Have a Question?


Contact us and we’ll respond promptly.


Transforming a Traditional Manager Into an Agile Manager

by Darian Rashid 24. May 2010 09:14

Series: Agile Roles and Responsibilities Series

Many pundits preach that the agile organization will not have managers – that teams will self-manage and can carry out all responsibilities of traditional functional management. This includes HR responsibilities, major conflict disputes, etc. “The team is self-managing, which includes all management responsibilities,” or so I keep hearing. Call me a heretic, but I’ve never subscribed to the scalability of this model. For most large-scale (esp. global) organizations, this is not a reality. Not only are functional managers not going anywhere, but they are, in-fact, essential to an organization’s transformation to Agile practices. However, their roles will need to change. Whether they embrace or reject this change could mean the difference between success and failure going forward.

To highlight the differences, let’s lay out the major responsibilities of a traditional functional manager:

  1. Handle HR functions (e.g., Hire and fire/lay off, harassment, physical violence, larger-scale verbal assaults, etc.)
  2. Champion causes/break down barriers
  3. Maintain standards (quality, technical, ethical ) across the different teams
  4. Develop employees technical and other necessary skills
  5. Create, manage and restructure cross-functional resources
  6. Execute performance evaluations
  7. Set up work processes (esp. for their team)
  8. Break down and assign tasks
  9. Project manage the team (usually with a gigantic Gantt chart and a weekly status meeting)
  10. Be responsible for the team’s commitment and deliverables

(I’m sure I could have listed another 20 responsibilities but I tried to focus on the top 10. If you feel there are important responsibilities I didn’t cover and a through on whether an Agile manager will retain or relinquish them, please feel free to list them in the comments.)

So what in this list changes? That can be answered by the overarching mental model: The Agile management (as a whole)’s mission is: To do what needs to be done to create an innovative, flexible and continuously-improving environment that will allow teams and Product Owners to succeed. This means creating an organization that is capable of executing Product Backlog changes at any time (including at the 11th hour) as efficiently and with the highest quality possible.

To accomplish this, Agile Managers would still handle responsibilities 1 through 4 - traditional HR functions, develop employees, set up and maintain standards (optionally with the help of Agile technical leads) but will hand over the their project and process management responsibilities (given in steps 7-10) to the ScrumMasters (if practicing Scrum) and feature teams.

But why give up those traditional responsibilities of ownership, assignment and management of tasks? Several reasons come to mind (feel free to add to or contest these):

  • Allows the team to own their commitment, and just as important, own it as a team
  • Allows the team to focus on the greater iteration goals instead of just their individual tasks
  • Empowers them to self-improving

Many managers are concerned this hand-off of responsibilities diminishes their role. I feel it is quite the opposite - that it focuses their role and elevates it to a more strategic level. Instead of being consumed by tasks that teams are perfectly capable of performing themselves (albeit, teams usually need help at first), Agile Managers will now work as a group to see which changes need to happen organizationally – those that we never saw before or saw but were too busy (or un-empowered) to do anything about. This change will let them focus on:

  • Setting up and managing cross-functional teams
  • Creating and managing needed infrastructure (e.g., testing platforms, continuous integration, etc.)*
  • Break down organizational barriers, usually raised by ScrumMasters and teams through Daily Scrums and Retrospectives or similar events
  • Create and manage technical standards across the organization (with the help of teams and technical leads)
  • Creating, training and supporting change agents (e.g., ScrumMasters) within the organization

*Note: I don’t mean to imply that the managers code the infrastructure themselves (although, they are free to do so if they want). I just mean they will look at the largest gaps and create internal teams to work on them as needed.

Item 5 deals with the creation, allocation and evaluation as teams. The Agile Manager still own this responsibility but performs it very differently than they would have traditionally. They don’t design the organization by architecture, layer or component (e.g., the GUI team, OS team, driver team, database team, etc.) but rather by vertical features. Additionally, a set of Agile Line Managers should treat all resources reporting to them collectively as a pool of resources where teams can be “pulled” from, instead of individual resource ownership. This means that Agile Managers will collaboratively assemble the best teams for a group of features and not just have teams by virtue of reporting structure. (I will follow this up with a deeper post on this topic).

Last in the list is item 6, which, like item 4, is also a transformed activity owned by managers. Managers are still responsible to perform evaluations but they will do this based primarily on the team’s performance rather than an individual. It is also a great practice to do this as a team of managers, instead of individual evaluations. (We’ll debate the right performance measures as well as the idea of abolishing performance reviews on another post).

Finally, it is up to the managers as a whole to set the culture to continuously improve and continuously experiment to do so. An Agile manager’s motto should be “It’s OK to Fail”, as long as we do it fast and learn from it toward the right goal. They know that the phrase “I don’t know” is a much better phrase than an uncertain answer based in no data or reality given because one is expected.

The fact is that Managers make or block Agile transformations. There is a lot of talk of top-down leadership and bottom-up push but the managers connect these domains. They are the ones that can greatly accelerate or critically hinder a transformation. Which camp are your managers in?

Empowerment Doesn’t Mean Anarchy

by Darian Rashid 21. May 2010 09:26

One of the most misinterpreted and misapplied terms in our Industry is the term ‘empowered’. I hear it used over and over from organizations that are new to Agile concepts and have usually know just enough to be dangerous - and dangerous they become. Although I’ve seen this term misapplied in many different roles, it is usually my experience teams that are the biggest culprits, and that’s who I’ll focus on in this blog. Using it more like the term ‘anarchy’, the term ‘empowered’ misused as a reason to get away with everything from reprioritizing the Product Backlog to missing iteration goals. This behavior is one of the most disruptive forces in an Agile transformation.

I thought I’d shed some light on that term and where the term ‘empowered’ does and does not apply.

Let’s start with the definition of empowerment:


em•pow•er•ment [ɪmˈpaʊəmənt]
n
1. the giving or delegation of power or authority; authorization


When it is said that “teams are empowered”, they are given certain authorities where management approval is no longer necessary. This authority is over HOW they work, which includes (but isn’t limited to):

  • Own the delivery of an integrated, high quality vertical slice
  • Creating, owning and managing the Iteration Backlog – the list of tasks the team collectively needs to complete in the current iteration toward the iteration goals
  • Owing their own work-processes – how members of the team work together within the team. This includes, but isn’t limited to, setting up their own meetings, rules of conduct, team norms, etc. – basically those processes that are needed to work effectively as a team
  • Being able to create and own their architecture (this may be limited to architecture of a particular section for large-scale development)
  • Own their technical practices – be able to practice paired programming, Test-Driven Development, Continuous Integration, Refactoring, etc. without Product Owners or managers telling them not to

However, there are bounds to that empowerment and teams that exceed those bounds are teetering on the edge of:


an•ar•chy ( n r-k )
n.
1. Absence of any form of political authority.


Empowerment turns into anarchy when we here statements like the following thrown around by team members - “We are empowered to...”

  • “Change the features in the Product Backlog because we didn’t like what’s there”
  • “Change the order of the Product Backlog because the high priority items are boring”
  • “Not help our managers, other teams or other colleagues outside the team because we are empowered not to be interrupted” Aside: I actually knew of a team that enclosed themselves behind locked doors so they wouldn’t have to speak to anyone between iterations. I understand empowered not to accept scope creep but not letting anyone even ask a simple question is ridiculous.
  • “Deliver nothing!” I knew of several teams that delivered 0, nothing, nada, zip, zilch, you get the picture, for multiple iterations because they told the Product Owners (who weren’t trained, btw) that “the teams were now empowered to choose their own work.” Ummm, no.

So what’s the line between genius and madness - between empowerment and anarchy? Two simple mental models that will act as your litmus test:

  1. Product Owners are empowered to decide WHAT features the teams will work on and in which order
  2. Teams are empowered to decide HOW they will work on delivering those features.

Two notes to keep in mind:

  1. I don’t mean to imply that there is no collaboration but rather final authority on both sides. Teams are welcome and encouraged to give input on priorities but the final decision is the Product Owners and the teams are NOT empowered to override that priority. Product Owners, etc. are welcome to give input and best practices on task breakdown, max. number of hours per task, technical norms, technical practices, etc. but the final decision is up to the team.
  2. When you have multiple teams, there may be organizational norms and best practices that the team may have no authority over. It is up to management and ScrumMasters to collectively determine on a case-by-case basis if those are helpful or barriers.

The whole point of these particular empowerments are to create the most innovative and effective organization. It also focuses the different roles to accomplish their goals efficiently. Be wise and watch out for words that are thrown around without making sense.

Tags:
Categories: Agile Leadership | Agile Roles and Responsibilities | Culture | Process | Soapbox

ScrumMasters are Change Agents

by Darian Rashid 18. May 2010 16:31

Series: Agile Roles and Responsibilities Series

Anyone who knows me knows that I love ScrumMasters.  My family had to get used to the idea of being second in line, but they’ll get over it.  Why the love affair? Simple.  They are the organization’s change agents!  Their #1 role is to continuously create positive changes.  (FYI, if you thought that the role of the ScrumMasters is to be a simple project manager or task-master, read this first: ScrumMasters are not Task Masters)

They create positive change by:

  • Setting up, owning and upholding the process of Scrum
  • Ensuring that the process is followed by all
  • Identifying, escalating and having barriers broken (this doesn’t mean they necessarily do the breaking)
  • Teaching the process of Scrum to all parties
  • Working with Product Owners, managers and the development team (including architects, testers, etc.) to evolve the organization
  • Leading a team to increase their productivity (velocity)
  • Facilitate the roles within the organization to work efficiently, effectively and most importantly, together
  • Being enablers, problem solvers, and more…

The amazing thing is that the ScrumMaster role doesn’t call for any managerial authority over the team, Product Owners or other managers.    They lead by influence, not by authority.

Although SMs are an essential part of the team, they are not wholly devoted to just their team.  This means although the SM belongs to the team, they are not just there for the team.  If the SM is doing their job correctly and efficiently, they are working 1/3 of their time with the team to deal with team issues, break barrier, 1/3 of their time hand-in-hand with POs and 1/3 of their time with Management.   So with all this, when do they have time to code?  In my humblest of opinions, they don’t .  The ScrumMaster is a full-time role – but before you jump all over me, that is a different post and discussion.

When a team is newly formed, this balance will be shifted more toward the team but over time, new teams will be comprised of members that have done this before and not need to take so much start-up equity from the SM.   So, what are SMs doing with each of these three roles?  Helping them meet their goals. Removing barriers when possible and escalating barriers when appropriate.  Installing, teaching, upholding, and most importantly, evolving the process of Scrum within the organization toward the very concrete goal of reducing defects and increasing velocity (in that order) for the organization collectively (starting with their team).  This means working with the POs to complete the release plan, working with teams on iteration planning, reviews and retrospectives and working with management on what they need to do: Transform the organization into an agile organization that can move to the beat of the Product Owner (Yet another post). 

This, however, does NOT mean that SMs project manage.  The teams and Product Owners need to do that themselves. The ScrumMasters are ensuring that the release and iteration plans are being set up and helping evolve the process, not doing that work for the team.

I could write a book on the topic so forgive me if this bite size morsel is leaving you in want.  I will be filling in many of the gaps in future posts.  As always, I look forward to your comments.

Experimentation Means it's OK to Fail

by Darian Rashid 1. April 2010 21:42

Experimentation is the key to learning and continuous learning is the core of Agile and iterative methods.  A wise man once told me that we know the least about our product and the optimum process to build that product when we first start. I could never (or never wanted to) argue that point. When we are at crossroads facing an unknown path, experimentation lets us understand which avenue is best. 

Experimentation means to find that path wisely. Don’t get into analysis paralysis. Here are some suggestions to make your experiments a success:

  1. Make your experiments iterative so that the lessons from the initial ones can be used to plan and create the next ones. 
  2. Make your experiments short and tactical so that you can learn quickly about what works, and more importantly, what doesn’t work. 
  3. Finally, and most crucially, an experiment that fails is just as important as one that succeeds.  The answer will guide you on how to proceed from that point. Don’t be tempted to think that a set of experiments that ‘fail’ aren’t a success. The experiments simply yielded an answer. 

If you have more suggestions on how to conduct a good experiment in your environment, feel free to post them in the comments. In addition, if you’ve learned something that changed the way you work through experimentation, please share it with us.

 

Tags:
Categories: Agile Leadership | Agile Roles and Responsibilities | ScrumMaster | Experimentation | Project Risk Mitigation

Hello World!

by Darian Rashid 24. March 2010 19:57

And a brave new one it is!  We at Agile Ethos would like to proudly announce the launch of our blog!  It is our outlet to share our knowledge, talk about our beliefs and just vent once in a while.  We are trainers and coaches who believe in what we do – transform organizations to have the highest quality, value to the customer, efficiency and by the way, be a great place to work!  And yes, it is possible!  We’ve seen it happen many times.

We hope to use this blog to share our experiences and insights on what it takes to transform an organization, including leadership, organizational structure, process, culture and technical skills.  Expect many blogs to share and test new and innovative ideas with you.  We hope you’ll comment one way or another.  Expect other blogs to share key learnings that every leader and change agent needs to know.  Expect some blogs to ask you questions and hopefully hear back a few answers and finally, expect a few to just keep you up to date with what’s going on with us lately. 

Our associates have decades of industry experience and have seen, heard and battled much in our professional lives.  Thought our experiences, we hope you will learn, grow and interact with us.   Feel free to post examples and pictures on topics that resonate with you or challenge us respectfully on those issues you don’t agree with so we can dialog about them.  Please let us know which topics would interest you and we’ll do our best to cover them.  Ask us questions you’d like us to answer and we will do our best to respond.  

You can follow AgileEthos on Twitter for tweets about new blogs, subscribe to the RSS feed or simply check back with us every 1 – 2 days for new posts.   Whichever way you follow, we’d like to hear from you.

Follow us

Follow AgileEthos on Twitter       Follow AgileEthos' RSS Feed

Recent Posts