tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11970474652394127712024-02-06T19:23:30.360-08:00Agile MontageAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-43762611755880676782016-06-01T09:31:00.000-07:002016-06-01T09:31:00.203-07:00Improv for Agile CoachesI see problems in the Agile Coaching community. Most agilists are eager to open their toolbox and reach for their hammers. Guess where the nails are. Right, everywhere! And when they don't get to do that, the disappointment sets in. I guess, it's a complex mix of disdain, condescension, fear of irrelevance, being disheartened, etc. They forget that not everybody wants to change, or not everybody has the same notion of change. Sometimes what looks like a problem is a highly sophisticated reaction to a subtlety. It could be that there are different motivations and personal goals for team members.<br />
<br />
The ability to listen and be aware would be my biggest advice to the community. Improv would be my second advice. That reminds me of what <a href="https://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/~/media/Files/documents/executive-development/leadership-agility-using-improv.pdf" target="_blank">Greg Hohn</a> said:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">Improv is about realizing that everything you need is in the moment. If you are aware of it, you can act on it. </span></blockquote>
<br />
Ask the following questions:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>What is the chaos I see?</li>
<li>Why doesn't that make sense to me?</li>
<li>Why are my ideas not sticking?</li>
<li>What experiments can I run?</li>
<li>What other details can I find out?</li>
</ul>
<br />
Why is this a big deal and what has it got to do with improv? Almost every agilist I see brings a certain bend to the trade. Some prefer people approach, others are process folk. Trying to jam your ideas in can lead to frustration. The path to global optima lies in suspending your own preferences and promoting solutions that the situation dictates. That's the zen of coaching and facilitation.<br />
<div style="font-family: Arial; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-80758543532066537072016-05-03T09:00:00.000-07:002016-05-03T09:00:01.044-07:00A Reason to SlackA common mistake made in the high-tech world is the attempt to maximize the utilization of available capacity. If something isn't being utilized 100% it is a sign of wasted capacity; human or machine, it doesn't matter. When it comes to humans, this is a source of many problems I find myself fixing in enterprises. Appreciation of slack is low, when it comes to human beings. <br />
<br />
In a learning organization, which a high-tech organization has an imperative to be, it is important to constantly improve. Improvements aren't an outcome of magic. They are a result of new ideas put in place. These ideas have to demonstrate a more context sensitive approach to improving the condition of a certain process or approach. This required context sensitivity comes from being able to understand the context, which in-turn requires indulgence. It shouldn't be a surprise that there is time involved in this indulgence. Hence, if you want to improve you have to dedicate time for it. In other words, improvements require capacity. And just as you have a reason to have people, you have people to be able to reason. If you don't want your people to reason, you are better off with automation of some sort.<br />
<br />
As a leader you have to believe in your people's ability to find choices instinctively and spontaneously. History has enough evidence of this human ability already. The only trick is to let the people have some time to think. Slack is therefore necessary. Build it in your enterprise.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-30769371204874083162016-04-05T09:00:00.000-07:002016-04-05T09:00:23.372-07:00From Aggressive to Stupid - The Generational Divide at WorkplaceThere are many privileges to being a consultant. One of them is the opportunity of what I identify as <i>high density learning</i>; many clients, various flavors, and myriad of problems to see in a short span of time. Small startups and large corporations, no process and process-heavy groups, small and large teams, apps and enterprise software, growing and declining businesses. In this experience the thing that stood out is that there is always a generational divide in teams. There are folks who are focused and aggressive (not necessarily bad), and there are those that defy common sense (stupid). What is the source of this variety?<br />
<br />
Startups provide a keen insight into what makes folks aggressive. The <i>can-do</i> attitude is essential for survival of a typical startup. The same trait is also visible in team members at large corporations. However, during some segment of their journey the <i>can-do</i> attitude becomes an opiate of the aggressive type and <i>adventurism</i> sets in. The stakes aren't as high as start-ups, scrutiny may not be as granular, and maybe the coffers aren't as metered.<br />
<br />
<i>Adventurism</i> is good. It is rather essential for a learning enterprise. But it is also the zone that ought to be closely monitored. If the adventurers aren't reigned in or coached, not only will they hurt an enterprise, but they will also indoctrinate the following generation. This new generation won't be nuanced between <i>can-do</i> and <i>adventurism</i> and instead become reckless. This is all about building a culture.<br />
<br />
This is the generational divide I observe in almost all the teams. Recklessness and stupidity have to be called out, when spotted.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-46408184022635516822016-03-01T09:00:00.000-08:002016-03-02T09:34:37.734-08:00The Case for (Agile) LiteracyJohn Stuart Mill said, "The moment the people allows itself to be represented, it stops being free -- it stops being." This sentiment has been the keystone of successful democracies throughout the annals of history. In fact, it is the such a critical piece of democracy and a republic that no philosopher believes it has ever truly been practiced anywhere since the Greeks.<br />
<br />
There has always been a fear that a populace left to itself wills the good but doesn't quite know or see what that good is. That may explain societies with backward general will (customs, laws, etc.) despite reasonable and learned people. "Individuals see the good that they reject; the public wills the good that it doesn't see." A lack of enquiry ferments a lifeless brew and nothing ever changes. Co-incidentally, this intellectual sloth also results in social stigma, which further draws the society towards inaction.<br />
<br />
As an Agilist, who has the privilege of observing many teams, I see a parallel between the social conditions of societies that are unjust, abusive, backward, and tyrannical and organizations that are stagnating. For progress, reason has to prevail. In a society the path to reason comes from an awareness of history and respect for philosophy. Similarly, in organizations that want to be nimble, they have to know the problems that the industry faces, the reasons behind those specific problems, the utility of an Agile mindset to fix those problems, the utility of practices and the reasons they work, their limits, the different flavors of practices, a situational awareness of the current environment, etc. Agile Literacy for each and every person involved in the value stream is a must. Do you hear that Mr. Manager? It includes you as well.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-9816868750879795772016-02-23T10:45:00.001-08:002016-02-23T10:45:13.596-08:00Definition of a TeamAs an Agile coach, the concept of team is quite an arduous task to explain. The essence of a team can only be demonstrated over a long term. It is not a rewarding proposition though; organizations are in perpetual flux, software delivery fires are rampant, and the time pressure to ascend the ladder is enough to not have the patience for seeing organizational patterns in action. I have, therefore, prioritized the need for sharing my mental model of a <i>team</i>.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let us go back in time and understand what in the history of humankind changed with our transition from the 'state of nature' to the 'civil state'. Rousseau has expounded on this transition in his treatise on the social contract.<br />
<ul>
<li>Instincts give way to a sense of justice. In the <i>civil state</i>, humans just don't kill anyone to acquire a shelter or transportation for themselves. In the <i>state of nature</i> they had to. It was all about being the strongest.</li>
<li>Impulse is replaced by a sense of duty. With civility comes the appreciation of a larger good over selfish urges.</li>
<li>Reason trumps inclinations, and morality trumps personal appetite.</li>
</ul>
Humans, in the <i>state of nature</i>, had everything available to them as and when they desired. On the other hand there's the filters of morals, justice, and reasoning before any action in the <i>civil state</i>. It might seem like a drag, but the benefits are much higher. Humans are able to orchestrate bigger undertakings and achieve what might have seemed extremely lofty and unattainable goals in the beginning of time; social safety, security, industry, nation states, etc. All in all, in giving up natural liberties in favor of a social contract, humans have only profited.<br />
<br />
This, in my mind, is a blueprint for a team. Individuals come together, give up some personal freedom with the aim to achieve something grander and beyond the means of an individual. A team is a balance of individual liberties with a body of social contract. Morals and reasoning drive the conduct and inspire a constitution. Whims give way to collective vision and plan of action.<br />
<br />
Boundaries of the team are still not determined. Again, we lean back to the evolution from the <i>state of nature</i> to a <i>civil state</i>. Essentially, humans learned to appreciate the larger benefits of social good. With that interest in mind, while there was an imperative to come together and collaborate, the quality of collaboration was determined only by the outcome. The work of building the social contract didn't stop until the capability to generate the desired outcome was achieved. The efficiency of execution was achieved by structuring the social contract such that the overhead of administration was optimum. In other words, a balance was achieved between the size of groups that were governed and the number of governing units. There's a strong message in this system. Those who survived and became successful kept the final outcome in mind and then divided themselves into governable units/groups. There was no option to not collaborate within the group. It just was essential and the groups that didn't got decimated. This wisdom tacitly passed from generation to generation. Here in originates the second important aspect of a team. The concept of team as a fractal. A team is a group of people that have agreed to collaborate with each other and with other similar groups. It is just that simple. Now you can have a team shared with other teams or teams rolling up to form a bigger team. So, you see, this idea of a team is a fractal, the size of which is determined by our ability to communicate and collaborate.<br />
<br />
No matter what may have worked for one initiative, the next time you want to get an outcome think of organizing in a manner that best facilitates the desired outcome. Prioritize for the ability to communicate swiftly and act decisively. Organize to balance between the efficiency of an individual, the collective gain from a group of individuals, and the drag of an unmanageably large collection of people that are required for an endeavor in this day and age. Don't make the error of suspending inquiry and thinking about ways to organizing; and soon you'll have your definition of a team.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-55415843383874513522015-10-20T10:06:00.004-07:002016-02-26T13:02:35.781-08:00Litmus Test for Coach's EffectivenessSomebody once shared an opinion that most Agile coaches are ineffective. They pontificate, don't listen, are dogmatic, etc. I wondered why that would be the perception. That was until I was in a room with a few coaches. It was quite clear that they weren't adding much value. Their answers were occasionally non-answers. Teams were starving for solutions to their problems.<br />
<br />
As a coach you should have a litmus test for your effectiveness. Here are my guiding principles for situations like these. As a coach you should be able to:<br />
<ul>
<li>Provide a specific solution.</li>
<li>Identify a missing piece in the puzzle.</li>
<li>Reveal a trick or hack.</li>
<li>Guide the questioner philosophically towards self-discovery.</li>
<li>Enable pooling of ideas and perspectives.</li>
</ul>
If you aren't actively doing the above, then recognize that you are merely being a facilitator.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-49169981108558080902015-08-26T14:36:00.000-07:002016-03-02T09:43:50.602-08:00Psychological Substrate of Dysfunctional OrganizationsEvery organization has dysfunctions. Some are, however, dysfunctional to the extent that user/customer/stakeholder dissatisfaction is alarmingly high. Merit of ideas, people, decisions don't matter much. Bad behaviors are not corrected. Little, if at all, ever improves. That's the edge of the cliff. At the core it is a leadership problem. Leaders sometimes do not comprehend the psychology of improvement.<br />
<br />
The key to understanding this organizational and leadership malaise lies in understanding four experiments in psychology.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Stanford Prison Experiment</h4>
In 1971, US Navy and the Marines funded an experiment to study the relationship between prisoners and guards. Philip Zimbardo, a professor of Psychology at Stanford University, setup the experiment in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford. Student participants were setup as prisoners <span style="color: #1c1c1c;">and guards. A warden and a superintendent<span style="color: #1c1c1c;"> were assigned. Guards were given the instruction to make the prisoners powerless by not giving them privacy, creating arbitrariness, boredom, etc. They were instructed to cause no physical harm. Zimbardo was interested in finding out if it is the inherent traits of people that make them behave the way they do, or is it something else?</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #1c1c1c;"><span style="color: #1c1c1c;"><br />
Trouble started on day-2. Things took their own turn; nothing was scripted at this point. As in real life, there were rumors, rebellion, abuse, cruelty, and sadistic tendencies. The experiment was abandoned after 6 days.<br />
<br />
It was demonstrated that the situation, rather than the individual personalities, caused the participants’ behavior. The interesting aspect of the experiment was that it took 6 days to stop it. Why did it take so long? The answer lies in Zimbardo's role; he was the superintendent of the prison. He, himself, got impacted just by the virtue of being associated with the system. As a result he couldn’t see the reality evolving and had to be stopped by his girlfriend, who was visiting him and was shocked to see the horror that Zimbardo was allowing to be unleashed.<br />
<br />
</span></span><br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #1c1c1c;"><span style="color: #1c1c1c;">Milgram Experiment</span></span></h4>
<span style="color: #1c1c1c;"><span style="color: #1c1c1c;">In 1963, right after the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann started, a Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram had a thought. “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?”<br />
<br />
In this experiment an <i>experimenter</i> instructed a <i>teacher</i> (subject) to give shocks to a <i>learner</i> (confederate) everytime the <i>learner</i> gave a wrong answer. The <i>teacher</i> increased the voltage in increments of 15V with every wrong answer. In case the <i>teacher</i> (subject) hesitated they were given a succession of prods by the experimenter: 1) Please continue, 2) The experiment requires that you continue, 3) It is absolutely essential that you continue, and 4) You have no other choice, you must go on.<br />
<br />
The outcome was disturbing. 65% of the <i>teachers</i> (subjects) went on to give electric shocks up to the final level of 450V.<br />
<br />
In his book, Perils or Obedience (1974), Milgram points out a few things:</span></span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #1c1c1c;"><span style="color: #1c1c1c;">An individual who has neither the ability nor the expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. The group is the person's behavioral model.</span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: #1c1c1c;"><span style="color: #1c1c1c;">The essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view themselves as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and they therefore no longer see themselves as responsible for their actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow.</span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: #1c1c1c;"><span style="color: #1c1c1c;">People have learned that when experts tell them something is alright, it probably is, even if it does not seem so.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<span style="color: #1c1c1c;"><span style="color: #1c1c1c;">
<br />
</span></span><br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #1c1c1c;"><span style="color: #1c1c1c;">Stephenson's (Air Blast) Experiment</span></span></h4>
Experimenters observed that wild-reared monkeys wouldn't approach snakes or snake like objects to retrieve food. Lab-reared monkeys, on the other hand, had no hesitation to treat snake as food. This was followed by an air blast experiment where some monkeys were punished with an air blast when they manipulated an object. They were then placed with a naive monkey, who observed the conditioned monkey’s behavior. Then the naive monkey was left alone with the object. The naive monkey learned to not touch the object without first-hand information.<br />
<br />
In another experiment some monkeys saw a car daily but didn’t approach it. Eight months ago two monkeys were shot from this car. Even though all the monkeys didn’t see the shooting, there was a cultural transmission of the incident.<br />
<br />
The researchers concluded, amongst many, that:<br />
<ul>
<li>Admonition and observation are both influencers (information transfer mechanisms) in learned behavior. </li>
<li>Behavior of one member of a pair toward a novel object can alter the behavior of its partner toward that object with lasting consequences.</li>
<li>Pairs demonstrated more courage to manipulate than individuals.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Paul Harris Experiment</h4>
Paul Harris led children to imagine that there is something in a box. In the experiment he opens and closes the boxes. In some cases he says there's a puppy in the box, in others he says there's a monster. The experimenter then walks out of the room leaving behind the box with the child. In cases where the child imagined a puppy in the box, (s)he would try to take a peek inside. In case of a monster, the kid would inch away from the box.<br />
<br />
The experiment hinted that children are wish driven. Until a certain age, they don't quite get the fact that just wishing for or away things don't make them happen.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<br />Conclusion</h3>
These experiments, weaved together, are an insightful description of some of the organizational anti-patterns. The organization is ailing. Fresh blood becomes ineffective observing the admonition or punishments. Command and control becomes a tempting option. Culture goes downhill. Leadership, unknowingly, often becomes an accomplice. They slowly get sensitized to the suffering in the organization, but are detached enough where they "wish" things to be different. A fork in the road appears. Some 'wish' and don't realize that just being wish driven won't make things change, just like children in Paul Harris' experiment. Others understand that wishes are to be followed by action. They then set on to become real change leaders often changing themselves and the situation around them. The latter kind don't need the Stanford Prison Experiment to understand that people react in context of a situation; good or bad.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-88209687021351390902015-08-05T09:00:00.000-07:002015-08-05T09:00:03.432-07:00LO to GO<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7g3EM28URMGFiMVL1xkzlR_s1w0dbPFL5KhJe5y5YakuW4AzneK2BoFlQlnVARjI5e5wXVG9DyYhxlSdr0UdJCbU-QD6KIc9tnuFS7ZlXOZbbsHnMNSIuFXMv1zWwHEFodR2nd9-9ddU/s1600/notmyjob.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7g3EM28URMGFiMVL1xkzlR_s1w0dbPFL5KhJe5y5YakuW4AzneK2BoFlQlnVARjI5e5wXVG9DyYhxlSdr0UdJCbU-QD6KIc9tnuFS7ZlXOZbbsHnMNSIuFXMv1zWwHEFodR2nd9-9ddU/s1600/notmyjob.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
Why do mid-level managers locally optimize (LO)? Are they incapable of seeing the big picture? Don't they want to pursue high-leverage solutions? Why do they bet on sub-optimization? Don't they aspire to be effective leaders someday?<br />
<br />
The very aspiration to rise in an organization is the reason behind innumerable local optima. A common path to the big job leads through declaration of smaller successes. In most organizations, the authority to globally optimize (GO) comes only after building a track record of local optimizations. Here in lies a dichotomy; top leaders hope to achieve their global optima by tolerating local optima. Perhaps there is a motivational aspect to it. Maybe it is a vetting mechanism for identifying the next generation of leaders. How do we get off this vicious cycle of poor leadership development? Is this a new paradox; <i>leadership development paradox</i>?<br />
<br />
I have also observed that there is a positive correlation between hierarchy and LO. More the layers, more the local optimization.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[Image taken from: http://www.juggaar.com/2013_08_01_archive.html]</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-5477365604336803852015-07-14T09:00:00.000-07:002016-03-02T10:38:13.025-08:00When the Generals Retrospected<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This Story begins on the island of St. Helena in 1815. Napoleon is bent over a billiards table, deep in thought, studying a large map. A few yeas ago, in 1812, he fought the Russians and had to retreat. The Russians outmaneuvered him. The invasion proved so disastrous that Napoleon lost 10,000 men and horses in one night alone. He couldn't help but wonder how could the Soviets, with the lineage of the Russians he couldn't defeat, lose to the Afghans. How could the battle hardened Soviets, the masters of offense, veterans of the Russian winters, lords of encirclement, with an army the size of Red Army where leadership and ability determined the rank, not succeed in Afghanistan?
</span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Napoleon immediately turns to his cohorts in the room. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna didn't understand why Napoleon was confused. Napoleon liked Santa Anna. Not because he was a good general, but because Santa Anna called himself the 'Napoleon of the West'. For somebody who began his career in the Spanish Army and quickly rose through the ranks to become the General of the Mexican Army, experienced in wars with Texas, veteran of the Mexican-American War, it was a simple explanation. Santa Anna pointed out the biggest mistakes that the Soviets made:
</span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">It was a hostile territory. Afghan beliefs and traditions violently rejected communist ideology.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Soviets didn't bring a big enough army.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">They didn't win the hearts and minds, and had little respect for the Afghan people. They angered the locals with indiscriminate air and artillery attacks against rural population. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Soviets were unable to seal the border with Pakistan and Iran. Mujahideen kept resupplying their forces from the South and West.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Soviet's will to fight evaporated once the Stingers started shooting down the helicopters.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">They decided to retreat.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Napoleon couldn't believe what he just heard. "It couldn't be that simple, Antonio Lopez!", deplored Napoleon. Alexander the Great was patiently listening. Alexander knew that Napoleon didn't think much of his campaigns. But he knew that Napoleon admired his political methods. This was Alexander's chance to show Napoleon how wise of a commander he was. For that he just couldn't let go of the teachable moment that Napoleon presented to him. He first reminded Napoleon that Santa Anna's assessment was not incorrect. However, Santa Anna's assessment of the Soviet war, as a General, is a shallow one. Lack of deep insight, perhaps, was Santa Anna's biggest shortcoming. That may explain why he lost the battle of San Jacinto to the Texan Army in a mere 18 mins.
</span></div>
</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Napoleon and Alexander started to dissect the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Alexander started to share his observations. Napoleon listened, and Santa Anna prepared to borrow.
</span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<!--?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?-->
<br />
<div style="orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">QUALITY:
</span></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Operational Timing over Adaptation:</b></i> Soviet tactics were meant for a lethal and fast-paced warfare where forces and firepower were choreographed. Tactical initiative wasn't encouraged as it tended to upset operational timing. Mujahideen on the other hand never engaged in positional warfare.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Shoddy Support:</b></i> Soviets continually moved ground forces where they couldn't be covered by air artillery fire. Air assaults didn't have enough indirect fire support. Air assaults often would go without artillery support. There were no mortar platoons, no sapper squads. Army and front aviation didn't support the landings. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Poor Intelligence:</b></i> There was no separation between reconnaissance and combat forces. Reconnaissance was so undermined in the Soviets that occasionally the commanders would take the reconnaissance elements from one force and put it in support of another.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><i>No Lookahead/Lookout:</i></b> Units kept getting lost and surprised. There were no path-finder type units prior to air assaults. Helicopters kept being shot down.</span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Napoleon was confused. "Why didn't they have quality?", he asked. "Two reasons", said Alexander, "Soviets were't learning fast enough and they didn't seem to be motivated."
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">CONTINUOUS LEARNING:
</span></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Playbook:</b></i> Incident after incident, the commanders still rode in lead vehicles, bridges weren't checked for land mines, likely ambush sites weren't probed by dismounted forces, broken down convoy vehicles were still towed at the front of the column right behind the command vehicle. No evidence of any planning to use air mobile forces and likely guerrilla escape routes. Command vehicles had extra antennas. There was a suggestion to strap antennas to all convoy vehicles, but never done. When commanders vehicles were hit, all the communication was lost.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><i>Bunker Mentality:</i></b> Offense has preeminence in the Soviet training. They rarely trained for Defense. To them Defense meant hunker-down-and-wait. It didn't include concepts such as patrols, moving ambushes, mechanical ambushes, and aggressive reconnaissance.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Guerrilla warfare is a platoon leader's and company commander's war. Soviets suffered on this front because of top-driven lack of initiative.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Ceremonial Inspections:</b></i> Regimental commander throughly inspected people and equipment prior to a regiment moving out. The entire regiment would lay out its equipment on the parade ground. All equipment would be laid out on tarps in front of the vehicles. Equipment was checked and accounted for. Uniforms would be checked with templates for spacings and for displays. This took three days. This tipped off the mujahideen. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><i>Skills:</i></b> Air assault troops weren't trained to fire small arms from lift helicopters door while in flight.</span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">MOTIVATION:
</span></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="font-weight: bold;">Reluctant Leaders:</i> Soviets didn't commit enough forces to the war. They wanted to have enough troops to support the Marxist-Leninist govt. and then have the Afghans govt. to build its own troops to fight its own battle.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><i>Reluctant Forces:</i></b> Soviet infantry were uninspired conscripts who were generally reluctant to close with the dedicated and motivated mujahideen. So, the Soviets relied heavily on gunships. Stinger came in 1988. Helicopters were getting old, required more maintenance. But the Soviets were reluctant and unwilling to make a larger logistic and psychological commitment to the war.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><i>Discipline:</i></b> Mujahideen owned the night. Night patrols and ambushes were singularly planned events, not a routine mission.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Lacked the Final Blow:</b></i> Soviets rarely dismounted from their vehicles. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Fearful:</b></i> The Soviets discovered that slight wounds at high altitude can rapidly turn fatal.</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">"I can't believe that the Soviets weren't learning.", said Napoleon. Alexander, peeled the onion a bit more and asserted that the troops weren't learning. It is that the leadership wasn't learning. "But the leadership was on the ground as well, right? How could it be that they were not learning?", asked Napoleon. And to this, Alexander replied, "Trust is the root cause of the disconnected Soviet leadership."
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">TRUST:
</span></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Commanders Command:</b></i> Senior commanders didn't always trust their local commander to "do-it-right". It was common practice for senior commanders to take command of a subordinate's unit when the task got challenging or fun. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Culture of Medals:</b></i> Multi-battalion block and sweep were conducted by the chief-of-staff of the Turkestan Mililtary District, as an example. Remote commanders collected combat medals without an actual tour of duty.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Overrode Training: </b></i> Soviets were trained for squad and platoon sized ambushes but didn't use squads size ambushes since their NCOs weren't professionals and hence weren't trusted.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><i>High Radio Traffic:</i></b> Soviets desired positive control at all times. Resulting unnecessarily high radio traffic created sloppiness in encryption. </span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">"Big deal the leaders didn't trust the NCOs! They still could have damaged the mujahideen. Why couldn't they?", asked Napoleon. Alexander replied, "They didn't have the right tools and lacked the discipline."
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">TOOLS:
</span></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><i>Gear: </i></b>Boots were noisy and unsuitable for climbing mountains. Sleeping bags were made of cotton and weren't waterproof.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Food:</b></i> Shiny cans reflected sunlight and aided reconnaissance for the mujahideen. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><i>Communication:</i></b> Radios were ineffective in the mountains.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><i>No Light Infantry:</i></b> Soviets had motorized rifle forces. Soldiers were never supposed to be more than 200 meters away from their vehicle. As a result, a 35 pound flak jacket never received anybody's attention. Load bearing equipment and rucksacks weren't meant to be used outside of armored personnel carriers.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Weight:</b></i> Soviets emphasized on mass firepower, rather than accuracy. Hence, dismounted soldiers carried a whole lot more ammunition. Soldiers were less agile and couldn't catch up with Afghan guerrillas.</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">DISCIPLINE:
</span></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Reconnaissance:</b></i> Soviets weren't disciplined about defecating and trash management. This left-behind trace revealed the size of their ambush parties. They also smoked. Damper cooler nights exposed the Soviets who smoked the stronger and pungent Russian cigarettes.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Surrenders:</b></i> Sometimes Soviets lost the discipline of ambush and asked for surrender. This exposed them and took the element of surprise away.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Communication Gaps:</b></i> Soviets platoons, companies, battlions, regiments, and divisions were tactical. Armies and fronts were operational. Operations that had to co-ordinate between tactical and operational had communication problems. Sometimes the air drops would happen before the ground forces could reach the target, and the guerrillas would escape with no ground resistance. Soviets never had the element of surprise.</span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">"But they still out-gunned and out-equipped the enemy. Why, why would they then not be able to defeat them?" "Morale and Mindset", said Alexander. "They didn't define victory, there were no measurements for it. And whatever they measured, they didn't know how to react to it."
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">MORALE:
</span></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Definition of Success:</b></i> Operation after operation the Mujahideen body count was in dozens and actions were deemed a success. The only problem was that the Soviets were always engaging the rear guards or the slow or the uninformed guerrillas. Soviets didn't study the Vietnam war closely. If they did, they'd have discovered that guerrilla forces are difficult to destroy and body count is poor metric.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Disease:</b></i> 1/4 to 1/3 of a unit's strength was typically down with hepatitis, typhus, malaria, amoebic dysentery, or meningitis. An already smaller than required force with disease running rampant brought the morale down.</span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">MINDSET:
</span></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Psychologically Weak:</b></i> Soviet's preferences for large scale operations didn't give them the required confidence in smaller and tactical operations.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Small Arms:</b></i> Soviets used to run out of ammunition in a day. Small arms marksmanship is important in the West. Soviets on the other hand believed that small arms fire only suppresses the enemy. A standard Soviet assault rifle grade goes from Safe -> Automatic -> Semiautomatic. The standard Western assault rifle fire selection is Safe -> Semiautomatic -> Automatic. Soviets saw fully automatic as the norm. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>Dis-integral Units:</b></i> Soviets assembled scratch units time and again. There were no habitual relationships in the Soviet Army.</span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Reassessing the Soviet strategy from Alexander's perspective made Napoleon think of his luck. He never examined history to ask what Alexander or Hannibal would do in similar battle situations. Napoleon occasionally said, "Give me lucky generals", in response to some historians' claim that he was lucky. But today he had Alexander give him the deepest insights. In a flash he recalled Lord Byron's description of him as an almost Washington of the Worlds. He raised his head to look around the table expecting to see Hannibal Barca in the room. Waterloo was on his mind.
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The lesson may be from history, but I can't help but correlate the lessons to the corporate world. We need to get the Santa Annas to start thinking and learning like the Alexanders and Napoleons. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-34588363850046821942015-07-02T09:00:00.001-07:002015-07-02T09:00:02.836-07:00The Bliss of Guiding PrinciplesRules are usually an annoyance in organizations. Follow them strictly and they will inhibit innovation. Use them loosely and they will breed indiscipline, squalor, and chaos. Or, at least, that is the fear about less or no rules.<br />
<br />
Rules are a reaction to a fear of a past damage reoccurring. The bigger the damage, the stricter the rules. It burden us with a tighter grip that stifles and grinds stuff to a halt. Rules also breeds a history-centric culture.<br />
<br />
Guiding principles are a better tool. They permit variability, allow decentralize decision making, prompt thinking, and prevent build up of a police-state. Let's take a guiding principle as an example. "Don't be stupid." In its elaborate form it could highlight principles such as:<br />
<ul>
<li>Don't jeopardize the business legally, financially, or in the market.</li>
<li>Don't do anything unless you are clear of the benefits.</li>
<li>Don't tolerate deception and distortion either in the market or within the company.</li>
<li>Don't command when you can converse, don't just converse when you can collaborate.</li>
</ul>
<div>
I am a big fan of guiding principles because they:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Test everybody's integrity on a daily basis.</li>
<li>Increase chances of innovation, risk taking, and collaborative decision making. </li>
<li>Promote a culture of humility and accountability.</li>
<li>Promote a culture of mentorship.</li>
<li>Breed a culture of mutual respect.</li>
<li>Shreds down the compliance DNA of the organization.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
The last benefit above is the most important to me. Guiding principles take us away from the shackles of the invisible tyrant called history-centric mindset to the enabling freedom of context-specificity. A guiding principles driven organization forces logic, reasoning, morality, ethics, integrity, vision, and entrepreneurship down the hierarchy. That increases the flow of consciousness and builds a culturally robust organization.<br />
<br />
Replace rules with guiding principles where ever you can in an organization and see the magic start to happen. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-48649461359233606752015-06-23T09:00:00.000-07:002015-08-21T14:29:59.911-07:00Through the DoorsResponse to crises in an organization is a telling moment. Leadership gets summoned, war rooms are set up, and drones are put in action. Educated and experienced people are treated like grasshoppers; over the shoulder supervision, micromanagement, and condescending mindset.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to notice that in most cases the actors involved in such thrillers are actually adults who are law abiding, pay their taxes, and are good parents and spouses. They probably follow traffic rules and also don't litter around them. Yet, something about the corporate environment has turned it blind to the potential of these people when they walk into offices.<br />
<br />
A transition that a good executive has to go through as (s)he advances the corporate ladder is to cease worrying about skills and habits. Their focal point becomes the standards. The better ones take it further and focus on promoting values. Value/cultural reconstruction requires reconstruction of social perception. Not only outcomes (success and failure) have to be redefined, but also the inputs (people).<br />
<br />
Next time you encounter a crisis as an executive, treat your team as a group of adults. Let them demonstrate problem solving, decision making, time management, and facilitation skills. Stick around to answer their questions, observe personality styles, provide specific and contextual feedback, pose questions and to see system constraints in action. Use this knowledge to remove systemic constraints, build your guiding principles, and hone your value structure. Magic will start to happen.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-18843715609544986712015-06-02T09:00:00.000-07:002015-06-02T09:00:04.046-07:00Got Complexicated?Dave Snowden (<a href="http://cognitive-edge.com/" target="_blank">Cynefin Model</a>) and Frederic Laloux (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Organizations-Frederic-Laloux/dp/2960133501" target="_blank">Reinventing Organizations</a>) talk about complicated and complex situations. It is hard to determine cause and effect in complex systems until they have stabilized, e.g. corporate cultures, or spaghetti. Complicated systems on the other hand are analytical in behavior that you can potentially diagram, e.g. airplanes or software code. Software development can, however, get complex because of the analysis and co-ordination aspects. In some cases it gets complex due the organizational culture of excessive politicking that in-turn leads to irrationality.<br />
<br />
Software development in large corporate environment is a mix of complex and complicated aspects; it's <i>complexicated</i>. As a coach, I carry the mindset of complexicated over complex. The reason is motivational. If I allow myself to see it only as complex then it results in paralysis. However, when I see it as complexicated I always find parts that are complicated. The obvious first steps is to start turning the complicated into simple; not too simple either. Dealing with the complex is hard. This is where ingenuity becomes the tool of choice. It is key to understand a complexicated system to set the right expectations. "I will fix the complicated fast, but I may not be able to fix the complex." Or, something like, "Complicated can be taught and trained, but complex will require mentoring and coaching." Or, "Complicated takes months, but complex takes years."<br />
<br />
Complexicated models may also be of interest to systems thinkers. The complexicated mindset allows the system thinkers to set the boundaries of the system so as to keep the complex out of it. It permits them to utilize a different set of tools for the complex.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-57727690472592476982015-05-19T10:00:00.000-07:002015-08-21T14:30:57.137-07:00Don't Bother Scaling Excellence <span style="background-color: white; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">99 out of 100 attempts to scale excellence will fail. That's a radical opinion to hold. This is my reaction to some in the industry who want to scale Agile or believe in setting up centers of excellence, which they are not. Just sample the meetups, conferences, and consulting sales pitches and you'll find as many varieties of snake oil as you like.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">Lack of fear and an appetite to learn are the two most critical components of excelling at anything. Notice how we learn language or skills such as bike riding. Not surprisingly, our workplaces are too often flush with: </span><span style="background-color: white; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"> </span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">Hierarchy of fear - Fear is often misunderstood to be a singular thing; a monolith. That is not quite true. Individuals and organizations have a hierarchy of fear. Think of it as a stack </span></span><span style="line-height: 18px;">ranging from a fear of embarrassment to fear of being fired.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"> </span></span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">Roadblocks to learning - Bandwidth, stamina, and productivity are the top 3 obstacles to maintaining a culture of learning. Sadly, all three are in short supply in workplaces. That seldom permits the slack required for learning.</span></span></span></li>
</ul>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
I have met only a couple of managers or executives, in my entire consulting career, who demonstrate awareness of these two challenges in their organizations. Almost all of them are overly focused on productivity and technical expertise. Employees don't have time to learn and don't have people management skills in these organizations. I call this the situation of compounded deficit.</div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
How can an environment of fear be mended? A<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;">hierarchy</span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"> of fear requires systematic desensitization. Eliminating fear from an environment requires not only an awareness of them but also a mindset of organized counter conditioning. Listening, building an environment of safety, and the garnish of continuos feedback start eroding away common workplace fears. I once had a privilege to witness power-mentoring in progress. A young recent graduate </span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;">(Damon) </span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">on a large integration project approached the Tech Lead (Tom) seeking his advice. His team was building a critical application that enabled about a quarter of a million dollars in revenue every hour. Damon was attempting to get Tom's validation on his approach. At that point, there were a few possible recommendations</span></span></span><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">. Tom chose an approach that taught me a lot. He asked Damon if he'd feel comfortable putting his solution in production environment. That, I think, not only provided Damon the answer he was looking for but also set a tone in the team - do what you think is right as long as it won't hurt the company and you can stand behind it. This is how the team became self-directed on certain fronts. Imagine if all the leaders had that approach to building safety and growing people. To me this is a good example of counter conditioning for fear.</span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-26001319113285838002015-05-06T13:58:00.002-07:002015-05-13T11:33:49.422-07:00What about Inspiration?We communicate enough; few ever say they don't. A better enquiry would be on the content. What do you communicate for? Information, coordination, generating solutions? Until I read <a href="http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/219944/ubicomp14_brown2.pdf" target="_blank">this</a> paper I never asked the question, "How do you communicate for inspiration?"<br />
<ul>
<li>How does your organization inspire its members? </li>
<li>What do they get inspired for? </li>
<li>How do you know they are inspired?</li>
</ul>
These are important guiding questions. They are also the kind of questions that a leader should ask. The answers lead to actions that we expect leaders to undertake.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-82388027356652297742015-04-28T09:00:00.000-07:002015-05-01T09:46:41.370-07:00Boards, Metrics, and Open Space - What's the Intent?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlLI2c5u_1GazQfl5FBCzgVgizTXxah3i3eZ7hpHIf5YQeDXtaJU0UVSfpB24hHv5zavRmVJqbL5Ywfk9gvAQM0tG-wIStCeqyo8aId84ryuUrnePlmjMvyDk6q8_-7mGmcCDgy2ug5fw/s1600/Tunnel-Vision.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlLI2c5u_1GazQfl5FBCzgVgizTXxah3i3eZ7hpHIf5YQeDXtaJU0UVSfpB24hHv5zavRmVJqbL5Ywfk9gvAQM0tG-wIStCeqyo8aId84ryuUrnePlmjMvyDk6q8_-7mGmcCDgy2ug5fw/s1600/Tunnel-Vision.png" height="186" width="200" /></a></div>
As an Agile Coach, it is easy to predict some of the resistance I run into irrespective of the specifics of the organization. Information visualization, metrics, and open space configuration is amongst those perpetual items. "Why do we want information radiators/boards?", "Why are you not utilizing all the available capacity?", "Why do we sit in open spaces?".<br />
<br />
It is common to run into teams where decisions aren't made in time. Some even get paralyzed because of a big backlog of pending decisions. Often the root cause of underperforming teams is not a lack of decision making. Rather, it is bad decisions being made. The path of decision making looks like below:<br />
<br />
<i>Situation Awareness --> Sensemaking --> Exploration --> Decision Making</i><br />
<br />
A critical step in the decision making process is generating situation awareness. When teams meet to make decisions they attempt to generate situation awareness in a short and time-deficient environment; let's say the first half hour of an hour long meeting. The lack of time creates a perfect environment to skip the sense making and exploration steps. A decision is made. The rest of the game gets handed over to chance.<br />
<div>
<br />
<div>
The biggest objective behind the practices of information radiation and open space configuration is to generate <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_awareness" target="_blank">situation awareness</a>. This is one of the intangible outcomes we want to generate. <i>"Knowing what is going on so you can figure out what to do."</i><br />
<br />
Another area of interest for me is to build an environment of foresight. Most team are reactionary and depend highly on retrospectives for improvement(s). The intent is to look back at what just happened, understand why it happened, and then fix it. Good teams, however, do something more. They are able to anticipate what's still to come. They see things emerging. That sense to detect emergence is amplified by a heightened situation awareness. Yet another reason to have boards and open spaces.<br />
<br />
An <a href="http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/books/1234000000774/ch08.html#the_missing_diagnosis" target="_blank">example</a> of the situation awareness and decision making loop in daily life could be the health inspection reports in restaurants.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #191919; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.3999996185303px; widows: 1;">In 1997, for example, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance that requires restaurants to post highly visible letter grades (A, B, C) on their front windows that are based on the results of County Department of Health Services inspections. This transparency system makes it much easier for patrons to avoid restaurants with dirty kitchens or otherwise unsafe practices. There is substantial evidence that the system has worked. Revenues at “C” restaurants declined and those of “A” restaurants increased after the policy was implemented. Over the course of a few years, the number of “C” restaurants decreased and the number of “A” restaurants increased. Perhaps most importantly, fewer people are getting sick from food poisoning after the implementation of the report card system. Studies estimate that hospitalizations from foodborne illnesses have decreased from 20% to 13%.</span></blockquote>
A related post about open spaces is available <a href="http://bizvalu.blogspot.com/2007/10/open-space-configuration-dawn-of-new.html" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[Image taken from: http://www.samatters.com/explaining-tunnel-vision/]</span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-1882378138634293502015-04-22T11:21:00.002-07:002015-06-24T11:19:09.988-07:00Management Lessons from my Kids<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-ZkoY8gXCSiTKzHtaetPZo8NLC6AK51VHAPt-BM5jv_urFnBsyLXBr0-KKue_lO1_-fFDUnYVSBmugprQ0_7L1Au0_gGVMlol82qiIgtMCqhgKFvm92VHbt10seq6F0-OPbd9aut_YD0/s1600/DSC_0134.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br /><img border="0" height="227" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-ZkoY8gXCSiTKzHtaetPZo8NLC6AK51VHAPt-BM5jv_urFnBsyLXBr0-KKue_lO1_-fFDUnYVSBmugprQ0_7L1Au0_gGVMlol82qiIgtMCqhgKFvm92VHbt10seq6F0-OPbd9aut_YD0/s1600/DSC_0134.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
As a parent of two young kids, I have numerous learning opportunities. Very early on I realized that these are not just lessons in raising kids, but also nuggets of wisdom that I can repurpose for my professional life. You can connect the dots between what I learn at home and how I attempt to apply it at work.<br />
<ul>
<li>Growing systems need constant attention. 2 oz every 2 hours may have been a month old's diet. It won't suffice for a 3 month old. Things change fast in growing systems. What was sufficient last week may not be next week. Keep an eye out and constantly ask if you are doing enough. </li>
<li>You will be imitated. If you (mis)behave, they will too. <i>Observational learning </i>is on 24x7. In other words, you are being watched. Be careful about what you say, do, and how you react. Or, how you treat people around you. Your behavior will be your organization's culture.</li>
<li>Talking accelerates learning. Kids who are engaged by their parent in conversations usually have a rich and nuanced vocabulary. Talk to your people as much as you can. Listen to them as much as you can. It's not a waste of time.</li>
<li>As kids learn your language and vocabulary they'll say things that are incorrect. Take pride in their learning. Don't fret the incorrectness of it. Or as the in the world of improv it is, "There are no mistakes, only opportunities."</li>
<li>They'll ask you the "why". You are expected to think. Have a genuine reason for everything you do. Or don't expect the kids to do it. Having a right reason is a key step in motivation.</li>
<li>Kids have opinions about you. Just ask them. Build reciprocity of feedback. New ways for having tough conversations will emerge. Seek constant feedback from your teams about yourself.</li>
<li>Step out of their way. You will be surprised by the level of concentration, enthusiasm, play, and creativity. The ease with which kids self-internalize the lessons learnt is stupendous. Don't micromanage, and build a culture of play.</li>
<li>Things will break and there will be a mess. Graffiti on the walls is the cost of learning and having fun at it. Focus on improving the penmanship and identifying better surfaces. Small infractions may sometimes be signs of a playful and vibrant team. They are essential for growth.</li>
<li>Kids read/watch/play what they like. They can do it over and over again. That's how they get good at it. It is our job to push the boundary and introduce them to new things. Stretching and intellectual challenges are required to break a culture of complacence.</li>
<li>Older kids are the best tutors. Exposure to next level of proficiency is the best motivator. Expose your teams to craftsmanship and excellence, even if you have to hire it from outside.</li>
<li>Analogies are an effective problem solving tool. Difficult concepts are better understood with analogies. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," kind of conversations have a big impact with examples and analogies. </li>
<li>Don't pile on instructions and advice. Kids have a limited attention span and bandwidth to absorb verbal instructions. Change/growth comes in baby steps and requires repetition. Changes won't happen overnight. Be persistent and stay patient.</li>
</ul>
<div>
My list will keep growing as I learn more. In reviewing this small list there is enough that can be impactful. Mirror this list to your organization's leadership culture. Where can your leaders improve? Where can you improve?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-51801828780185365682015-04-21T16:44:00.004-07:002015-04-22T09:36:31.128-07:00Highly Organized yet Dynamic<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi4zVW3qIJZPfuepZYOjTsuKXrtg2yNVnrvP_pTj6LQrWT1t9wRCeGVHAPnJPYoUyqrudLMSHVAm831UdaebeoWJ4Kq7AaLg7idtr8lo3aLz8iq66I4Axl05rTvPtnSDfXCVggF5p4H20/s1600/ant-bridge_2302146k-530x331.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi4zVW3qIJZPfuepZYOjTsuKXrtg2yNVnrvP_pTj6LQrWT1t9wRCeGVHAPnJPYoUyqrudLMSHVAm831UdaebeoWJ4Kq7AaLg7idtr8lo3aLz8iq66I4Axl05rTvPtnSDfXCVggF5p4H20/s1600/ant-bridge_2302146k-530x331.jpg" height="199" width="320" /></a>Agile aspirants often struggle to form an opinion on its structure. Process heavy organizations tend to like the lightweight, bare bones, and low-key aspects <span style="font-size: x-small;">(incorrectly interpreted as ad-hoc)</span>, whereas the chaotic and growing organizations gravitate towards the organizational rigor (<span style="font-size: x-small;">akin to Scrum) </span>of Agile. It is also noteworthy that a good majority of them exist in a state of technical disorientation; unaware of XP.<br />
<br />
As a coach, I aspire to build highly organized yet dynamic systems. Structure to drive discipline, and dynamism to continually improve the structure. This is an important expectation to set with the teams/management; things will change. It is a team's obligation to build the right checks and balances so that dynamism doesn't lead to instability and underperformance.<br />
<br />
Operating even with that mindset often left me frustrated. Discomfort with the 'ever-changing' landscape ran rampant on the teams. Desperate for an improvement in my proficiency, that began to improve when I started addressing the collective mental model of the team(s). I progressed in my focus from the single-loop to the double loop learning model. The idea that feedback and mental models alone are sufficient to make sound decisions (single-loop) is not enough. Mental Model itself has to shift over time (double-loop). An example of analyzing a mental model is well documented by Richard Paul and Linda Elder in their book, <i>Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life:</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; widows: 1;">In the United States, for example, most people are raised to believe that the U.S. form of economic system (capitalism) is superior to all others. When we are speaking in ideological ways, we call it “free enterprise.” We also often assume (ideologically) that no country can be truly democratic unless it uses an economic system similar to ours. Furthermore, we assume that the major alternative economic systems are either “wrong” or “enslaving” or “evil” (the “evil empire”). We are encouraged to think of the world in this simplistic way by movies, the news, schooling, political speeches, and a thousand other social rituals. Raised in the United States, we internalize different concepts, beliefs, and assumptions about ourselves and the world than we would had we been raised in China or Iran (for example). Nevertheless, no lexicographer would confuse these ideological meanings with the foundational meanings of the words in a bona fide dictionary of the English language. The word "communism" would never be given the gloss of an economic system that enslaves the people. The word "capitalism" would never be given the gloss of an economic system essential to a democratic society.</span></blockquote>
Just as above, we have to start questioning our beliefs and assumptions. This will eventually lead to a change in mental model.<br />
<br />
As an admirer of the Dave Snowden's Cynefin framework, I find the organized yet dynamic state of operation to be advantageous. It provides for an occasional (un)intentional drift into a borderline chaotic state, which provisions us the opportunities to update our mental models. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[Image taken from: http://www.nextnature.net/2013/07/what-ant-colony-networks-can-tell-us-about-what’s-next-for-digital-networks/]</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-45826653819415471282015-03-10T10:54:00.001-07:002015-03-10T10:54:43.042-07:00Beware of Next in Line<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiomfRevqAH5bvAIzKOdsHaMIz_YpVZC65bd_r6YFWUQ1tq0RVO7csiOSXQjAgX0HhVFt_36F0vImCnnPN8EF52oaMD1xoFFPpaGXs3wob9hklNVlif3kRgYtcCfLvCbYJ0nyBWEuFciE/s1600/standup2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiomfRevqAH5bvAIzKOdsHaMIz_YpVZC65bd_r6YFWUQ1tq0RVO7csiOSXQjAgX0HhVFt_36F0vImCnnPN8EF52oaMD1xoFFPpaGXs3wob9hklNVlif3kRgYtcCfLvCbYJ0nyBWEuFciE/s1600/standup2.jpg" height="215" width="320" /></a></div>
Agile teams typically follow one of the following three patterns during their daily standup; <i>random</i>, <i>round robin</i>, and <i>story-time</i>. I would guess most do not find randomness productive. When it comes to choosing between round robin and story-time, most of us choose round robin.<br />
<br />
In round robin pattern every individual on the team answers three questions; "What did I do yesterday?", "Where am I stuck?", and "What do I plan to do next?". Round robin has a hidden cost; stitching up the individual daily progress narratives to understand an individual story's progress. Recently, I discovered a way to express another reason to not like round robin as much; <i>next in line effect</i>. People have diminished recall of words of others who spoke immediately before or after them. If A, B, and C are standing next to each other then B won't listen to A because B is mentally getting ready to speak next. A won't retain what B said because A is likely to be still processing the feedback (s)he just got, and analyzing if (s)he shared all what (s)he had to.<br />
<br />
That is the reason I prefer the story-time format. In the story-time pattern, each story on the board is discussed daily for its progress. Visit each story on the board in the order of priority. If it is a pairing culture then the pair speaks up. Otherwise it's the individuals.<br />
<br />
What other patterns have you found useful?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[Image taken from: http://www.xqa.com.ar/visualmanagement/tag/process/]</span><br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-22242107593520907032015-03-03T10:48:00.002-08:002015-05-01T10:06:20.855-07:00The Lost Sailors<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlzN9LEZlWlZwKJFWrkUwKOtIgvT3IfCHyt_rC6uHdWQDh9DKVf_FHwIOgzYT45Vypo4fvbjXlhuGhY6VH-q8CPznP6A9KSblbdJKZ1Q4h4WXg6TnXVms4z7Sup0mWxx9NpjgfLl1ciEM/s1600/4am+Ship.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlzN9LEZlWlZwKJFWrkUwKOtIgvT3IfCHyt_rC6uHdWQDh9DKVf_FHwIOgzYT45Vypo4fvbjXlhuGhY6VH-q8CPznP6A9KSblbdJKZ1Q4h4WXg6TnXVms4z7Sup0mWxx9NpjgfLl1ciEM/s1600/4am+Ship.jpg" height="187" width="320" /></a><br />
One of the biggest differences between good sailors and lost sailors is their ability to read the compass, and react. Those who look at the compass in time reach places they intend to.<br />
<!--?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?-->
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Agile coaches wonder why most managers don't get it. Is it illiteracy of the compass or the lack of discipline to look at it? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On a bright sunny day I was playing with my toddler son. It was insightful. He'd wait for the ball with his hands on the ground, and the ball would pass by within inches of him. He'd then look back at it speeding away, surprised. After about 15 mins of play that behavior changed. He still waited in the catching position, but started to visually track the ball as it passed by him almost until it stopped. On the other hand 5-6 year old kids in the group not only visually tracked the ball, but also reoriented themselves real-time.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There's a strong analogy, in my mind, between the above scenario and what I notice in a lot of managers. We <i>know</i> our stuff, but fail to <i>play</i> it out. We can <i>read</i> the compass but are not able to <i>react</i> to it.<br />
<br />
There's an intermediate stage between reading and reacting to the compass. Fear of a panic attack. The Quartermaster of the Deck notices the ship heading in the wrong direction. Helmsman finds out. But, (s)he insist not to share that with the Officer of the Deck. Fear of potential panic on the ship or Captain's wrath cripples them both. The situation only gets worse from there on as the perception of panic becomes higher with the passage of time. Sounds familiar?<br />
<br />
This last scenario is quite potent. In it, it carries the power to catapult you (or an organization) from the ranks of sailors to that of explorers. The confidence in being able to digest (bad) news and course-correct is what, very likely, nudged the explores to discover new lands.</div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[Image taken from: http://4amchickenscratch.blogspot.com/]</span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-31978278733291985712015-02-24T10:31:00.000-08:002015-02-24T10:31:02.340-08:00Why I dislike RACI<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtGtE42gABEzuBfpW0vr66YrVPTNrpdSA5RvKEj4smCVm4qj1PRuU95emcKin3rMafAK-HdWzOxDcgwtL7oBs4NUxNN71vNRHJXWe2sdssvcYZGYw2ufCLKJI-bmDhK2ak5qdKycCq0dk/s1600/Raci-Tweet.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtGtE42gABEzuBfpW0vr66YrVPTNrpdSA5RvKEj4smCVm4qj1PRuU95emcKin3rMafAK-HdWzOxDcgwtL7oBs4NUxNN71vNRHJXWe2sdssvcYZGYw2ufCLKJI-bmDhK2ak5qdKycCq0dk/s1600/Raci-Tweet.png" height="87" width="320" /></a></div>
The tweet to the right is the essence of what makes some large organizations ineffective at delivering products. In gist, it tells us that the more we "officially" delineate our responsibilities the less likely we are to get stuff done.<br />
<br />
I wasn't quite able to articulate why I didn't like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix" target="_blank">RACI</a>. This tweet helped me. RACI permits people to abdicate their responsibility of team-work and collaboration. RACI robs its followers the opportunity to understand team work. RACI builds a culture of blame and excuses.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-26712635454964278052015-02-17T11:10:00.000-08:002015-02-17T11:10:30.655-08:00Paris Hilton and Management<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8IYOxoqAmstX1-q-rMcVXqKlrMXS74EVGUgMR0vzrsbX1O_CPcvaA21_JMexn_OrDXo23a7OozSeTluvBSa1-w12HNNxBgqM2yFShQ_YsPonV531pgb_HT7m5R0JzG-JSVSn9jZNiwPw/s1600/Paris-Hilton.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8IYOxoqAmstX1-q-rMcVXqKlrMXS74EVGUgMR0vzrsbX1O_CPcvaA21_JMexn_OrDXo23a7OozSeTluvBSa1-w12HNNxBgqM2yFShQ_YsPonV531pgb_HT7m5R0JzG-JSVSn9jZNiwPw/s1600/Paris-Hilton.jpg" height="202" width="320" /></a>Never pass a mirror without looking in it. This is Paris Hilton's philosophy.<br />
<br />
The value of this mindset as a management technique, especially in Agile software, is immense.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">"Never miss a chance to observe your work."</span></blockquote>
Imagine if we had this discipline to execute and manage our work. What if we extended the boundaries of our consciousness, just from ourselves, to also include the work we produce?<br />
<br />
I am saddened every time I encounter an ecosystem that has little insight into progress/performance. Usually, there is a careless over-reliance on tools that don't paint the entire picture. A simple spreadsheet would do the trick, but the desire to be an "observer" doesn't exist. A corollary is that by the time this realization sets in, it is usually too late; fear of the upper management's wrath sets in. And, the death marches begin.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[Image taken from: http://www.timesunion.com/entertainment/movies/slideshow/Cannes-Film-Festival-Stars-in-black-and-white-86142/photo-6329074.php]</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-38822364342109408522015-01-27T20:58:00.002-08:002015-01-28T10:31:19.083-08:00Key to Fearlessness<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3dnvGD6O4k_yA08GpKmsf97208pX3Hvx4b3xk0U_FWIc3r01pQ-_zyVqthGiaYFxJzXbOsyPr4wVOiBOUQdl_d2t8Jg9ujigNIgQ1yLs_djx8kktfe0lQAsMKyeloSFSjqzpmi0OCiV8/s1600/holy-roman-emperor-henry-iv-arguing-with-pope-gregory-vii-at-worms-1076.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3dnvGD6O4k_yA08GpKmsf97208pX3Hvx4b3xk0U_FWIc3r01pQ-_zyVqthGiaYFxJzXbOsyPr4wVOiBOUQdl_d2t8Jg9ujigNIgQ1yLs_djx8kktfe0lQAsMKyeloSFSjqzpmi0OCiV8/s1600/holy-roman-emperor-henry-iv-arguing-with-pope-gregory-vii-at-worms-1076.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a>There're elephants in meeting rooms. There is environment of fear in organizations. And yet some seem unfazed by it and address the problems head on. They dare to have difficult conversations. I once heard a peer wonder about an individual, "Why is that some folks are fearless?" I have wondered about it myself at times. Is it their confidence in their skills? Are they suicidal? Do they not have career aspirations? I am not sure. However, there is a correlation I have noticed between their behavior and their ability to articulate. It is highly likely that the fearless amongst us are good at expressing themselves coherently. The underlying phenomenon, I think, is their ability to dissect a problem, just like peeling the onion, and the ability to make others comfortable during the process. The objectivity required in the process, which these people often demonstrate, is also the reason why they are able to get the airtime they have.<br />
<br />
Ever since I have noticed this correlation, I strive to peel the onion. Articulation is required practice in parallel. </div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[Image taken from: http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Holy-Roman-Emperor-Henry-IV-Arguing-with-Pope-Gregory-VII-at-Worms-1076-Posters_i9658287_.htm]</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-4038409498973267472014-08-05T11:55:00.000-07:002014-08-05T11:55:20.681-07:00Project Retrospective - SOCCER format <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYnN-Zp2RhDmyJH2inbp5FbYhhTDtp0Zx03IKPF65hIjhg6Nt9Th78E8Nw5aa16Myoy6ayl8AOAmKUHDuvjDKVpUYArbnTR1nFlsrDn6heo9vN30lRWqUaDehSGv_rcVHXsbaRlTVlN-8/s1600/IMG_20140801_121150.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYnN-Zp2RhDmyJH2inbp5FbYhhTDtp0Zx03IKPF65hIjhg6Nt9Th78E8Nw5aa16Myoy6ayl8AOAmKUHDuvjDKVpUYArbnTR1nFlsrDn6heo9vN30lRWqUaDehSGv_rcVHXsbaRlTVlN-8/s1600/IMG_20140801_121150.jpg" height="200" width="150" /></a>Recently I conducted a project retrospective with a set of focus areas, which I abbreviated as SOCCER:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><u>S</u>torytime</li>
<li><u>O</u>pportunities</li>
<li><u>C</u>ulture</li>
<li><u>C</u>onfusion</li>
<li><u>E</u>mergency (E<u>R</u>)</li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3_Cyaso39vsit1U7WalVvfwb2hfjk9r5bpNtzjo2aIdZV9KI0-SF4XJR0asid71HfGieInxPFXmvaJwJ13bFAA_LNmqHdqKtPEMxrm97Xcthqch3qo3rzFNPtKFb2b9lZCHNLtFXB-hU/s1600/IMG_20140801_140227.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3_Cyaso39vsit1U7WalVvfwb2hfjk9r5bpNtzjo2aIdZV9KI0-SF4XJR0asid71HfGieInxPFXmvaJwJ13bFAA_LNmqHdqKtPEMxrm97Xcthqch3qo3rzFNPtKFb2b9lZCHNLtFXB-hU/s1600/IMG_20140801_140227.jpg" height="200" width="150" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVO9DUj7EEm_07mipRMYjqHvRqlDcIKXGVFnXL2bLWE2NmxXWohflHe8jrlcapJ7hP9kRXQZqeiO_8MqiIlQ06AUHpkyvtsPagL1TCESdeugMDKZKg4QVWWIuPZuDOsbs_X7KMhrjQcc0/s1600/IMG_20140801_132313.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVO9DUj7EEm_07mipRMYjqHvRqlDcIKXGVFnXL2bLWE2NmxXWohflHe8jrlcapJ7hP9kRXQZqeiO_8MqiIlQ06AUHpkyvtsPagL1TCESdeugMDKZKg4QVWWIuPZuDOsbs_X7KMhrjQcc0/s1600/IMG_20140801_132313.jpg" height="200" width="150" /></a></div>
The idea was to allow the team to focus on its strengths, gradually move to stuff that needed improvement, and close with identifying items that should be fixed right away.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Mechanics</h3>
<br />
After spending about an hour with the team building the project timeline, we summarized the project in about 10 mins. The team then dealt with each of the SOCCER categories one at a time for about a half hour each. To help generate ideas and conversation, I created a few sample statements/questions for each of the SOCCER items as under. Then the SOCCER categories were dealt in the following order.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Story-time</h4>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqskKSTRdvseezgbGUXWSCcpw6lc0rMa51yZKWjxavPD4rPCUqgp7tAhxUs576Njh3FEq8L7zUC6Mvj-NnWIleMOCDRtYFLCQLnoT03tupb16RGQOoxkezmA3NhJl-xzqXvKqwy38rTW4/s1600/IMG_20140801_134226.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqskKSTRdvseezgbGUXWSCcpw6lc0rMa51yZKWjxavPD4rPCUqgp7tAhxUs576Njh3FEq8L7zUC6Mvj-NnWIleMOCDRtYFLCQLnoT03tupb16RGQOoxkezmA3NhJl-xzqXvKqwy38rTW4/s1600/IMG_20140801_134226.jpg" height="200" width="150" /></a>"When I tell a story about this project, I'll always remember …."<br />
<br />
<h4>
Opportunities</h4>
"I was productive and in flow when …"<br />
"I would like to be included in …. "<br />
"I think we should …."<br />
"Why don't we …"<br />
<br />
<h4>
Confusion</h4>
"This confused me …."<br />
"I am still confused about …."<br />
"Why did I/we do that …."<br />
<br />
<h4>
Culture</h4>
"I was disappointed by …."<br />
"We cheated when/because …."<br />
"I lied or misinformed because …."<br />
"I should have, but I didn't …."<br />
<br />
<h4>
ER</h4>
"I found this meeting wasteful …."<br />
"In my role I struggled because …."<br />
"Nobody seems to care about fixing …."<br />
"I doubt that the leadership knows about …."<br />
"I wish my leadership supported me in …."<br />
<br />
As feedback the team suggested that I can improve the quality of questions. E.g. In the <i>Culture</i> my questions seem to seek only things that should be improved and not the things that are brilliant.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-72909003285116790762014-04-09T09:10:00.000-07:002014-04-11T15:57:34.472-07:00Verb to Noun<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8Mbv1gdHtlk0H51huqYbrsOs4I8CTp_t0ggXCHhU1Ylr_EBPtoHpR58_z7kL3nqrhAFg4WPzceMlLLWaoeVuwht_W2ROroCZOVLXH1kbg-SWh1Wq6ZAiSxrpsTNEOrKw8swPpeulePM4/s1600/Inverted-Retinal-Display.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; display: inline !important; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8Mbv1gdHtlk0H51huqYbrsOs4I8CTp_t0ggXCHhU1Ylr_EBPtoHpR58_z7kL3nqrhAFg4WPzceMlLLWaoeVuwht_W2ROroCZOVLXH1kbg-SWh1Wq6ZAiSxrpsTNEOrKw8swPpeulePM4/s1600/Inverted-Retinal-Display.jpg" height="178" width="320" /></a></div>
I mostly visualize concepts in pictures. Just as the lens in human eye inverts an image upside down, quite often this is also a reality in organizational change management. Agile adoption is a case in example. Executives want the organization to be agile (verb). Between several layers of hierarchy the vision is inverted to Agile (noun). Instead of being nimble, middle management incorporates bloat (heavy processes, templates, audits, and assessments). It is not a surprise then how many such initiatives fail to demonstrate any significant improvements. Even more painful is to see teams getting robbed of a chance to understand and experience what it really means to be agile (verb) and nimble. Rather, edicts that create more problems than it solves are abundant. Take for example the notion of less documentation. On several occasions I encounter teams that don't get what it means. Either someone is getting by without putting pen to paper (no user stories, on the fly analysis), or somebody is having to document eternal change (software design documents). I have found only one way to solve this problem. Abandon the noun approach, and adopt the verb approach. Understand the purpose of documentation and then follow some simple rules such as:<br />
<div>
<ul>
<li>Document only when you can identify a consumer for the information and (s)he indicates that (s)he needs it.</li>
<li>Attempt to offload documentation to its consumer. Usually, it minimizes the need for it.</li>
<li>Maintain one and only one source for each kind of information. </li>
<li>Make the source of information more accessible rather than create yet another incarnation.</li>
<li>In future try to do better, unless the situations warrants otherwise.</li>
</ul>
<div>
This is what being agile (verb) means. On the contrary, doing Agile (noun), would create a suboptimal ecosystem where somebody is working more than (s)he should, while the other person is not still getting what (s)he needs. And, a litmus test is when you get asked, "What is Agile's take on documentation?"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[Image taken from: http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/21495/why-are-objects-far-away-inverted-through-a-lens-but-not-through-the-viewfinder]</span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197047465239412771.post-10027817111448609512014-03-25T09:00:00.000-07:002014-03-26T22:56:41.468-07:00Entrapments of Idealism<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMqI3Dhwa25ulIeV_oUyrc6khuZskhOwQuOmqWamLDjpOh_ZBd8OJqqdh5c0M2bJyLjtpZWks-5zeR88RQGBQLH1aEya_QV9d03aavY0TcSIKn2eNn1YwdigWNZc9IBIeNGnJcLsIolBk/s1600/Pragmatic-Dreamer.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMqI3Dhwa25ulIeV_oUyrc6khuZskhOwQuOmqWamLDjpOh_ZBd8OJqqdh5c0M2bJyLjtpZWks-5zeR88RQGBQLH1aEya_QV9d03aavY0TcSIKn2eNn1YwdigWNZc9IBIeNGnJcLsIolBk/s1600/Pragmatic-Dreamer.gif" height="320" width="189" /></a><span style="color: #323333; font-family: Palatino;">Have you heard of things such as "zero defect policy" and "100% unit test coverage"? Or things such as codification of every step of the process; I'm sure you have been presented copious flow charts and documents that state the obvious. Take for example a group that I was engaged with. In their Definition of Done for a user story, which was about ten bullet list long, one item is 'Code Complete and Compiling'. I call this situation the entrapment of the ideals. These idealisms are taking joy out of work. Not that they are incorrect. It is that they generate emotions, which sooner or later breed cynicism, kill improvisation, and create bogus work that is sometimes euphemistically knows as diminishing return. Environments that don't take corrective action to curb such tendencies create a culture of pluralistic ignorance. Individuals are aware of these absurdities but stay silent to avoid being tattooed as bigots. The operating delusion is that this idealism is helpful in strengthening the capabilities of an organization. </span><br />
<span style="color: #323333; font-family: Palatino;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #323333; font-family: Palatino;">In the bunch of things I'd like to mix in a workplace stew, pragmatism would be my number one choice.</span>
<br />
<span style="color: #323333; font-family: Palatino; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #323333; font-family: Palatino; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #323333; font-family: Palatino; font-size: 12px;">[Image taken from: </span><span style="color: #323333; font-family: Palatino;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">http://ryandow.com/ic/2012/07/26/pragmatic-dreamer/</span></span><span style="color: #323333; font-family: Palatino; font-size: 12px;">]</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18202707193541079173noreply@blogger.com0