What Got You Here – Won’t Get You There

As I contemplate this year past at 3am in the morning – when I invariably turn myself inside out – it has been a roller coaster ride. A journey of happiness and joy, satisfaction, disappointment, excitement, disillusionment, re-grouping,  acceptance, learning,coming up for air.

Its always intense. Transformations occur at a point of time when you change from one thing to another – heavy duty.  Its disruptive.

And I have always said that you learn most about yourself as a leader, that you grow personally and professionally through the toughest of times and where you are brutally honest with yourself.

Hold a mirror up and look at what looks back at you. Do you like what you see? Do you sleep soundly at night?

And as a leader I believe it is a necessity that you do endure adversity and learn from it.

So my last article for 2015 is about leadership

Dan Rock (Leadership Freak) re-tells a story in a Leader You Can’t Live Without . He’s in conversation with a board member and shares his view that truly successful leaders will constantly develop their replacement. The board member in question is shocked. He holds a common belief that leaders create value by making themselves indispensable.

And perhaps the greatest test of leadership is what happens when you’re gone.

I agree with Dan – an indispensable leader – leads a dependent organisation.

And a great leader leaves the team and the organisation with higher capability and in a better place.  And these leaders can be quiet leaders and are often overlooked.

Susan Cain in her book “Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking” talked about how our traditional bias towards extroverted leaders (dynamic, showy ‘alpha’ leaders) has got to the point that excellent introverted leaders are increasingly overlooked.

She noted some real disadvantages regarding the alpha extrovert profile – they may be infectious, but their confidence is often wrong because they will often hold forth very confidently on the basis – that they have the answer – that they alone know best.

  “These leaders can be so intent on putting their own stamp on events that they risk losing others’ good ideas along the way and allowing workers to lapse into passivity,”

And underneath – these leaders only really care for themselves, their own advancement and making a mark.

I know – because I used to be one of them.

This is what I thought leadership was – really! I was rewarded for it and thought I was successful. I actually believed in my own hype.

Until a previous manager  in a Telco , lets call her Claire –  pointed this truth out to me – those characteristics – that I did not want to see and said simply;

“What got you here will not get you there”

And  this was the catalyst for the most significant change in my own leadership journey.  I do still wrestle with some of those characteristics and if anything have now become that introverted leader.

This can seem a dichotomy or a contradiction to others and has on occasion caused me to be misunderstood. I do aspire to quiet leadership.

And if I sit back, its because I am striving to listen. If I am not offering my own opinion as loudly as others – its because I am wanting to elicit the opinions of others. If I don’t tell you what to do – its not because I lack leadership – but I knowyou already know the answer.

I suspect I now need to be more vocal in my own leadership stand.

Enough about me  – lets talk about you.

Perhaps you’ve been feeling less confident in your leadership ability, maybe the team isn’t really humming, perhaps you’re feeling a bit isolated and lonely or you’ve been having conflict with peers and your team. Perhaps you have flashes of rare insight. Perhaps you feel no one really tells you the real story?

Perhaps you know deep down that it’s all about you.

And these are all signs that what got you here won’t get you there. Do you recognise yourself?

In a similar vein Simon Sinek in Why Leaders Eat Last says there are many leaders who aim to raise their own status without really fulfilling their responsibilities as leaders.

While we may achieve alpha status and rise in the ranks, possess talents and strengths that could earmark us for alpha status, we really only become true leaders when we accept the responsibility to protect those in our care.

Inwardly focused and intoxicated by ‘success’ some of us rising leaders don’t know or forget that our responsibility as a leader is to our people. Sadly this describes individuals and senior leadership teams in many organisations.

But it’s not all of our own fault – Steve Denning says the reality is that in traditional organisations the world of “management” is vertical. Its mind-set is vertical. Power trickles down. Big leaders appoint little leaders. Compensation correlates with rank. Tasks are assigned. Managers assess performance. Rules tightly circumscribe discretion.

Some of us know nothing else

And some of us know better

This type of company with this leadership have a hard time with innovation and they are being systemically disrupted by new players. And it’s economy—the Traditional Economy—is in decline. In stark contrast the world of start-ups and the big players in the new economy is horizontal. Vend, Xero, Uber, Spotify you know them.

Agile working, new economy working or whatever you want to call it – has spread rapidly and has established some footholds in most of the tall vertical organizations. Its benefits are obvious after all. Don’t all we all want to be more successful than we currently are?

I remain unconvinced about a traditional organisations understanding of what the true meaning of transformation to this new economy working really entails.

Because this transformation – at its essence is first and foremost behavioural. It requires every single leader in that organisation to give up old constructs of what leadership is, to reject the notion of vertical hierarchy and individual success.

This new mindset is horizontal, its purpose is to delight customers. Making money is the result, not the goal of its activities. Its focus is on continuous innovation. Its dynamic is enablement, rather than control. Its communications are horizontal collaborative conversations. And we aspire to liberate the full talents and capacities of those doing the work.

As we all take a hard earned break over the holiday season – will you reflect on your leadership stand?

Do you feel you’re a better person and your team is better because of it?

Do you really know what your team really thinks and say’s about you?

Perhaps the most important question is, what defines your character that communicates your value of people?

The answer to that question is essentially in your character and it will determine the level of ‘motivated trust’ that people will give you.

And as Dan Rock states

Leaders – who aren’t creating leaders – corrode the future. An indispensable leader leads a dependent organization

Follow The White Rabbit Neo

Matrix“We humans have indeed always been adept at dovetailing our minds and skills to the shape of our current tools and aids. But when those tools and aids start dovetailing back — when our technologies actively, automatically, and continually tailor themselves to us, just as we do to them — then the line between tool and user becomes flimsy indeed.” – Andy Clark

We are on the verge of witnessing something akin to the invention of the wheel, as epic as fire and space travel and the rapid convergence of two systems that will cause an evolutionary leap for human kind.

It is the Internet of Things.

Now that we are extending intelligent sensors into everyday objects, Jason Silva says these objects will have agency and when all of these objects talk to one another and give us feedback the world is going to become intelligent and responsive.

“Now we are going to be able to anticipate our needs, the world is going to feel like an extension of our mindedness.  When everything becomes linked with everything else – matter becomes mind.

When the tools and aids start talking back the loop will be finished, we would have fully spread our minds into the Universe – this is the Internet of Things

It promises to essentially blur the distinction between self and world

You think this is way in the future? Think now

Aimed at helping to prevent SIDS, the Mimo monitor is a new kind of infant monitor that provides parents with real-time information about their baby’s breathing, skin temperature, body position, and activity level on their smartphones.

Sensors inside equipment can monitor if any parts need a service  and automatically sends reports to owners and manufacturers. Early predictions on equipment malfunctions can be made with parts and service maintenance can be automatically scheduled ahead of a an actual part failure. Think of the implications for everyday items like washing machines, fridges, ovens & cars.

In Japan driverless taxis will be operational from 2016 in an experiment with that could be fully commercial by the time Tokyo hosts the Olympics in 2020. The taxis will take about 50 residents of Fujisawa from their homes to supermarkets in journeys of about 3km. Robot Taxi – a collaboration between ZMP, and mobile internet firm DeNa If the Fujisawa trials are successful, the cars could be used to ferry spectators around at the 2020 Games and in rural communities with little or no public transport.

Get the picture?

Gordon Hiu, HBR says that for organisations, the IOT is so impactful and so fundamental we need to be thinking now about what our  businesses will be, what we can offer when the physical world is merged with the virtual world and potentially every physical object can be both intelligent and networked.

We need to be moving towards web-based business models because when things are networked, that has an impact on how value and services are offered. It will no longer be for example the manufactured product that is the focus, but rather the web-based service that people access through that device.

The value being created does not come from the oven, washing machine or from the fridge but from the benefits that those connected devices enable. The internet of things isn’t about the “things”. It’s about service. And that idea is revolutionary.

Micheal Chui , McKinsey  Quarterly March 2010  wrote there were early warnings for companies. He stated that  business models based on today’s static information architectures would face major challenges. For example when a customer’s buying preferences were sensed in real time at a specific location, dynamic pricing may increase the odds of a purchase.

Knowing how often or intensively a product is used can create additional options—usage fees rather than outright sale, for example. Manufacturing processes studded with a multitude of sensors can be controlled more precisely, raising efficiency. And when operating environments are monitored continuously for hazards or when objects can take corrective action to avoid damage, risks and costs diminish. Companies that take advantage of these capabilities stand to gain against competitors that don’t.

As a result he says a completely contrasting business model, operating structure and culture is required. For the Internet of Things to emerge, they will collide in traditional organisations

One of the biggest obstacles will be that traditional functional departments, traditional top down ways of work wont and cant meet the needs of an IoT business model.

They must evolve or die.

Within companies, big changes in the information architecture will have massive implications for organizational structures, as well as for the way decisions are made, operations are managed, and processes are conceived.

In a previous article, Something In The Water, before I had heard about the Internet of Things,  I wrote about  Carl Jung’s Collective Unconscious theory. Collective unconscious coined by Carl Jung, proposes to be a part of the unconscious mind, expressed in humanity and all life forms.

He distinguished the collective unconscious from the personal unconscious, in that the personal unconscious is a personal reservoir of experience unique to each individual, while the collective unconscious collects and organizes those personal experiences in a similar way with each member of a particular species.

So back then I posed a question – is the web exposing and transforming our collective unconsciousness to a global collective consciousness?

The human collective consciousness seems to be wide open and wanting to connect to others and before the web we lived in relatively isolated individual worlds.

Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee in his blog said that the web is a new model of universal consciousness in which knowledge is readily available to anyone, anywhere. We have instant access to a unified body of knowledge and the potential for interconnecting with everyone else who is on the web.

The unified connectivity presented by the web has been long known to the mystic, who in meditation has access to a dimension of oneness in which everything is simultaneously present, and all knowledge is accessible.

The experience of samadhi, or super-conscious state, happens on this plane of oneness. But the Internet presents a model of a unified consciousness that is accessible on a more physical plane, to anyone who has access to a computer.

The web is not a hierarchical structure and is globally democratic and you can see it changing and it carries the blueprint of its potential—a consciousness and interrelationships that has no barriers of nationality or geography.

It is present everywhere at the same time.

He believes that we as a species are evolving and that through the expanded web of individual relationships throughout the planet – like a cellular structure – is coming alive and will continually make new connections.

It is possible to ponder that as these connections of both knowledge and people andnow devices are made – will evolve to make further connections in a way similar to how the individual brain activates and accesses information.

And here it is

At a critical point then will the interrelationships and flow of information come alive and begin to function as a unified field? When a unified level of consciousness on a global level is activated.

The full flourish of this technology promises to essentially blur the distinction between self and world. The entire world will have mind in it. Its how the cognitive phliopshers David Chalmers and Andy Clarke used to say, we’ve always been adept at dovetailing our minds to tools, but when our tools start talking back, the loop will be finished. We would have fully spread our minds into the universe

This is the internet of things

This is why it’s a game changer

And this is why it absolutely rattles my imagination

So read up on it right?

David Silva – Shots of Awe

Adventures in Agile – Going To Abilene

Aberline

I’d been reading aloud to my husband chapters from The Humane Workplace by my friend Amanda Sterling. In Collaborative Communities, she talks about the myth that an open plan office will make authentic, transparent communication and collaboration happen. She says that group think is also more likely to emerge when physical boundaries are removed, as the lack of boundaries encourages homogeneity because people are nervous about standing out as individuals.

I have seen this Abilene Paradox happen in new teams, old teams even. It can be confounding and not without irony when faced with this phenomenon in Agile teams – I personally find it the mother of agile anti-patterns to deal with.

Merely saying you want self management, self directed teams – does not make it magically happen even within the context of good and fertile systems and conditions.

So what is the Abilene Paradox? And why should we care?

The term was introduced by  Jerry B. Harvey in his 1974 article The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement.

On a hot afternoon in a family is comfortably sitting on a porch, the father-in-law suggests they go to Abilene, a town about 90 km away for dinner. The wife agrees and the husband, despite not really wanting to agrees too and says, “Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go.” The mother-in-law says she wants to go as she hasn’t been tto Abilene in a long time.”

The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad as the drive. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted.

One of them dishonestly says, “It was a great trip, wasn’t it?” The mother-in-law says she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic. The husband says, “I didn’t want to go I only went to satisfy the rest of you. The  wife says she went along to keep everyone happy.  The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.

The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it.

The phenomenon is explained by theories of social conformity and social influence which suggest human beings are often very averse to acting contrary to the trend of a group. It may occur when individuals experience action-anxiety — stress concerning the group expressing negative attitudes towards them if they do not go along.

This action-anxiety arises from what Harvey termed “negative fantasies” — unpleasant visualizations of what the group might say or do if individuals are honest about their opinions — when there is “real risk” of displeasure and negative consequences for not going along. The individual may experience “separation anxiety”, fearing exclusion from the group. 

Travel the road to Abilene and you’ll arrive at a place where deeply held, logical values fall victim to group dynamics. It’s a bumpy ride that can culminate in meaningless outcomes and blame, but you can skip the trip if you know how to read the signs….

Lack of Transparency

This can happen when members of a team exhibit different opinions in a group setting as opposed to one on one. If people are telling you one thing and then offering their true opinions in private, not wanting to speak up in a group setting – then its suggestive of group think. Especially where the right conditions exist, ie a social contract is in place, team self-management is being actively desired and true opinions are being encouraged.

People will often “go along to get along” if they have any doubt at all about what will happen if they present opposition.

Members Discouraged To Lead

When someone on the team offers constructive dissent or starts to lead – the homogeneity of the group can be threatened. Anyone sticking their head up over the precipice may be told they are trying to manage. In Agile teams you even hear cries of “command and control”. Leadership is not command and control. In healthy mature self-managing teams different members will come forth at different times and lead. Self-management does not mean consensual homogeneity

Members Don’t Hold Each Other Account

For fear of upsetting anyone in the group, the group often won’t hold each other to account for the work being done (or not done)  If no-one feels the freedom to point out that the work hasn’t been completed in a sprint or where the definition of done wasn’t achieved, then no one wants to take responsibility for them either.  Anyone then holding the team to account as a peer can be ostracized, no longer welcome in the clique.

Members Exhibit A Lack of Trust

Eventually this lack of transparency erodes trust. Team politics can emerge and cliques can form. I’ve seen a whole team form a clique which excluded the poor Product Owner. This is symptom of a low maturity team mistakenly viewing the Product Owner as manager and creating a “them and us” dynamic.

SO WHAT DO WE DO?  

Look at the system that is enabling this anti pattern to exist, to thrive even. Change the system.

Make Room For Individuals

I use the Sail Boat, Wind and Anchor exercise (thanks to my “roomie” Kathleen Coulton Agile Coach, Trans America). You draw a boat on the board with sails on the sea. You draw the island as the Agile team destination and talk with the team about what will be their wind in the sails, and what the anchors weighing them down, you do this on stickies as an individual exercise which you then discuss as a team. Silent brainstorming is also another good technique. Or “round robins” where you collect on stickies everyone’s opinions.

Facilitate Don’t Manage Conflict         

Don’t seek to manage or smooth over conflict. Facilitate it, call it out in Retrospectives.  Help the team with practical tools like how to give impact feedback or the use of a Conflict Dynamics Model and how they will as a team agree to surface conflict.   Dealing successfully and openly with conflict can be most emancipatory for the team

Change the Language

Avoid language that plays to agreement in groups

Canvas each person’s opinion privately and then bring those views with you to the table rather than “is anyone opposed to this, because anyone slightly opposed won’t speak up. Don’t use rule by consensus where everyone must agree – I think that’s a common myth in Agile. Use data and transparency to make the best decisions

Educate That Agile Is Not A Free For All  – Its Leadership for All!

The team will have direction set and work within certain parameters but anyone can lead at any time. In an Agile environment, we are all expected to be leaders.  Anyone can trust and delegate, have a clear vision and communicate it to others.  Any team member can ask questions and solicit suggestions. Anyone can make a stand.

Agile is Simple But Hard!

Adventures In Agile – The One About It Being Hard

broken wings

Agile is a culture

Its not a product or a set of processes, it’s a mind-set and Michael Sahota writes about this comprehensively in his survival guide to agile transformation. Scrum he says is designed to be disruptive and introduces new roles, the Product Owner, the Scrum Master and the Team.

For a leadership team in the early stages of Agile transformation, the introduction of new concepts such as transparency, trust and collaboration can be emancipatory and emotional.

For some the early stages of the agile mindset shift it can feel like a transcendental experience, for me at least I spent a good 12 months firmly in this space.

I’d written about this in earlier articles as a consciousness awakening, I found others of the same ilk, some found me.

I can spot the difference because those that have made the shift are just different from those who haven’t. Perhaps it’s the transparency and collaboration factor, they seem to have a different energy, vibe and presence.

Now I am in privileged and humbled to be able to help others through this journey, while I am still on this journey myself.

It’s been described as an emotional roller coaster and in the very early stages of our journey the team likened it to being in an amusement park or a circus.

It’s magical, mysterious and powerful and right now it’s hard.

I think we’re all  facing the day to day reality that we are trying to change ourselves, how we work, our mindset and still operate within a larger organisation who are not Agile and that we must now operate in a dual culture.

We have all in our own ways opened our minds and have wholeheartedly embraced the change, we are getting better at inspecting and adapting everything we do, and we are moving through that really uncomfortable place where we are trying, succeeding and sometimes failing on the way to our goal.

But this agile transformation isn’t about us as a leadership team.

It’s about whom we have been entrusted to lead. Simon Sinek so eloquently describes this when he talks about why leadership matters. He says leaders set the tone and when a leader makes the choice to put the safety (feeling safe and a sense of belonging) and lives of the people inside the organisation first, so that the people remain and feel safe and feel like they belong.

So we are beginning to ask our people to help us rebuild an ecosystem and mindset which previously saw them not being trusted completely to get the job done, and where we did not create an inclusive environment that fostered trust, courage or transparency.

We are at the first stages of learning about servant leadership and what it might mean and it’s a natural partner with agile.

If we are no longer managers of people than who are we, what value do we bring?

But this isn’t about us

It’s about our people

Take these broken wings

Take these broken wings

And learn to fly again, learn to live so free

When we hear the voices sing

The book of love will open up and let us in

Take these broken wings

Adventures in Agile – The One About Populist HR Writers

peacock

A couple of interesting events happened last week in our agile journey

One was about ownership and team self-management and this resulted in greater levels of trust and understanding between the Scrum team and the Service Owner (Rudi the General Manager). I’m going to write about this separately because this is still unfolding.

The other is tension created when one part of the organisation is agile and the way the rest of the organisation is managed. So this is top of mind for me and I’ve read a couple of really interesting articles.  As I am in an HR/Agile Coach hybrid role, it is the people practices that really stand out for me as requiring a different focus and upwards change leadership to align these.

These have been further reinforced in a twitter chat with David D’Souza and David Ulrich, where we had interesting debate and an Employment Today article on the future of HR, where you could see the contrasting views from traditional HR management thinkers, Chris Till, Rowan Tonkin – the new Richard Westney, Amanda Stirling and myself.

Steve Denning in his Forbes article “Why Managers Hate Agile” says the reality is that “management” and “Agile” are two different worlds. The world of “management” is vertical. Its mindset is vertical. Power trickles down. Big leaders appoint little leaders. Compensation correlates with rank. Tasks are assigned. Managers assess performance. Rules tightly circumscribe discretion.

“The purpose of this vertical world is self-evident: to make money for the shareholders… Its communications are top-down. Its values are efficiency and predictability.  The key to succeeding in this world is tight control. Its dynamic is conservative: to preserve the gains of the past”

This type of company has a hard time with innovation, they are being systemically disrupted by new players. And it’s economy—the Traditional Economy—is in decline.

In stark contrast the Agile world is horizontal. Denning talks about it spreading rapidly like a virus and has already established footholds in most of the tall vertical organizations. And the Agile mindset is horizontal, its purpose is to delight customers.

Making money is the result, not the goal of its activities.

Its focus is on continuous innovation. Its dynamic is enablement, rather than control. Its communications are horizontal collaborative conversations. We aspire to liberate the full talents and capacities of those doing the work.

“It is oriented to understanding and creating the future. It believes in banking, not necessarily banks. It believes in accommodation, not necessarily hotels. It believes in transport, not necessarily cars. It believes in health, not necessarily hospitals. It believes in education, not necessarily schools”.

And its economy—the Creative Economy—is thriving.

So its no wonder then that there would be tension in the way we are in the Agile world and the traditional way of management and traditional HR.

And both have little insight into what is Agile. That’s for software right? Nothing to do with management or HR right?

Wrong

The roots of agile were established to solve for the problems of hierarchy. The premise is in hierarchy work is organized with individuals reporting to bosses who tell them what to do and control their work.

Firms with a vertical mindset at the top, like IBM, are struggling and organisations in the horizontal world of Agile, like Apple, Uber, Spotify, Zero, Vend, Zappos and Google, are busy growing and inventing the future.

Agile has got everything to do with HR

Because in this new way of how we work the basic dynamics are reversed. Denning talks about the key differences:

  • Instead of a vertical dynamic of hierarchical bureaucracy with people reporting to bosses, these organizations are operating horizontally with a focus on the customer.
  • Instead of a controlling principles the approach is one of self-management.
  • Instead of static linear plans, plans are iterative and continuously on the move.
  • Instead of a workplace that is dispiriting to staff, the workplace is interesting, even inspiring, because people have the autonomy to deliver their best.
  • Instead of the customer being absent, the customer is now central. The goal of the firm is to delight the customer.

HR needs to reinvent itself – right now it’s based on Management 1.0 dynamics and with this mindset you will make yourself and your organisation obsolete.

Agile HR concerns itself with the system that enables self-management, collaboration and cultivation and adjusts its people practices accordingly.

Agile HR has deep understanding of the systemic nature of organisations and has an agile mindset.

Agile HR challenges the dynamic of hierarchal bureaucracy and many approval steps, that in essence says we don’t trust our people to make the right decisions.

Populism – a political doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general people, especially contrasting those interests with the interests of the elite

 

 

 

Adventures In Agile – The Mad Hatters Tea Party

carnie

I’ve read Joakim Sunden’s article on the role of Agile Coach at Spotify. This is a role I played in addition to HR Business Partner and Change Agent in the Agile Transformation at the contact centre.

The blend was unusual and it did give me the unique ability to change some of the approach to people practices, realign the cultural dimensions as well as implementing Agile practices and methods, but sometimes I felt I was the mad hatter at my own tea party.

This mix of coaching a leadership team towards Agile, driving organisational change, implementing Agile practices and methods and working to change mind-sets to Agile and HR meant I wore far too many hats.

In hindsight I should have better leveraged the people and resources that were there instead of trying to do it all myself. My biggest issue was being too black and white and too quickly attaching a label of whether someone was of an Agile mindset or not.

I was simply being protectionist – which isn’t collaborative or transparent. I wasn’t being completely Agile.

If someone offers you help – believe me its better for you to educate, coach and help them see the this better way of working. Let them be the judge.

Better for you, for them and for the people your serving.

Having worked as an change consultant for many years and HR practitioner, I was converted to Agile and did my scrum masters certification. Like Joakim I longed  for an opportunity backed by strong sponsorship for Agile and continuous improvement.

I knew agile could work just as well in a non technology function.

And it does!

Its not exactly the same as you’d find in software development but it has all of the elements of Agile and Scrum.

I remember writing about the challenge of trying to implement Agile when the rest of the organisation is not Agile. I’ve changed my views there too. Micheal (Doc H) from ACI Agile talks about this. If you’ve read Frederic Lalouxs Reinventing Organizations you’ll know about the color codes for each stage of an organisations evolution. Teal is where you might find Google or Zappos for example, most Fortune 500 are amber, some are green. And its quite possible to be amber with teal or green pockets.You’ve got to learn to give them want they want – if they want a GANT chart why not give it to them, it might serve as a backlog of sorts for you.

We have now implemented Agile as a new operating model for the  Customer Experience Contact Centre. While we started this journey last year with a concept called Network Judgement (team rather than individual working) it morphed into Agile and accelerate again recently to new deeper levels of systemic change across the people and coaching frameworks.

We’ve recently got Eduardo Nofuentes to help us who we have been talking to for some time and who also led the REA Agile implementation.

People in the contact centre get it, we don’t work with Scrum exactly as it says to in the book, we have adapted the approach in each team to fit the work and cadence of the team.

We are experimenting. The main objective is to uncover improved ways of collaborating and developing into high performing teams.

All the core principles and practices are still there ie stand ups, Kanban Boards, sprints, reviews and of course transparency, adaption and inspection.

The agile mind-set and adoption of Scrum has been spooky and I probably take it for granted now. Guide to Scrum can be seen on peoples desks, people are talking about sprints.

People are excited and energised

Its not been all plain sailing, this massive paradigm shift has brought about freedom and with that increased accountability.

I have personally felt like I have been on a roller coaster, other team members have described the same feeling some time ago.

It has been bizarre, rewarding, scary, exciting, frustrating and terrifying.

He aha te mea nui?
He tangata.
He tangata.
He tangata.

What is the most important thing?  It is people, it is people, it is people.

Adventures in Agile – The One About Courage

Alice 2

In my top drawer in my bedroom is an unopened black and white postcard; from time to time I reach in and look at the letters ‘Made in Aotearoa’ and put it back. This card will never be posted, for it symbolises great fortitude and courage.

I met Mathew one cold, wet afternoon. He was standing behind a small table outside Countdown, the type you can fold down and carry under your arm. It was winter and having left a senior role in technology to explore possibilities in HR, I was feeling despondent and isolated.

My idea of what HR could be (employee experience, agility) and recruiters idea of what it was (compliance, process) wasn’t meshing and I was doubting myself and my decision.

I watched Matthew despite the sleet, cheerfully greet people who didn’t acknowledge him, who averted their eyes, frowned and hurried on. It was as if he were invisible; I knew that feeling well; having worked my since I left Uni, and not having that daily routine, I was beginning to feel like an outsider and my heart ached for him.

I asked him what he was doing. He didn’t have to tell me (but he did) that he was no stranger to prison and gangs – the tear drop inked on his right cheek a giveaway. He had never learnt to read and write you see and was selling postcards to supplement his benefit so “I don’t do crime”. This was his job and day after day he stood there.

And what Mathew was doing was real courage and change. I felt ashamed

And then I got to thinking about some of the managerial behaviours I had seen constantly in previous lives at work (and yes me too).

You’ll be familiar with these; and the systems that support them, managers that focus on themselves and not others, their power bases, backing their peers and not their team when the going gets tough, treating their people as a means to an end – and not really caring about the people or their needs.

Scrape away at this and what you usually find is that people are concerned about:

  • Command control and/or patronizing management
  • Conformity
  • Poor information flows
  • Knowledge as power
  • Organizational silos and empire building

And this is Management 1.0

Steve Davies, in his article; Management 1.0, the Zero Hypotheses says the impact of this style and practice of management on organisations and employees are profound as they prevent the free flow of information, politicise decision making and repress dissent and diverse views.

We do commonly see  individuals in Management 2.0 which are the collaborative, people orientated behaviours trying hard but operating in a Management 1.0 ecosystem.

Having experienced this environment many times before my current role at Fisher & Paykel (and more about this fabulous company and its people later), having been immersed in collaboration via social media I now found the gap too wide.

In one such large but dispersed traditional corporate, in such hierarchy I felt like I’d landed on Mars and I could no longer function in Management 1.0 land.

I’m not the only one

Take the established and traditional organisation with Management 1.0 values and mash it up with a social media savy workforce with values (and expectations) centered on the democratization of information, non-political decision making, encouragement of dissent and the democratisation of innovation. What might you get?

The ones who are really entrenched will fiercely guard the status quo and you’ll see little of that crazy talk which is usually viewed as dissent and quickly divested of.  Those who are more embracing of change; you’ll see some tolerance of it and this will usually be in the digital space. And the other end of spectrum like Google and Spotify – that’s all you see.

And I think those traditional companies who won’t change will die. What they haven’t worked out is that their steadily falling share prices and loss of market position is due to a culture created by a Management 1.0 mindset in a world which has moved on to a fundamentally different proposition.

And I don’t think they even know it or can grasp it.

Because a new leadership paradigm is required in this world. And to change means you have to have courage to self reflect. You have to face yourself, turn yourself inside out

The significance of this cant be overemphasised. Steve Davies states this is more of a reinvention, a revolutionary mind-set shift is required.

“Looking at the various 2.0s through the lens of engagement across boundaries it is doubtful that reinvention is sufficient. Why? Because so much of the baggage associated with the concept of management, along with the organizational arrangements that support it, are a reflection of Management 1.0″

Work is about people, people are social beings, people need to feel engaged, be creative, innovative and productive not controlled and ‘managed’. I’ve talked about this before. It’s a simple premise but not one that’s been popular.

If all you have ever known is traditional management (and I’m not saying you are  Management 1.0!) dabbled in social collaboration platforms so haven’t experienced that deep mindset, but know inherently there has got to be a better way, how do you know what to change to?

How do you morph both professionally and personally into an agile leader – Management 3.0?

Right now this is where we are at with our agile journey. We have a shared mental model on what that agile transformation might feel like and we are all consciously working through our own previously held assumptions.

We are on a journey, we know roughly the destination, we don’t always know the route we’ll take because the path hasn’t been trodden before.

Scrum has already begun to change our concepts of team and what transparency means, it has also thrown the spotlight on our self-perception of our roles in relation to the team.

Several people outside of the team have commented on the extreme engagement they are observing.

And before my eyes I am seeing transformation on all levels; spades of managerial and personal courage from everyone including our GM,

When we think about great leaders – we often recall acts of courage. We all admire courage. Anyone who is doing what they are doing has got my respect and admiration

This is scary, but we go as a group and we leave no one behind.

In both Catholicism and Anglicanism, courage is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. In the eastern tradition the Tao Te Ching states that courage is derived from love (“ loving causes ability brave”) Courage (shauriya) also appear as the first of ten characteristics in the Hindu Manusmṛti,

Associations in popular culture between courage and masculinity has resulted in usages of synonymous terms such as “having balls“.

And so we begin our Adventures in Agile

To Sue, Wayne, Richard, Keith, Rudi, Christine, Melanie, Peter & Kelly – who have jumped down the rabbit hole – head first   

 

thechartreuse

Making Sense

career change by design

the art of loving what you do

supplychain12

I have 30 years experience in the New Zealand supply chain industry, and this site has been set up to share that experience with small businesses who have need of help, but no sure where to find it.

A time to write

For me, writing has always been a passion and the words that fill these pages are just some of the things that run around my head on a daily basis.

playwithlifeorg

4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site

takingthemaskoff

addiction mental health stigma

Business Harmonics

human resources: reflections, comment, advice

zorreto

The stories that keep me awake

Think Different

Shifting organisations to a better place

adjusteddevelopment

changing the world of work: one conversation at a time

Sunny Redmond

SUNNY REDMOND: healer • artist

Blog: Intent-Based Leadership

Turn followers into leaders.

The Whiteboard

New Zealand Recruitment Industry news, views and commentary from Rice Consulting

HR Continuous Improvement

Lisa Hunter's thoughts and learnings from being a HR Professional who is passionate about Continuous Improvement and how it can make HR rock - even more than it does now!

HR Potential

Insight, innovation and inspiration from a HR-pro turned HR Academic

101 Half Connected Things

Random thoughts on things that are half connected to the way I think about HR, L&D, Management, Leadership, business and the world.... and the world of business and the business of the world - a blog by David D'Souza (@dds180)

%d bloggers like this: