they’re talking, they’re supposed to talk to customers, what are the things that they perhaps wouldn’t have done? Wouldn’t have joined that company if they knew about that? So it’s almost violent, I think is almost violent when we ask people to shift that quickly. It’s not always desired, that’s the point, right? So the resistance comes in, people say I don’t want to do this, not interested. And I’ve had developers on teams who’ve done their best to undermine and break it. And it only takes one or two to derail things.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 16:21

Well, that too. And I’ve had people like, even when we talk about the physical space, people are so used to, that has nothing to do with going into open space or environment but there’s something that they’re used to, and that what they like, I remember, I was coaching one organization and I remember his name, Mike told me, Miljan, this is too much for me, this whole change, and going now into this open space is forcing me to look for other opportunities because it’s not that I hate agile, it’s not that I hate open space, it’s just, I can’t handle it right now.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 17:00

That’s one of the things that I find really annoying about the way people try to embrace agile in organizations. Companies I’ve worked for and with, have come from cubicle culture which clearly isn’t the best way of operating. And then they knock all the cubicles down and make this massive open space where everyone can see everything. And there’s visual noise in there. And so what people do is visualizing all these audible noise as well, because now you’ve got no walls to block out the noise. And so, in this giant space with all these people, you don’t know who they are, they’re not part of your team, you don’t interact with them. And so what people then did is they put screens around their chair, and they put headphones on. And so they’re now more isolated than they were, at least in cubicles we had the option to like break the walls down a bit. We could take panels down and chat to each other through the walls. But now people are doing the opposite.

They’re closing themselves off. So the move towards open space offices is the wrong move, that’s not going to solve anything, it creates more problems, in fact. So what do we want? I don’t know, the caves in commons model that Paul Hodgetts introduced to me back in 2004, it’s a nice term, isn’t it? It’s like there’s a common area where people work as a team. And they’re a little areas where they can go off and work by themselves if they want to. That’s quite a nice thing. So team rooms is the thing, isn’t it? Is that you want the noise that your team makes is important noise, it’s useful noise, it’s noise that’s going to help you do the work. The noise of other teams is just noise, it’s noise you don’t need, you don’t want and isn’t going to help you. So the principle for me is work as closely as you can with the people who are on your team, working on the same product as you and as far away from everyone else as you can. That would be the balance fine.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 18:56

Yeah, I mean coming back to the senior leadership and executives, a lot of times the decision just to come back also to the idea of open space. One of the reasons that executives like this idea and talking to them is that they can move people from three buildings into two buildings and it’s going to save them money. And therefore they’re going to look good, because, hey, now it’s not about open space, so this is about saving money and moving from three buildings which is very expensive into two buildings that will get everybody to collaborate. So when it comes to executives and decision making and how they’re incentivized, what are your thoughts and experiences in that realm?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 19:47

Well, yeah, to go back to the question about the executive management and helping them make the shift. Any of them do, as we know, many of them champion this and there’s usually those people that hire people like me to come in. They hire, looking for an agile consultant or coach or mentor or something, and they bring us into the organization. Now, the problem with that is there’s many problems, actually. But I’m thinking of one particular case where I said, I was talking to this, see something smallish company, chief technical officer he was, and his complaint was the team’s, they want to do Scrum at the organization, and the teams can’t do it. So I need you to come in, basically, the message was coming on fix the teams. Now, today, I’d be much wiser and I wouldn’t do that, but I did do it. But I also said to him, I said, I’d really like it if you joined the two-day workshop that I’m going to run with your teams. And he said, I don’t need to I know agile, that was his response. Of course, he actually didn’t know much about agile at all, what he thought agile was, was being able to change his mind whenever he wanted to and have people respond to that. That’s what being agile was, and he was going to…

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 21:02

[inaudible 21:02] type of thing.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 21:07

Yeah. The problem in general that story aside, I think with some executive management is the Peter Principle, which you’re probably familiar with, right? You are, when I say you might know it by different name, it’s the idea that people get promoted to their level of incompetence, right? You familiar with that? No. Okay. So the idea is, in a hierarchical system, you get promoted on the basis that you know how to do the work, and you’re good at what you do. You’re good at what you do at this level, so you get promoted to this level.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 21:41

Yes, yes, yes, I get it. Now I know exactly what you’re talking about.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 21:45

Yeah, you really got the skills to get good at that. So you have to work really hard to get the skills to that. And if you get it, you move to the next level. But every time you move up one, you are now at a new level of incompetence, so you have to become competent until such time you can’t get competent anymore.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 22:00

Because it gets bored. It’s a carrot and stick type of thing where like…

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 22:05

You’ve got a structure of incompetent people leading an organization because of that principle. And I said, it’s said in jest, but it’s actually true to a large extent. Now, the problem with it is that people can’t admit that they are at their level of incompetence, otherwise, all hell will break loose, right? So they have to bluff. So we’ve got these hierarchical levels of managers bluffing their way through their day, acting like they know stuff, and so they can’t admit they don’t know. So this guy telling me he knows agile, he has to know agile, he’s the CTO, right? He reports to the CEO, he has to know agile, if he admits he doesn’t know, that’s a problem, right? So he came to my workshop that’s like him saying, I had to learn something. And so he can’t do it, because he can’t learn because he knows already. And so that’s why we get lots of people who don’t know much in leading organizations. So it’s a challenge, it’s a big challenge. And I’m making a caricature out of it short, but within the jest, there is a lot of truth in that. And I think we need to be looking out for that tendency in some of the leaders we work with, the tendency to feel like they already know. [inaudible 23:20].

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 23:21

Yeah, I think also along those lines too because of the silos and journals specialization that we’ve seen in organizations, you also get promoted but if you’re a developer, and you get promoted, you’re kind of promoted through the silo. And then ultimately, when you’re responsible for something that’s more end to end, you don’t have a full experience or understanding of the whole system. And sometimes I’ve seen that that can be limiting factor as well, because of that specialty, and not necessarily that it’s bad, it’s just that people, for instance, that get promoted through one silo don’t fully understand or empathize with others.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 24:09

Yeah, they don’t need to, right? If you’re an engineering manager, you need to understand how to write code and how to get other people to write code. You don’t have to understand anything about someone else’s job. We know the structures of organizations called siloed structures cause lots of problems. Yeah, we know that this syndrome of thinking we know things. I was just thinking recently, my wife asked me why I don’t go to many agile conferences anymore. And I said, because there’s nothing more I can learn. I know it all. And when I said that, I thought, Oh, my God, I can’t. But I said it, I meant it because I really felt like to be fair, there are a lot of agile conferences, I was speaking to people who are in new to agile, which is fair enough, that’s who we need to speak to.

But I got this level of arrogance where it’s like it doesn’t apply to me anymore. But happily, I recently did a Certified Scrum Product Owner training as a participant, I joined a class with [inaudible 25:18] Qureshi. And what a fantastic class by the way, that was a fantastic class. And I learned a lot. I learned a lot from him and didn’t learn about Scrum but I learned how he sees Scrum and his experience of Scrum, angles of viewing Scrum and XP. In fact, he talks about that a bit, not so much XP but software development. And everything he did related back to the Agile Manifesto, which is something I’ve drifted away from. So that anchored me back in there. So it was a lovely learning experience and it reminded me that I don’t know everything.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 25:57

And that reminds me of just like how much I love coach training. And you’ve co trained, I’m assuming with Ken and others, how much did you enjoy that? Do you miss that part of learning? Because I feel I learned so much when I co trained or just peer with anybody to do anything. I feel like I learned a lot.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 26:18

I do. I mean, the way I structure classes now is that almost everyone’s facilitating something so there’s a multi way learning, back in the early days, yeah, I co trained with Ken a couple of times. And he was very much his class and me doing a little bit here and there. But following that I worked. In the early days, it seemed like pairing was natural, and everyone was doing it. And then it became a bit more about the money. Because when you’ve got two trainers, it’s might be a nicer experience for the participants. But you’re only making half them out. But I worked with Michael [inaudible 26:51] a lot in the early days and worked with Lisa Atkins and a couple of things. And a whole host of other people, Colton, who we were just talking about here and I’ve had on CSM a few times. So part of it was to help people to become CST’s themselves, so that a lot of the code training was on that. But in the earlier days when it was Cain, Martin and Michael James and Victor Salvy and myself, we would pair just as a matter of course because we were all CSTs already. We weren’t teaching each other anything we made. We was learning from each other in the styles and stuff like that.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 27:34

Do you miss that? Do you miss those?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 27:37

I do to some extent, and I still partner with people, but it’s in somewhat different ways now. I’ve recently struck up a partnership with a guy, a Belgian guy called Francis Loman, he works on my certified scrum master training as a product owner. So we have the teams build products, and he’s the product owner for that, because he’s an educator. And so what the teams are building are educational tools using Scrum. So I’ve got that kind of partnership now, which is somewhat different to doing co training. I’m a customer, he’s a product owner, the team, the participants are teams. And then I have Scrum masters who are experienced people who’ve done the workshop before, practice it, come in and work as Scrum Masters with the team. So we recreate the whole kind of Scrum structure in a three day workshop. That’s just been fun. It’s different but I learned a lot from all of the Scrum Masters I worked with and from Francis and the participants, yeah. So I still have that experience of collaboration, I’d say now. But I went through a few years of not having it so much. Definitely.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 28:57

Yeah. So coming into this, I didn’t know this before that you kind of shifted careers. And in your early mid-30s, made that shift. If you could go back in time, and talk to your 18 year old self. What would you tell him? Because I think about this a lot of times, obviously, through a lot of stuff that I’ve been through both personally, growing up in Boston and living through the war, and then coming to United States, obviously, it’s all based on decisions, even decision that my dad decided to come here and having an opportunity to just even think about what would I do if I had the knowledge that I have today. So what would you tell your 18 year old self?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 29:44

Well, whenever I get asked that question which is not often, I have to say, but the sort of general feel, I mean, you sort of think about what would have happened if I had made this decision instead of that decision?

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 29:56

If you don’t know, right? It’s obviously one thing leads to another but maybe let me put it this way. What would you recommend to somebody today that’s 18-year-old based on your experience and knowledge what you know today? Maybe not to yourself, but to somebody that’s, yeah… that’s undecided what they want to do in life. And anything is possible.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 30:27

Yeah, I’m not much of an advice here. But I have two sons who live in the States actually now, and one is how old are they, like 26 and 24? I think something like that. And I tried not to give them too much advice, because they didn’t see me as a particularly successful person. So I was going to hold off on that. But I think the advice really is make your own mistakes. That would be my advice for anybody. We don’t want to make other people’s mistakes or other people to tell us not to do X because of the outcome of that. And we all fall into that with our own kids. Probably no, listen to me, I know better. I’ve made that mistake, you don’t have to make it. I think sometimes we do. We do have to make our own and I’ve made plenty mistakes. But I think another bit of advice that might be useful and I might give this to my own 18-year-old self is don’t regret the past. You do your do and you use it, you utilize your screw ups and your mistakes and your failings and your embarrassments. You utilize it in some way and move forward on it.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 31:41

That’s a really good one. And that one I can definitely relate to. Last time, I think it’s been a couple of months ago, I attended a webinar that you participated, and that the topic was of metaphors. And you’re big on storytelling, metaphors, what are your favorite metaphors when it comes to, that you use and that you share with others?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 32:18

Well, a colleague of mine, Carrie, was working as a scrum master in one of my CSMs. And she very kindly wrote down all the metaphors that I came up with, and she took it. But it was fun to read my own words back, well, in her words. Are you talking about metaphors for Scrum?

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 32:39

Any I mean, it’s really like which ones resonate? Which ones do you speak about frequently, when you’re teaching or when you’re talking to somebody? For instance, I have several that I use and teach, which ones do you find yourself using more frequently?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 33:04

It varies, and it changes according to sort of, the metaphors themself emerge out of the conversation. So I don’t really, but there are certain things that I fall back on. I use the gardening metaphor quite a lot about Scrum, and in organizations. You know that the scrum master role in an organization is like a gardener nurturing the soil, creating the right environment for the plants to grow, he doesn’t use the plant and he doesn’t shout at the plants to make them grow and he doesn’t get annoyed when they don’t grow, because he looks back at what’s wrong with the environment. And so that metaphor of a good gardener taking care of the soil, I think is really useful for people trying to do organizational change. We focus way too much on trying to change the people, we know systems thinking that we forget about the system, but the system is not just the processes that we do. It’s what the room looks like, just what I was talking about earlier, the giant shared space and looking around and seeing people crouching over their computers with their headphones on their screens around them. And being aware of that and figuring out how you can because that’s like toxic soil, essentially. So how do you do, what do you do? Perhaps a more accurate metaphor would be an organic gardener. It’s not just any old gardener. The gardener’s going to put chemicals over everything to get rid of the problem. Is like going down to really nuts and bolts of it and cleansing and active cleansing.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 34:42

Would it be more like a community garden to or where it’s not just a garden but…?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 34:47

You could say you can tell exactly, you can take that metaphor, can’t play with it and yeah, I do like that. The other metaphor I use which a lot of people really dislike, I have to say but it works so well for me is the Old Testament prophet scrum master. Let me explain that one, right? Prophets are not about telling the future, they’re about seeing where people are straying and helping them get back on the path. So the Old Testament prophets, the Bible is basically an endless tale, it seems of people doing the wrong thing. That’s really what you’re looking at it. Just continuously, people just doing the wrong thing, making mistakes and messing up and not keeping to the law. And the prophet suddenly arises out of the midst of these people, and he tells them what’s going on.

He speaks truth to power, he talks to kings. And he tries to get them, he said, and the telling of the future is like, if you keep doing this, this will happen. And if you don’t want that to happen, then don’t do those things. And we can say the same thing in organizations and our Scrum Masters do that. If we continue to reward individuals, you will get individual behavior, you will not have teams, we can predict that because it’s going to become true. So that’s us telling the future and our job as Scrum Masters is to say, if you’re choosing to do Scrum, right? If that’s a choice that you’ve made, then do it properly. Don’t have plans, don’t say, well, we’re kind of doing Scrum but we don’t have stand up meetings. So that’s like straying off the path. Scrum Masters job is to say, well, okay, you can do that if you want to, but let’s not pretend we’re abiding by the laws of Scrum for what it’s worth.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 36:33

What I like about it too, I’m thinking back about what we just spoke about the parent thing, right? And I think the big difference here is like, it sounded like from parenting, don’t do this, do this, right? But I think one of the important things that you just said is, if you decide to do Scrum directly and I think there’s a big difference versus telling versus saying, if that’s your decision, that’s what you want to do, then at least do it.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 37:06

Yeah. The [inaudible 37:06] approach to this would be like forcing and this does of course, this happens when someone is forcing people to do Scrum. And they don’t want one to. If they don’t want to, they won’t do it and it’s easy to break, isn’t it after all. But organizations are saying they choose to do Scrum, then the Scrum Masters job is to keep them on the path, that’s all. And looking around at the environment, and so on. But when people are saying we’re not going to do this or we’re going to do this instead. If you don’t have an understanding of the why behind it all, then you could mess it up. And then we can predict where that’s going to go, it’s going to start falling apart. I remember organizations saying to me when they’re starting off with Scrum, and they’re doing really well with it, and suddenly some catastrophe hits, some horrible bug gets reported from the field and everyone’s in a panic. And they say, we’re going to stop doing Scrum until we fix this problem. And then we’ll come back to it as if Scrum is somehow getting in the way of their strength. And of course, they don’t go back to it. So the scrum master…

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 38:14

What is something that people seem to misunderstand most about agile? Is that like, the Agile or Scrum is just a tool or an option or what do you think is the most misunderstood thing either about agile or scrum specifically?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 38:37

I think people have all kinds of weird understandings about it. Now, the example I gave earlier was agile means being able to change your mind anytime you want to. Now, that’s not altogether untrue. It is about when we have better ideas, we want to be able to follow the better ideas. But when you’ve just got one person in the organization changing their mind and saying, don’t do that, do this instead, it’s interrupt driven development all over again, under the guise of Agile. And then I can’t speak for agile in general, Agile and Scrum get muddled quite a lot, don’t they get conflated but when organizations are doing Scrum, or will they say that we’re doing Agile now, we’ve got product owners, they’ve got Junior Bas, being told they’re now product owners with absolutely no decision-making ability.

No power at all, basically for anything, so you’ve got a flashy product owner, so you’re not really doing Scrum. And the scrum master is usually another junior developer or someone who’s like a manager, a release manager or something like that, who’s told that their scrum master even renamed the role in a lot of situations. It’s not that any of these things in themselves are bad. They might work for you. But clearly, they’re not what we understand about as being Scrum or agile, if we’re not following the principles of the Agile Manifesto, we’re not doing Agile, not doing all of the 10 practices of XP, we’re not doing XP. We’re doing something else. And we need to call it by what it is.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 40:24

Yeah. What I’m seeing too, is like kind of what you just said about the scrum master is like, the role is so misunderstood. Yet, at least here in United States, it’s paid very well. So when I talk to leaders and people that have made making decisions around hiring, and the structure of the teams, they can’t see in their heads, a justification to pay somebody 100, 270k here for a facilitation role. So they resort to Okay, we’re going to have somebody facilitate. And a couple of years ago, I wrote an article, essentially, it was titled, demise of the scrum master role. And a couple of points that I made is that most scrum masters are not trying to be better scrum masters, they go, take a two-day class and it’s a promotional job. I’m moving for project managers to this new role. And the other one is that organizations are not seeing the value. Are you seeing same things? What are your thoughts on that?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 41:30

Yeah, I see that too. I mean, the scrum master role has been crushed into like a team-admin system or something, scheduled meetings and of course, they’re not going to pay someone to do that as a full-time job. People missed the point, I don’t know how they miss it. So clear in the scrum guide, there are three focuses for the scrum master. You focus on the team, you focus on the product owner, and you focus on the organization as a whole, which is massive, right? Is massive. Thousands of people [inaudible 42:02]. How is that not a full-time job? And of course it is but people think that the scrum master was. I think I know what it is, they’ve got this idea because of the hierarchical structures we have. Jim Janelle and I did a video on this one time. The difference between a scrum master and Agile coach, right? So now scrum masters work with the teams, agile coaches work with the organization, and their higher paid, their better qualified and we need them, right? You scrum master, you can stay with the team, make the coffee and schedule the meetings and report on them and give us some charts and things.

And we’ll get a proper Agile coach to come in and do the rest. In most HR departments, there’s no slot to put Scrum Masters in, right? So they have to rename them as something else. Some kind of manager or something or project manager or release manager or something like that. But the role of coach is a bit more well known in organizations, I think it’s kind of a bit more respected as a role. And it might even be an HR slot for that one. So you can be a coach in most corporation, can even be a scrum master because it didn’t fit anywhere, it’s a whole new role. [inaudible 43:22] deck of cards. Where’s the place for the Joker when you’re sorting out your cards into picks, is no place, right? And the Joker’s wild. That’s the scrum master, right? And we have to be able to embrace that in organizations. When we can’t, we try pigeonholing them, and then they become something else. A problem.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 43:41

And that points to HR, right? If HR doesn’t see how it needs to involve, if finance doesn’t see how involves within the organization. Those can be sometimes limiting or impeding factors, right?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 44:00

Absolutely. There are people who are working on agile HR at the moment. That’s how Dunc is one of them. She wrote a book recently about agile HR. [inaudible 44:11] Jim Janelle, my friend, he’s known as Jim jelly.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 44:17

I know, I love the stuff that he’s doing. I’m going to try to interview him too, because I do really appreciate everything that he’s doing and…

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 44:25

Yeah, but he’s been working less so now but several years ago, he was working on with HR people, he was able to love, it was very much. He would run workshops with HR people and recruiters, particularly recruiters. So there’s inroads being made into all these parts of the organization. Finance is another one, probably less so there but marketing certainly and this is early days, it really is still early days. We say it’s 20 years old and that’s nothing in the history of organizations, is it? It’s very new.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 45:05

So what do you think is next? I know it’s hard obviously to predict, we can’t really predict, but what are some of the patterns that you’re seeing that might be different than what we’ve seen in the last 10 years?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 45:19

Well, it’s hard for me to say that from where I am at the moment, because since I moved back to the UK in 2016, and I’ve done almost no corporate work in years now. So most of my work now is public facing workshops. So I rather than going into organizations, I entice people out of organization.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 45:43

It’s probably a couple of years ago, maybe. But that’s a good way to put it.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 45:48

I’m going against the general wisdom of meet people where they are.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 45:55

Yeah. You said something along the lines, I have no interest in going back in or something like that. I don’t know.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 46:07

Yeah, I don’t. To be honest, I don’t because I woke up to the fact in the last consulting work I did, in a company that’s full of wonderful people that I really had a good time working with, but the structure was so rigid, it just wasn’t able to change. And the actual software they were working on was so broken, it was never going to survive, and it didn’t in fact. But I came to the realization that, for me, was sheer folly to think that I could change an organization. I can’t help people to change the way they think about their work, I can’t do that. And I don’t do that. But I can’t, and I don’t think I’ve ever changed an organization, never had. It’s unchanging organizations of the future, not organizations at present. That’s what I believe. So if I didn’t even believe that, I wouldn’t be doing this at all, I suppose.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 47:06

Yeah. And maybe that, like you said earlier, that little bit of that naiveness of just, even false belief, but something that’s you still believe in and that motivates you, mindset and culture are pretty big buzzwords, how do you see culture? How do you define culture?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 47:35

I’m very wary of the idea of changing culture. That’s what missionaries did in Africa a few 100 years ago, didn’t end up well, did it? Changing someone else’s culture, that’s the height of arrogance, surely. So the idea we can go in and say we’re going to help you shift your culture. And if you’re really really truly invited in for that purpose, you need to tread very warily.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 48:01

Now, what is that? What is it like, how would you define before even we talk about changing the culture, what is culture from your perspective? How would you describe it?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 48:14

Let me describe it in terms of groups of people in the world in an organization. And we come up to that word a bit, haven’t we? In our organizations or relational culture? I mean, it’s just the culture of an organization is its patterns, I suppose, isn’t it? It is patterns and its traditions and its stories. That’s what the culture is of an organization, the stories they tell, the patterns they work to that creates the culture. And so I suppose you want to talk about culture change, I guess what we mean is we’re going to tell different stories, we’re going to introduce new patterns.

But it has to be a collaborative event. We can’t, if people expecting us to come in and impose agile, which is really what a lot of people ask for, come and make my company agile. So I’m coming in, like a missionary to help the poor natives to change their horrible culture into the culture that I approve of, right? That’s kind of the bare bones of that approach. So the good consultants go in and they listen. They listen to the stories and they observe the patterns. And they work with people to explore when those patterns are the best patterns, and other patterns we can use. Are there other stories we can tell?

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 49:38

So it’s almost like you can apply that to the mindset too. We talk about changing mindset and it’s also rude to go and say, I want to change your mindset. It probably seem that same approach of listening, understanding the patterns and then seeing if changing the mindset is actually beneficial or not. Would you say that, is there a correlation there between the culture and mindset?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 50:00

And there’s something curious about that term mindset, isn’t it? Because the last thing we want in an agile environment is a set mind. You want [inaudible 50:09], you want to moving more in one amorphous mind, in a mind that is changeable and malleable, you don’t want to set mind. So we talked about changing the mindset, it might be the wrong metaphor, we want to change something else, it might not be the set of the mind. We don’t want to go from one set mind to a different set mind, because then you’re stuck in this new truth, which is being saying everyone has to follow this truth. And my mind is set on doing Agile, I don’t want to work with people whose mind is set on doing Agile, I want to work with people who want to explore newness, better things.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 50:48

So maybe like broaden their perspectives is another way to look at it, who are willing to broaden their perspectives and…

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 50:55

Yeah, Broaden. That’s a nice way of thinking about it, isn’t it? Broaden perspectives or move your mind, perhaps, open your eyes. Someone pulled me up on this keeping an open mind thing, if you’ve got a mind that’s too open, your brains fall out.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 51:20

There is something to be said about not going to any extreme, right?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 51:24

Yeah. You want to keep an open mind but you also have to be discerning, which requires judgment, you have to make assessments sometimes, you can’t embrace everything. Yeah I mean, most of the work of helping organizations change is very little. Well, that’s not fair. I can say very little about the software that developed but actually quite a lot is about the software they develop. But it can’t live independently from helping the rest of the organization support that work. I suppose it’s cultural and I don’t love that word. I don’t like using it really, but if it is about patterns and stories and traditions and process, then yeah, we can help organizations look at those things and address them differently. So maybe I don’t have to keep doing this.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 52:20

Yeah. And that resonates with me and the way that I usually describe culture, it’s a reflection of the system. So the practices, behaviors, habits, right? The mind, our perspectives, collective perspective, so it’s more of a reflection and you can’t change their reflection, you change the other things in order to change that reflection.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 52:45

Yeah. That’s a nice one looking at it. I feel like I’m on the fringe of all of this whole agile movement, really. I wasn’t around at the beginning, when this was all formed. And I love the Agile Manifesto. I kind of forget about it and kind of move away. That was what was nice about doing arbites workshop, was bringing me back to center in a sense on that, it’s a powerful document. I like that it’s not changed a single word in 20 years and I might be unusual for that, because it was, we have to update. But we don’t, it’s a document of its time. And it’s an anchor, if we start changing it, we lose the anchor, the scrum guide hasn’t done itself much favor I think, by continually changing. I kind of get, it’s useful, and then you get people who don’t like it. And there’s aspects of the new scrum code I don’t like, I really cringe at the word accountability.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 53:48

I see frameworks like Scrum and maybe it’s too naive of me to say that, but it’s like a recipe, right? So if you have a recipe, and collection of patterns of course, with time recipes evolved, people have different opinions on it. And if you from a culinary perspective, you’re not looking at the essence of that dish and you’re just looking at the recipe and ingredients. You’re going to want people to change the ingredients. They don’t necessarily want to change the outcome, which is delicious meal. But they want to change the actual recipe just because we’re humans, we love to mix it up.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 54:37

Yeah. The scrum guide is there. And as you and I are both trainers of this, we teach Scrum. We certify people. We have to have a basis for that, right? And that’s what the scrum guide is. And when the scrum guide changes, we change what we teach. And it’s like you said, we’re not changing the outcome. But we’re changing some of the ingredients. So now, instead of talking about roles, now we talk about accountabilities, because that’s what scrum tells us to talk about. And I’m okay with that. I have no problem with that. But if I wasn’t doing certification, and during those years that I wasn’t teaching certification, I didn’t worry too much about what was written in the scrum guide. I don’t think I ever read it, in fact. I knew what scrum was in its essence. And you can write what Scrum is in half a page, probably and capture a page perhaps and capture everything about what it is. And that’s what the scrum guide says. It says what Scrum is. When I teach Scrum, I try to teach why we do Scrum or I teach the why of Scrum. The document the guy tells us what and the how is in the action, is in the doing [inaudible 55:51] the people will figure out how to do Scrum by doing Scrum. The guide is only there to tell you what to do, like have a planning meeting. Common sense, of course.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 56:02

How many students do you have that come in and want to know the why versus the one?

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 56:07

Yeah, a lot of them. They all want to know, I think but they don’t know that they want to know it necessarily. For anything we do, we want to know why we’re doing it. We’re not good at complying. We’ve been taught how to comply in our school systems, and now in the corporate world, immediately following that. But it’s not a natural thing to do. It’s a natural thing. It’s good to learn from people who know stuff, to some extent, but we also allowed me to make our own mistakes. And we also need to do our own explorations, because that’s how progress is made by people coming in with new ideas. Like I love having junior people join senior teams, because they kind of deal with a whole different way of looking at different perspective. Yeah, pull the rug on. And they might always be right but they’ll get us shaken up a bit. So we need that. So compliance is not, nobody really wants to comply. People want to have a sense of like being in control of the work that they do. And if you understand why we do Scrum, you get that, it just allows people to really embrace it.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 57:23

Yeah, that’s a really good point. And I think that’s and also true, [inaudible 57:26]. And I think the reason that Agile is where it is and Scrum is as popular as it is, and Alistair Cockburn said something in this latest anniversary that individual’s interactions over processes and tools was the best thing that they did, by putting it as the first value in the Agile Manifesto, because so many people resonated with that statement, and the why behind that statement.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 58:03

I would agree with that. Absolutely. It has that primary place in there. And that’s where it should be. Absolutely. And you know that it was written about how to develop software, and it has the word software in it a number of times. And people want to use it for other things. And that’s fine. You can adapt it, for sure. But it is essentially written about software development and I think it’s important to remember that because there’s something about the nature of developing software that is different to most other things. And the principles around it, it was also all of those agile practices are built around object-oriented programming, a particular kind of program, a particular kind of way of looking at the world if you like, and that matters. And I think that if we lose, that’s what we can do incremental delivering of value in small pieces, because we’ve got the right model for it. We’re not trying to do these big bang releases of things, which you might have to do if you were using different patterns to build your software.

So there’s dependencies in there. The Agile Manifesto is dependent on software and is dependent on the object model, I would guess I don’t know, because like I said, I wasn’t part of the group that put that together, of course, but people doing sort of, most of those teams are doing small talk and some of that which is pure object. So it’s important to remember that and this is part of doing arbites workshop as I was reminded of the [inaudible 59:35]. So we can take the principles of the Agile Manifesto. But remember where they came from, and understand where they came from, as well. Like if you’ve never learned how to code and you don’t know what an object model is, learn that first. And then apply your agile manifesto to marketing into billions of dollars.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 59:51

Yeah, that’s a really good point. Great, well, thank you, Tobias. I know we’re over time and I really enjoyed the conversation. And this is why I wanted to start this because I don’t get a chance. I don’t get a chance to do this, obviously at conferences, we had a little bit of planning to do this but not as much because obviously there’s a lot more people and a lot more going on. So I hope that you enjoyed the conversation today as much as I did.

Speaker: Tobias Mayer 1:00:21

It really was. Having read some of your writing as well and particularly the stuff that you relate back to your early years, I found that fascinating, and how you connect it. I love it when people do that, just like everything connects. It really does. And if we forget where we’ve come from, then we get lost, I think. And so you routed what you wrote back into them, so lovely. So it made me want to meet you and here I am.

Gunther Verheyen: Scrum, Psychology and Behavior | Agile to agility | Miljan Bajic | Episode #4

Gunther Verheyen

“Scrum is more about behavior than it is about process. The process aspect of scrum is only the mere beginning.” – Gunther Verheyen

TRANSCRIPT:

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 00:32

Who’s Gunter Verheyen?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 00:38

Gunter Verheyen is a Belgian guy. I live in Belgium in Antwerp. Beautiful city, by the way. Have you ever been there?

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 00:51

No.

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 00:51

Have you been in Belgium? No? Okay, you should come over someday, once we can travel again.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 00:56

Would love that.

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 00:57

Nowadays, I call myself an independent Scrum caretaker. And I’ve added to that I call myself an independent Scrum caretaker on a journey of humanizing the workplace with Scrum. And for some strange reason, that seems to resonate with a lot of people. So, that gives me some hope and maybe also some inspiration about the future of agile and the future of Scrum. Because the way that it resonates with people, I tend to see that as sort of indication, yeah, we’re on to something and I might be on the right track or on the right path. So there’s this hope, that’s a good thing. Because I think, I don’t know, Scrum has been around for a while, as you know. 25 years exactly was celebrated by the end of last year, the end of 2020. And what I’ve noticed, and that’s why I started calling myself independence scrum caretaker [inaudible 01:59]. What I started noticing in those first 20, 25 years of Scrum, we have achieved a lot so let’s be really happy for that and even grateful to all the people around the world that are actually applies from doing it, employing it, trying it out, and doing great stuff with it. So, we have achieved a lot. And just to name a couple of firm so that cross functional thinking of the work of development. So, cross functional teams, moving from old school, fixed price projects to a more product-oriented way of thinking. We’re getting to the idea of a product owner also, to have achieved a lot. But I started calling myself an independent scrum caretaker, when I left scrum.org. I don’t know whether you know, Scrum.org. So, the organization of catering. So, I’d been working sort of exclusively; partnering exclusively with Ken and Scrum.org from 2013 until 2016. And when I left him, I wanted to be truly on my own two feet, not be tied into any type of structure and be out and do consulting as well because something that scrum.org doesn’t do. I had to think about a name, a title or whatever, a role or description or something. Because you know, LinkedIn wants us to do that. And I felt like rather than giving myself an established whatever title because I’m just a one person company. Just me. So, I started my own little company back in 2013. Exactly, to stop partnering with Ken. Because I had been in consulting the years before that. So when I left in 2016, I had to come up with a sort of title for me. Because it’s almost like to state stupidly, a mandatory field on forms and on LinkedIn as well. And I felt like why would I not call myself for what I believed that I am, what I like to do, maybe how I like to be seen. That something I feel that reflects who I am. And that’s enough sort of intuitively came up with the idea scrum caretaker. Because scrum caretaker for me reflects the idea of taking care. So, it already has the sort of people and human notion in it. But I called myself scrum caretaker because I do care for people and the human side of our work. But I also care a lot for Scrum that I’ve been doing that since 2003. So, that’s quite a long time. I’m so passionate about it. And it sort of turned out fine because it resonates with people, because I feel people have a need for this increased focus emphasis on the people aspect of scrum. And that’s why I say, I think we’re onto something here because in those first 20, 25 years of scrum, we have achieved a lot. But a lot of people still are sort of stuck. Can I say that? In looking at Scrum as these entities.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 05:11

Process or?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 05:14

Process, products and so on. But what about people? So, what about adding people to the formula, the equation?

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 05:24

So, that’s, yeah.

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 05:24

Products, process, yes, but also people. Product in a general term, that’s where Scrum comes from. Nowadays, it’s more about dealing with complex problems in general. But about that and what I call scrum’s DNA, you know is empiricism and self-organization. And I feel we have achieved a lot from projects to products, cross functional thinking, the product owner role, the business involvement, crossing bridges between IT and business and product management and so on, we have achieved a lot. But I miss the focus on that second aspect of scrum’s DNA, self-organization, which is the people aspect. So, empiricism is slowly getting through. That means a lot of organizations have, whether they like it or not abandoned the old way of thinking, the linear way of thinking large phases, the industrial approach, the waterfall approach. So, the empiricism is coming through and using empiricism to inspect and adapt, build great products, fine. But I feel still very difficult for management, leadership, organizations and unfortunately, even often teams and self to really grasp is the idea of self-organization. Being able to organize yourself for your work within boundaries against objectives and goals. Without anybody outside of your ecosystem, your team or your product or whatever.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 06:54

Why do you think that is?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 06:56

What you should do and how you should organize. Because [cross-talking 06:58]

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 06:58

Why do you think that is, like, yeah? Like, and I completely agree, we’ve gone, you know, a long way. And you know, one of the things that resonated with me, with the latest thing that I did in Utah, with the co-signers of Agile Manifesto. There were six of them and they all reemphasize that focus on individuals’ interactions over processing tools and people, the people side they use. So, why do you think you know, 20, 25 years later, we’re still talking about it’s all about people, it’s all about interactions?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 07:35

Yeah. Because software development itself as one example, huge example of complex challenges, because it’s about complexity meaning, a lot of uncertainties and predictability and so, requires intelligent people to solve that, to bring their brains together and to tackle that. So in a way, the fact that people are organizations, let’s say are increasingly embracing empiricism is because although it’s really not easy but within the whole, it’s even the easy part of Scrum in that sense, it’s a lot sort of the process, what I like to call the gold part. It’s how to organize, it’s setting up a process.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 08:21

So, it’s also the easy part, right?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 08:23

Yeah.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 08:23

It’s the easiest part.

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 08:25

Yeah, it’s the easier part compared to the people aspect, which is the, what I call the warmer parts, so not the cold, the warmer part because it’s more difficult to cross. And in that sense, it’s great that you bring up that first statement of the Agile Manifesto. Because it means that we are still working towards shifting the balance from processes and tools towards people, interactions, individuals as well. And as because a lot of organizations still are in the mindset of seeing Scrum too much as an old school process. I like to see Scrum as a process. But you know, 2001, the Agile Manifesto, when they said individuals and interactions over processes and tools, what they meant with processes by then was big phases, big things, waterfall as well as big size, large size, governors, meetings, hand over sign offs and so on. That’s what they meant with process. For me, Scrum is a very lightweight process. I call it a servant process rather than a commanding process. Because those large processes are commanding processes. They tell people what to do. They’ve got exhaustive, detailed instructions on who should be doing what, what should be happening at that point in time. Scrum doesn’t do that. Scrum actually, for me, Scrum is on the correct side of the equation, meaning it supports interactions and individuals. In essence, scrum does no more than try to invoke, sometimes even provoke people to interact, to collaborate. That’s what I said in a book I wrote about Scrum back in 2013 and there’s a third edition coming up; My Scrum, a pocket guide. Scrum is more about behavior than it is about process. The process aspect of Scrum is only the mere beginning. And imagine it’s already we always say, you know, that expressions simple, not easy. It’s already very not easy. The next step will be the people aspect, seeing the scrum process really on the side of interactions and individuals. Because with Scrum, we create a frame, we try to create a lightweight structure that gives people focus, give them some boundaries, within which to again, self-organize. But self-organization means we’re not going to tell you how to do that. We just give you literally a frame within which to do that.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 10:59

Some compact of guardrails right or something like that?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 11:02

Yeah. And within those guardrails, within that frame, it’s all about the sort of, let’s say, what you get out of Scrum. The benefit, you will realize with Scrum will all depend on how well people gel, collaborate, interact. How they in a way use Scrum, to in short cycles called sprint, solve and tackle problems, do that together collectively. And that self-organization sort of the foundation, the empirical process with the events and as well, it’s just a start. Because let’s say, there’s a lot of like you would have in books, there’s a lot of whitespace. You have to fill that in. If you don’t do that, you’re adopting the process, but you’re not adopting the process as a framework within which people can tackle challenges.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 11:55

And change the behavior, like you said, so like, how would somebody change the behavior? So, I agree, it’s all about changing the behavior and there are certain things that influence the behavior like mindset, right, like the systems that we work in. So, from your perspective, what are the best, what are some of the ways they’ve seen that not only focusing on the process, but also the behavior side?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 12:21

Well, it’s why also in my book, 2013, I wrote about the scrum values. And I think the scrum values can be really helpful, at least as sort of what I call a compass; sort of gives direction. It has a second purpose too, I’ll come back on that. Because what I like about the scrum values is that you can translate them in a way into behavior. But in that translation, because in the end the Scrum values aren’t just five words, it’s what you mean those words, what you mean with commitment and focus and openness and respect and courage. Because you can give lots of meanings and interpretations. And then you need already some courage to translate those words, in the context for which you want to apply for meaning complexity. And again, working with people and then you can translate them into tangible behaviors is that’s what I tried to do with a blog note I wrote about it and then put it in my book. And am I even creating workshops around on scrum values to help people think about the values because you can’t, in a way, you cannot teach values to people but values drive behavior. That’s why I say Scrum, actually, it’s more about behavior than about process. And then those values in a way they give us a sense of direction, a compass to help us navigate and collaborate with each other.[cross-talking 13:54]

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 13:54

Yeah, no, I completely agree. I’ve recently in some of my workshops started to, especially in the leadership once started to also tie in, you know, put between the value; Scrum values and the behavior, put the beliefs because we could have same values but we don’t differ a lot of times in values, everybody wants to get respected. Right? But what does respect mean to you and what do you believe about respect is a lot of times where people have disconnect and have different type of behaviors. And it’s been really interesting how we don’t spend a lot of time thinking about values and beliefs. But like you said, they’re the things that drive the behavior.

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 14:44

It’s sort of an ethical side and by the way, I like how you call that beliefs. Because when I say values drive behavior, it’s very similar to saying that your beliefs will show in your behavior. So, what are your beliefs? And then what I think is important with Scrum is you can’t teach values, you can’t impose values. But you can try to reveal that. And like you said, you can try to reveal people’s beliefs by looking at their behavior and help them think about it and maybe grow into another different beliefs and another way of believing another set of fellows. Yeah, that’s great.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic15:28

Yeah. And the way that I tell people there is a litmus test. If somebody is pissing you off, there is a value that’s being, you know, violated. So, if it’s trust, you know, courage, whatever it is, if you’re getting pissed off, you know, some value is getting violated. If you’ve been happy about something, that means somebody is reinforcing the value that you have. So like, you can see, you know, and going back to the interactions, you can see if you’re living those values, right? Because we talked about, like, it’s about embracing and living those values, not just saying, I believe in, you know, in this or I value this, but actually, you know, do you live those?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 16:17

Can I build a little bit on that?

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 16:19

Yeah, please.

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 16:19

Because the thing that you say, because you call it a litmus test, and that is exactly sort of what I just called the second purpose of this scrum values. So, values drive behavior. And the second thing is, so it’s sort of a composite in a way the scrum value to think about and the second not really purpose, but the second way to look at is that litmus test. So, what I say behavior expresses values, which means that in a way, what I call in a paper I wrote about it scrum values as your scrum adoption continuous and growth, and in a way becomes more sophisticated, that means that the people, the sort of the players, your Scrum players will focus less on the process, following the events, the meetings, the time boxes, and so on and they will start in graining and expressing different behaviors. And in that sense, in a way, what I say the way, the way that the scrum values are being enacted, is a sort of barometer of your adoption of Scrum and even the health of your team. Because in the way that you see in a team, less focus on process, more on interaction and behaviors. And in those interactions and behaviors driven by discovery and to see sort of commitment, increasing, engaging people people, re-energized and inspired by the work being open to each other, but in engaging in respectful disagreements. Not agreeing, but respectfully solving that in order to tackle complex problems that requires a lot of courage. You know, in essence, the way that values are being enacted is sort of a barometer of the state of your Scrum and the health of your teams.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 18:10

And key to that, you mentioned courage and you mentioned, you know, trust is a key aspect of that, and to have the courage, you know, a lot of times to be vulnerable and to build that trust is huge. And it’s tough in organizations, I think, especially large organizations. And most of my work has been here in United States. But what have you seen like, what are some of the things that are misunderstood about Scrum or that people find the most challenging about Scrum? Besides embracing values and that whole behavior, like what else do you see that maybe at the organizational level?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 18:56

Yeah, a problem with a lot of you know this things called HL transformations? I see you’re smiling, that good. So, a lot of them are about Agile and fire scrum. And they are what I call way too explicit. In that sense, large organizations, how do they try to go through change by setting up a change project. And they’ve lots of stuff that people have to now follow. So, they enforce change upon people. So, it’s really explicit. It’s in a change project, it’s a separate thing with managers and project managers and so on. But I feel that’s not how you grow, you evolve your company. I believe a scrum transformation should be more implicit rather than explicit. Because in Scrum, we’ve got this beautiful thing called a retrospective. So, by the end of every sprint, you’ll get a beautiful opportunity with a team and all teams across the organization to reflect, improve, change things. So, in a way that should be the driver of change by every retrospective look into what can you do. But even then, what I believe is impossible, it is impossible for me to properly adopt Scrum, try to get, you maximize your benefits you get from Scrum, without rethinking the structures around Scrum. Meaning how do you deal with governance? How do you deal with this relationship with product managers, relationship with sales people, HR strategies or sales and sales processes? Well, you can’t. And that’s something a lot of management or leadership still likes to think I believe is that, you know what Scrum and agile is just for the teams. It’s just for delivery, it’s just for development. And that often, they establish Scrum teams within the existing departmental structure, silos and so on. And then you’ve got all those little micro teams, often they’re isolated.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 21:01

Even within teams, right? Yeah, even within the teams, you have people that are not cross functional. So, you have the scrum in silos. And then you have inside the scrum teams, you have silos of people that are not willing to step outside of their comfort zone and do that.

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 21:18

Rather than like in the past, what you had is sort of work being thrown over by individuals to each other. It’s by individuals within teams. But let’s say that we might go pass that already. But still on top of that, it’s sort of micro teams throwing work over the wall to each other. So, there’s no view to sort of end-to-end value creation and the total delays that all those teams have. So, what I miss with those organizations is, here we go again, the courage, to what I call rethink the structures around Scrum. Rethink, think in terms of what is a product, what is a service or more generic, what is the complex problem that we’re trying to solve? And then organize your Scrum to tackle that problem or deliver that product or that service optimally. And everybody sees the value but nobody has the courage or the insight, whatever, to sort of tear down all those departmental walls between those teams. Because those teams in different departments, you’re working for the same product or the same service. So, if you would organize your Scrum for your product, you will start with product, and then set up your Scrum teams to ultimately serve your product. And that would be regardless where those skills and expertise would come from, which department. You would organize your scrum teams across those departments. But then you can’t like, chop rotate then, hierarchy status [inaudible 22:49]

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 22:50

Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And you know, I would even go further and I would say like, you will start with the customers and users and see what products and services that they’re willing to pay for right? And then go down. But you’ve probably seen this too, where it doesn’t really take hold or the so called agile transformations, which by the way, I think most of them fail to do anything that they intend to. They fail until like, really, the board in large companies or the top people in the company fully understand the differences between agile and agility. And that it’s not just the implementing bunch of processes. That really they need to change the complete structure of the organization, to be that product based, service based, experience based whatever it is. And if you think about it, who can do that? Only few people and organizations. And where I’ve seen it work is where you have a support from the board and president or somebody like president to actually make those changes. Because I’ve been in a situation where I remember this guy, I was telling him like, just as far as previous experiences what happened and he’s like Miljan, you know, this means you know, I’m going to lose my authority in a sense in that, kind of those words like you know, I thought this was only for the teams and you’re saying now that you know, everything, you’re going to flip everything, or we going to flip everything upside down. And it’s like you said it’s not courage. People don’t have the courage and willingness to, you know, you describe yourself as a caretaker; Independent Scrum Take care, sorry, caretaker. But not many leaders see themselves as the organizational caretakers. And I think that’s one way to look at yourself is how are you taking care of the organization and the people in it. And then sometimes it’s doing that certainly without serving, you know, serving the people in the company, not serving your own needs. Any thoughts on that?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 25:11

Yeah, absolutely. It’s sort of what you say, it’s in a way about agility. Because what I like to say is Scrum cannot be the purpose of Scrum. You don’t do Scrum, because of Scrum, you do Scrum for some different purpose, for some different reasons. And, like you said, is to build better products and services, increase customer satisfaction, to get more, to deliver more value to your users, discover new services that might be valuable as well. But also, in a way to increase what you just call the agility of your organization. So, like when I worked with Ken back in 2013 to 2016, we try to stay away sometimes even move away from the term HR because it became a very confusing term because everybody asked, given the success of a HR and a manifesto, everybody was giving a different meaning also. So, we try to help people think in terms of what you just said; agility so, that totally connects to your baseline of your podcast, from agile to agility. So, we try to help people think about agility. And agility for me essentially is a state, a way of being but a state for your organization. And that’s not business agility, that’s not technical agility, it’s not IT agility, because we want to transcend all those sort of specialized focuses let’s say. So, it’s about agility. So, enterprise agility, organizational agility, the ability to act with agility, swiftly with speed, responsiveness, being able to change direction, being able to innovate, to be able to innovate maybe drive your competitors crazy with all the things that you do. So, and we say that, if you want to do Scrum, it’s to increase your agility, which probably expresses itself in your ability to go to market faster or increase your customer satisfaction, increase your financial benefits as well. But also make in a way your people happier, more engaged. So, it’s not just about value for the user, it’s value for the organization but also value for the people doing the work. And that’s why I like sort of a 360 degrees on things. But agility, scrum as a tool to increase your agility and your ability to respond and to deliver value. And then how to achieve that, because a lot of the existing organizations are very rigid organizations. For me, a rigid or rigidity is the antithesis of agility. So, rigid versus agile, where do you want to go? We have established large organizations. And then what I tried to bring to leadership and CXO teams often is because at some point in time, I started describing this thing called the illusion of agility. So, a lot of organizations grow through HR transformations and I fully agree with you, most of them, if not all, tested, end up what I described delivering an illusion of agility. That is not truly agility. You’ve gone to lots of things, you’re imposing a new process on people. You make sure that all your teams across the organization now all work on two-week sprints with the same start and end date. You make them apply the same practices, use the same tools, the same digital tools and some same electronic tools. They all have to use JIRA, TFS, whatever. And you’re building up what I call an illusion of agility. You are fooling yourself into believing that your agility is growing. But you have all those micro teams handing over work to each other, which means that the overall value stream is still very long, it’s full of delays, it’s full of waste, it’s full of rework and so on. And it’s not helping so at some point in time, I know most organizations go to something what I call, so they build up an illusion of agility and that is shown by what I call the deflation by reality or the illusion of agility.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 29:32

Wake up call?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 29:34

Yeah, some morning, it’s a hard wake up call, very painful. They wake up finding out that customer satisfaction not improving, benefits not improving, market share not increasing, teams still leaving the company, top skill people still leaving the company, unable to hire great, new people that are full of brains and so they wake up, it’s deflation by reality. And they wake up, oh my God, this wasn’t truly HR. My sort of antidote to that because, you know, in scrum and HR, you know, it’s all about feedback loops. So gathering feedback and then acting upon that feedback. So, it’s not just about gathering feedback, it’s more about acting upon that feedback. In Scrum terms, I like to say that inspection without adaptation is pointless. None of the things in Scrum are about collecting data, reports, logs, whatever about the past. No, we start by looking at the past, observing and inspecting but the goal is always to adapt. So, everything in Scrum for me should be what I call forward looking. Every Scrum event and Sprints as a whole should get your eyes on the future. So, we start from the past, but the goal is to look at the future. Well, if our observation is an illusion of agility, that’s not enough. It’s good to make us laugh and we can whatever and brag about, you know. But what are we going to do to help people get across that and do better? And that’s what I ended up with saying illusion of agility avoid it. If you’re soon enough, or get over it, once it does shows. Reimagining your scrum. Because the message I bring to a lot of CXO teams is, let’s reimagine your scrum. And in that sense, let’s make it manageable again, let’s make it controllable again, by making it small again. Meaning my suggestion is, let’s look at all scrum initiative that you have going in the company, and let’s pick out one, a meaningful, a real one. Let’s look at it and let’s go back to the basics of scrum, the original intent of scrum. What is the product that Scrum initiative is about or several initiatives? So, let’s look at the product, let’s reorganize the scrum teams to ultimately serve the product or the service. Let’s have a real product owner, somebody with ownership over the product.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 32:04

That’s a big one too, right? As far as like just business buying in and another one that I don’t see is like you have, unwilling to combine those product teams and combine business and IT and you really have product owners without you know, any say. But if maybe you then build on this inspecting on the past and you know actually doing something about it in the future, I spoke with Tobias Mayer last week and he said that we should be happy. Like you know, this 20 years, like these, if you look at the history of management, history of you know, kind of how these 20 years is not a lot and maybe these last 20, 25 years, 30 were about agile and maybe the next 20 years will be about agility. What are your thoughts on how does the future look based on where we are today and where we’re coming from? What are some trends?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 33:07

I had a test of several years ago that when you look at the future itself and for me what I said by then is the future of HR is in the small because it connects to that idea. Rather than trying to transform and transition all teams across the whole organization almost overnight or over the weekend towards something that is sort of an industrialized version of Scrum and agile. I like to make it small and then go take it step by step. So, initiative after the initiative, convert that into what I call a small product hub, that might be a round of service. So, have it sort of ecosystem within the organization around a product. Have all the skills, expertise within the hub to ultimately serve that product. And then gradually move from that old school pyramid structure to a network structure of prototypes where leadership and management is about connecting those hubs but not interfering with the self-organizing aspects of them. And then for me, we create HR organizations, because those become more flexible structures, rather than the pyramid rigid structure. Go from HR structures, meaning network systems [cross-talking 34:30] Ecosystems, yeah. They can grow, they can shrink, they can disappear, they can pop up without sort of destroying the whole of it. So, it increases flexibility. And that’s where I want to go with reimagining your scrum. Rethink your scrum, one initiative, let’s do that initiative, then take the next initiative. And by then, gradually transform, literally transform your pyramid into a network structure. So, away from the industrial, large folding, whatever thinking making it small. And you know what, when people, organizations go through that phases, yes, often of that illusion of agility, often two, three to four years, imagine how much work you could have done in four years time by making it small, growing something, expanding it, adding something to it, doing something more. But it seems to be organizations want to go too fast and therefore, they become very slow.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 35:39

Well, also like, I think what I’ve seen, it goes back to what you said about HR and about, like, you know, a lot of times leaders come in, transformational leaders, right, that companies hire and they don’t have a lot of time. So, they know and they’re in a, you know, under a lot of pressure and they try to push without, you know, a lot of, in my opinion, a lot of experience, they bring in the consulting companies, big consulting companies, tell them what to do. But under that pressure, they just try to do whatever they can and they try to build on top of, you know, usually it’s not a first transformation. By now, it’s, you know, companies of, at least in IT companies have gone through several of those. And how, you know, from an HR perspective, what have you seen in some of the shifts in HR and how HR and finance too, how we budget, you know? Going from cost centers to funding products and services, what have you seen in that space?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 36:49

Well, again and you’ll confirm, indeed, the fact that it’s often way too explicit because you’ve got all this feeling and exerting pressure on people is not helpful. But what we’ve tried to do is help companies and organization leadership, at least managers move away from continuously judging people for that individual performance. And try to look at in terms of agility in a way ability to deliver value or to create value. For instance, [inaudible 37:23] rather than a cost center, which is the typical view on old school IT but we delivery part of it, turn it into a value center, many focus on value and then look for balances. How much value are we getting out of this versus how much money in away goes in. That means value, not just money being earned. But it might also be customer satisfaction, competition being blown away and so on. And in order to do that part of the end of that, that people aspect of Scrum self-organization, that requires a very different stance in a way from people from HR. Because it’s in a way people from HR, first of all, we have to get rid of the term HR; human resources because humans aren’t resources.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 38:09

Alright, yeah. Somebody said… you know about that joke, sorry to interrupt. When developer was referred to as a resource and I think it was a manager and developer and one other person. And the developer turned around and said, if you call me a resource one more time, I’ll call you overhead to the manager.

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 38:33

Great. That’s a good answer, yeah. Because people are people, people are not resources, right? Because resources, like sounds like people would be considered as robots, programmable, replaceable pieces of machinery. It’s not what we are. We are people, human beings. We’ve got emotions, we’ve got a private life and so on. And what we try to build on and that’s actually part of an agile transformation tool, certainly with scrum. You try to build on people’s natural ability to be agile, to adapt, to able to capitalize on new insights, new experiences and so. So that’s what we tried to build on. Now, how can you convert your HR human resources to something more respectful and more like a facilitating services towards helping people, really self-organize, develop themselves? So, over the past year, I spoke a lot about humanizing the workplace with defenses or with people it resonates. Before that I called it engagement is the key. Engagement of people across the world is extremely and I would almost say dangerously low. That means across the road, it turns out from surveys and research that only 50 and up to like 30% of people of the workforce say that they’re really engaged, meaning believing their company, coming to work in a spirited way with energy and so on buying into what the company is doing. Most of people go to work like sort of couldn’t care less attitude. More of I wanted to go home as quickly as possible again. So, there’s an enormous 15 to 30% only are really engaged. Look at the room for improvement. We can try to re-engage 70, up to 85% of the workforce. That is massive, that is huge. So, engagement is the key. So, how can we build on people’s ability to self-organize, people’s ability to be agile, adapt with Scrum and help them develop themselves, rather than telling them what to do? All again within a framework, within those boundaries.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 40:48

Just to build on that, that the you know, telling them what to do. Like, I usually describe that I actually asked people in classes and workshops, how many of you actually wake up every week excited to work? And it’s roughly like that, you know, only 30% of people, right? But the other thing, the other two points that are interesting too, is if we are working on multiple projects and the whole cost of context switching is another thing. And then we, you know, I don’t know what it is today. But you probably know, you know, in the past how much we’ve spent on building stuff that’s not valuable. So, you have people that are disengaged, you have people that are context switching and building things that are not the most valuable things for the company. And somehow Scrum is going to fix all of that, right?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 41:37

Yeah, but it’s part of the idea of thinking in terms of what is value, what is valuable? And like only use features in a system that value will get them out because it will improve your life a lot, not engaged workforce that is not adding, that is not helping your ability to deliver value. So, something that you want to work on. We want to do that in HR, we want to build on self-organization, we want to check in with people regularly. But again, we got an event by the end of every speech that checking with people regularly, how do you feel about this stuff? And I hope that those things will also reveal the idea of multitasking or multi-projecting and so on. And it’s good to bring it up because that’s self-organization. Self-organization means for me more than just allowing people to organize themselves in sprints. In essence, being self-managing. So we’re not going to intervene as external, whatever, within your sprint. But there’s more to Scrum. And I’m glad you bring it up because I’ve seen it in a lot of organizations. Sometimes teams become really what I call highly collaborative, they really gel, they get to know each other, they are really flowing. In that sense, performance emerges from that because performance for me is not the goal, collaboration is the goal and performance is a side effect of that. And then a lot of them often plummet again. Why? Because they are being pulled out of the team or their product owner are being sent to another team or the main developer, whatever. And like yeah but there’s more to Scrum self-organization. Scrum self-organization means for me also that if people have the intelligence, the creativity, to organize their own work in short cycles, called sprints and openly, transparently show what they’ve done by the end of the sprint to learn from it, capture feedback as well, if people can do that, that for me also means that people can be accountable for their own team formation. That means external forces outside of the team are not only stopping to interfere in sprints but they should also stop to interfere in team composition.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 43:48

So, do you think that’s why the latest Scrum guide went from self-organizing to self-managing teams? Because the way that I read it, you know, self-organizing teams decide the how, but self-managing teams decide what and how, do you think that’s the case or am I misunderstanding that?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 44:06

No, I have to say that I agree, that’s another thing. For me, self-management, meaning managing your own work on a daily basis in sprint, it’s only the start of self-organization. Self-organization, sort of the next step at least will be for me, what I call not just self-managing teams but also self-designing teams, meaning teams that know who should be on our team, who should not be on a team. So, for me, the self-managing already means the what and the how and the why. On top of that, I believe that we should go for what I call self-designing teams, so not just self-managing. Self-designing teams, people stopping to in a way tear teams apart all the time. Because you break up team dynamics, you break up personal relationships, you break up a system that you can’t really express in words. Which is, again, more much more than the process. So, from self-managing to also self-designing and also to avoid what you just described as context switching because that’s crucial. Because context switching, people, I don’t sometimes do PMO, the department head to senior, whatever saying that you should now go work on that team for the next couple of sprint and I need you over there. That is, at least not helpful. It’s not respectful again, for people. And it expresses a way of thinking in terms of utilization. And that again goes back to the idea that people are considered as resources. Because if you don’t consider people resources, you wouldn’t be trying to take a piece of machinery from one machine and put it into another one. You will just leave the team be for what it is, a combination of people that get to know each other. And you know what I’m thinking in terms of you ever have to feel that one person’s days and weeks of work because he has some sort of special skill. That’s again utilization in this whole view on what is actually should be a creative process. Yeah.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 46:17

How much have we been conditioned, to actually be commanded and control because like, I go in large organizations and somebody that’s been there for 20 years or so doesn’t want any responsibility. Just give me, tell me what to do. And I see as a result of being conditioned in that culture and that system and it’s hard.

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 46:43

I agree. It’s a result of a couple of decades of conditioning, also what I call oppression.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 46:52

That’s a good word for it, yeah.

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 46:54

Yeah, we have taken out all initiative, all ideas that people might bring up. And why did we do that? Because or how did we achieve that in a way because every time in the past, we said to people, you can bring in your own ideas, whenever we didn’t like it, we chop their heads off. And if we keep doing that, for a couple of decades, of course, people will show no more initiative, every now coming with scrum and beautiful ideas about self-organization and they don’t believe us anymore. And I totally get that. So, we have conditioned people. So it takes quite a while to remove that sort of layer of conditioning and show them that now, no, we really mean it. This is serious. And that’s sometimes what you need to do with management and leadership, ask them to be patient because you can’t suddenly over 1, 2, 3 Sprints of time, undo all of that conditioning of the past decades.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 47:54

That goes back to the behaviors and only started with. Maybe, to conclude here, let’s talk for a little bit about the scrum master role. You know, it’s been 25 years since Scrum was defined. And still it seems today that the scrum master role seems to be so misunderstood by so many. Do you share that thought and why do you think that is, yeah?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 48:27

I’ve seen at least some ups and downs in those 17, 18 years of Scrum in the perception of that role. Although I think essentially, it’s still the same role. It looks like they’re struggling with it a little bit in the scrum guide to describe it as well. And it seems to be this tendency nowadays that it’s just a coach role, sitting back you’re not doing anything. Like, I don’t think so. I think Scrum master is also about doing something. The only thing you don’t do is command and control. But you’re not just sitting back, sometimes even by we do nothing, it includes some aspect of doing something because it means being connected, observing and ultimately, at least always in scrum, by the end of everything spent at a retrospective, try to inject, sometimes indirectly, sometimes in a very subtle way, try to inject some of your observations of what happened during the sprint into the team. But in a way that you want to get people to think about it for themselves, not tell them. So, it’s quite an active role. What I’ve seen over the past five, six years in some organizations where they didn’t have scrum masters anymore. Because in all of them were I don’t have all this over there but in country, I live in Belgium but I work a lot in the Netherlands, also organizations and they’re sort of a form of country, which is beautiful. But at some point in time, it all had to be like things like DevOps or something and so on. And suddenly the scrum master role was at least less prominent. And then it disappeared a little bit. It was sort of something you did if you had some time left. And again, sometimes things take time. So, it took a while for a lot of organizations to see why is this not happening anymore? Why is that not happening? Why is that problem not being handled? And then you’re going to ask, oh I think we have a role for that thing. Oh yeah, that’s right, Scrum master. Because but we don’t have a scrum master. So sometimes you try to [cross-talking 50:32]

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 50:32

How much is it like the perceived value of the Scrum Master? Because a lot of times when I talk to senior leaders and, you know, it’s like, why am I paying this person so much? Because all they think is they facility. And then on the other hand, there’s a lot of Scrum masters that see this as an opportunity just to switch from, you know, what I’m doing to the scrum master role without really embracing and understanding what that role is about. So, it’s kind of twofold. One is misunderstanding about the role and the other one is desire to get better at that role as a scrum master.

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 51:11

The unfortunate thing is that even Scrum masters themselves misunderstand the role often. It’s like yeah but I’m the Scrum Master, I can’t do anything. Of course, you can do something like indirectly ask open questions, challenge people, there’s a lot of things you can do. Sometimes you want to teach a technique, bring in a technique and so. The question I often ask in classes, also in leadership is, how many professional sports teams do you know that are both successful, performing whatever you want to call it and do not have a team coach or a team trainer? No, of course not. Because a team sports with a group of people, there’s always a trainer. Let’s call him a trainer for the time being. And then the second question is, what does the trainer do while the game is being played? Well, there’s not much you can do, you watch, you’re on the sideline, you can try to shout and so on but the team probably doesn’t hear you, doesn’t hear your anyhow. But once again, you’ve start asking questions to the team, you think about strategies and tactics and so. That’s the role of a scrum master. Now, in a world of utilization, people are considered as resources. The value of the role of the Scrum Master is fairly difficult to get across. Because you can’t say in terms of utilization, you can’t say how much time you will be spending or what sort of work but you’re making the whole system more fluent. And the only difference is with the game in teams sports is that by the rugby, I believe you have, and that’s where we get the name scrum from. On a daily basis, there’s this little huddle, of the team coming together. So, even during the game taken already make some corrections. So, it’s even more dynamic. But you’re like the team trainer, you do more, you think about psychology, well-being of people, you talk with people individually, talk with them as a group, you take it to the retrospective. If needed throughout the game, if you want and a player comes down to the side line to ask, hey trainer, and you’re there to answer questions as well but you’re making the whole, sort of a well-oiled thing. But the difficulty is that a lot of organizations only see the value of a scrum master once there is no Scrum Master anymore. That’s difficult because it’s a very civil role. And that don’t get skipped from the scrum guard again, which is my view sort of unfortunate. I truly believe in that servant leadership. Now, that they changed in the scrum guide because it was often reduced to servancy only. No, you’re a leader by serving people, you have authority without power. Your authority is from your knowledge, insights into Scrum, into how the game is played, and your leadership is in how you help people develop themselves become better as individuals. And as a team, so you are serving the team but at the same time, you’re the leader. So, it’s not just all the services, it’s not just old school bossing people around, it’s a combination. And that’s a difficult thing.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 54:26

What do you think about the part that they added that the scrum master is responsible for the team effectiveness? That’s something new that’s been added that’s pretty explicit now what Scrum Master is accountable for.

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 54:43

Well, the funny thing is that in a way, it’s sort of it has always been because you’re in that sense accountable for the effective use of Scrum to help them become better as a team, deliver more value, be also be more engaged, more inspired as a team. And you’ve got a whole toolset available for that. The only thing you can’t do is command and control. So even in Scrum terms now, new Scrum guide, even if you’re accountable for the effectiveness of the team, how are you going to try to increase the effectiveness? By serving, leading by example, teaching, facilitating, coaching, sitting back, observing, asking nasty questions, challenging the status quo, whatever, help them think about things. Every possible technique except command and control. So, in a way that hasn’t changed. And I think it’s even a little bit way around. People might now take accountability almost too seriously and stop behaving as a boss because this scrum guide now says that.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 55:50

Yeah. That’s very interesting.

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 55:52

So, I hope we don’t shift the balance from servant leadership, from it used to be only service, you know, in leadership. I hope we don’t turn that around and people forget to also help and serve people. Yeah.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 56:06

Yeah, that’s a really good point. I haven’t thought about it that way. And I use also the coaching analogy a lot. I describe the product owner as a GM, the scrum master as the coach and the developers as the team. And it’s you know, who gets fired when the team is not performing? Right? Usually it’s the coach that’s accountable. But what we’ve seen in sports too, is that command and control does come in when you’re under pressure. So, it’s interesting to see now that we, you know, have that highlighted as accountability. And like I said, is it going to shift where under pressure Scrum masters thought are acting certain way so?

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 56:55

And as we know from sports, firing the team coaches and replacing with somebody else, only in a minority of cases really helps. So, people give the idea we’ve done something, we’ve fired somebody but in the end results often do not really improve. It’s not replacing the team coach itself is not but yeah.

Speaker: Miljan Bajic 57:16

Yeah. No, I love that analogy. And also, like I pointed out to LA Lakers, I played soccer all my life, but for some reason I follow basketball more than I follow soccer. But I talk about like, how LA Lakers in the 2000s had, like, you know, five or six Hall of Famers, really good players, Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant at that time, you know, Karl Malone, all of these superstars, Hall of Fame, careers, and they couldn’t win championships. So, it’s also not just putting budget superstars together, they have to understand how they’re working together. They have to have that chemistry and willingness to you know, so, you know. Coach by themselves can help but also team if they don’t want to help themselves, or don’t have a common goal, it’s the same thing almost.

Speaker: Gunter Verheyen 58:10

Yeah, they’re building on the same analogy. So, I like that a lot, it’s cool.