transformation

Get More From Your Devil’s Advocate

Across all industries, there is a tremendous desire for more innovation.  Sadly, companies frequently suffer from a cultural habit that stymies creativity: people play the role of Devil’s advocate in a non-constructive, unidimensional fashion. New ideas face a constant barrage of negativity, and promoting them becomes a Herculean task that discourages but the most intrepid innovator. With a bit of training, this well-meaning but drag-inducing scrutiny can be redirected to identify and strengthen the best new ideas. In this article, let’s define the problem and introduce a few solutions.

An Example

I was recently discussing an issue related to our cultural transformation with colleagues.  As I advanced a potential solution, someone barged with “let me play devil’s advocate for a minute”. The person then proceeded to cast F.U.D.  upon my idea. I was instantly annoyed: the person hadn’t taken the time to listen to the whole idea nor, seemingly, to consider its merits. Even ignoring the impact this rejection had on my ego and the potential consequences on my future participation, the person was acting as a net brake on forward progress. The transformation issue was no closer to being resolved after that person’s interjection.

Overcoming Inertia

Unfortunately, some people mistakenly believe that the devil’s advocate’s main responsibility is to oppose (mostly with good intent, more on that in a moment, please hold your nose). Because of that, the role often ends up contributing to maintaining the status quo instead of progress.

The most difficult thing about cultural change management is overcoming inertia, skepticism, and opposition. Therefore, input that solely seeks to oppose or dismantle is not tremendously valuable. The universe is great at disassembling things all by itself. Indeed, the 2nd law of thermodynamic  states that “that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state”.  Mother Nature gives us disorganization for free. She doesn’t need help.

What we need is construction, design, and creativity. These things require action, drive, and energy. And we should expect our Devil’s Advocate to contribute.

 Intentional Validation

You can let go of your nose.

To be sure, there are absolutely times when we need to look at reasons why something won’t work. Yes, it is critical to pressure-test the viability of ideas and to identify their riskiest assumptions.  This is best done deliberately.

For example, in the space of entrepreneurial ventures, Jim Mullins provides seven domains through which an idea’s killer assumptions can be identified (see his “New Business Road Test” book . The well-known Lean Startup  is all about reducing risk through experimentation. And in law, preparing someone to testify requires a similarly purposeful preparation and line of questioning.

In all cases, the pressure testing is calculated, focused, and exhaustive. And it happens *after* the value of the idea has been deemed high enough to warrant such an examination. It’s never mere opposition.

OK, I promised a few approaches. Here they are:

Six Thinking Hats

One of my favorite techniques to avoid the opposition trap is the ‘Six Thinking Hat’ technique. The creator, Edward DeBono, suggests that all conversation participants simultaneously look at the issue through a common but rotating lens.

For example, all undisputable facts about the issue are listed when participants figuratively wear the white hat. No room for opinions. After switching to the yellow hat, everyone chimes in with the value and benefits they see in the idea. Eventually, all participants are asked to wear the black hat of judgment, which enables them to rattle off all the pitfalls of the idea. And so on for the other hats. At the end of the process, everyone is assured that all sides of an idea were thoroughly explored.

 Design Thinking

The Design Thinking method includes a similar form of lateral thinking . It encourages interlocutors to reply to an idea in the form of: “I like, I like, I wish”. For example:

Jack: “We should hire an Agile coach for every team” 

Jill: “I like how this would accelerate the transformation. I also like how it would make expertise available to all those who want it. I wish we could validate the model before making such a large commitment.”

Participants have to acknowledge the valuable aspects of an idea before highlighting a risk, and then only in the form of a problem to solve. It’s very constructive.

 Improvisational Comedy

To enhance collaboration, many entrepreneurs are borrowing a technique from improvisational comedy known as “Yes, and…” Seth Stevenson  describes it as:

When they’re collaborating onstage, improv performers never reject one another’s ideas—they say “yes, and” to accept and build upon each new contribution. “It’s a total philosophy of creativity,” says Mandel. “ ‘Yes, and’ creates, while ‘no’ stops the flow.”

The method strengthens ideas, rewards listening skills and avoids the pitfall of a ‘no’ culture. With many people having a hand in the creation of the idea, the downsides and risks can be explored without fearing to choke the idea to death.

 Owning Forward Motion

Each method explored above includes an affirmative responsibility to look at the potential of an idea prior to any pressure testing taking place. This ensures that forward motion is preserved.

Once demotivated by careless rejection, most people cannot muster the activation energy required to carry their ideas forward. It is imperative that we remind each other that we are mini-CEO’s, each tasked with bettering the current state of affairs. The Six Hats, Design Thinking’s “I like, I like, I wish”, and “Yes, and…”  are simple but effective tools with which we can get more from our Devil’s Advocate. Have you experienced others methods to achieve the same goal? Have you discovered immunity to this problem?

Works cited

“Lawyer”, by Rflor, The Noun Project, Web. 20 Jun. 2016.  Modified.

Main Barrier To Iterative Development: Lack Of Imagination

Organizations new to Agile often think their work cannot possibly be broken down into smaller increments of value. In this article, I want to explore a way to get over these objections:  a way that appeals to emotion as much as logic, a way that incorporates some gentle peer pressure via a comparison to the stodgy construction industry, a way that reaches the conclusion that any difficulty in breaking the work down isn’t intrinsic to the work but is instead a failure of imagination.

Indeed, when I first engage with an organization for the purpose of discussing how the Agile mindset could help them deliver more value, I almost always hear the same refrain.  Suggestions that the work be broken down in smaller increments of value are usually met with something along the lines of:  “Agile sounds great, and I’m sure these other teams you’ve worked with got a lot out of it.  But you see, we’re different because of reason XYZ, and we couldn’t possibly break our work down in smaller chunks.  That simply wouldn’t work here.”

I’ve heard this from leaders in advertising, analytics, customer support, design, IT, marketing, software, and/or you-name-it. When I’m skillful enough to overcome the early skepticism and secure space for a little education and experimentation, the organization usually learns that breaking big batches is not only possible but actually fairly straightforward and highly desirable.

This raises two immediate questions:  Why is there such early resistance to breaking down batches?  Also, why do these people think their context is so special that what works for others can’t work for them?

I’ll tell you right now that I don’t have firm answers to those questions.  However, I do have suspicions.  I suspect that many people still view the application of Agile techniques as something new and unproven, which only applies in some very narrow business contexts.  And that is a myth we can quickly dispel.

On my first trip to Barcelona, Spain, I took the time to visit the breathtaking Sagrada Familia basilica pictured below, designed by famed architect Antoni Gaudi.  There is a lot to know about the long history of this magnificent building, but for our purpose, I want to focus on the funding mechanism for the lengthy construction that started in 1866 and that isn’t scheduled for completion until 2026.  That is not a typo.  It has been under construction for well over 100 years!

Fig. 1. The Sagrada Familia basilica, “Architecture”; Sagrada Familia;
Foundation Construction Board of the Sagrada Família, 2015.  Web. 
11 Dec. 2015

On the one hand, there was a grand vision for the Sagrada Familia.  On the other hand, from the very beginning the project was to be funded by visitors.  With an expected construction that would span generations, it wasn’t possible to wait until the building was finished to welcome paying visitors.  Thus an incremental approach was used.  For example:

“In 1892 the foundations for the so-called Nativity facade were started. This facade was built first because, as Gaudí himself put it, ‘If, instead of building this decorated, richly ornamented facade, we had started with the hard, bare and skeletal Passion facade, people would have rejected it’” (“History of the Temple”).

Other examples of the Agile mindset at work abound.  In 1910, a model of this Nativity facade was displayed at the Grand Palais in Paris in an exhibition.  I am convinced this was done to keep the stakeholders focused on the value of the building rather than its cost.  Moreover, in 1952, several events of the 35th International Eucharistic Congress took place in the Sagrada Familia, further monetizing the building.  1955 marked the first public fund-raising drive, which allowed society to participate in the construction and to feel more involved.  And “in 1961 a museum was opened in the crypt to provide visitors with information about the history and technical, artistic and symbolic aspects of the temple” (“History of the Temple”).

Thus, the history of the construction of the Sagrada Familia provides us with a concrete (pun intended) example of the concept of delivering value early, and that clearly dates as far back as the late 19th century.  Moreover, of all places, this occurs in the large-scale construction industry.  If people dealing with concrete, granite, and sandstone could figure out how to break the work down in increments of value, I must politely suggest that people dealing mostly with digital work, whether algorithm, document, graphic design, music, software, or video, can do so, also.  Wouldn’t you agree?

Works Cited
“Architecture.”  Sagrada Familia.  Foundation Construction Board of the Sagrada Família, 2015.  Web.  11 Dec. 2015.

“History of the Temple.”  Sagrada Familia.  Foundation Construction Board of the Sagrada Família, 2015.  Web.  11 Dec. 2015.

Confused Managers Need Guidance in Agile Environment

The confusion around the role of the manager in an Agile environment seems to reach its peak just as teams start to exhibit real signs of self-organization. When managers see that they are no longer the driving force behind the work management, some conclude that they are no longer needed at all, and this can lead to rash behavior. Although completely understandable, I believe this erroneous conclusion is the sign of an over-reaction that needs to be addressed by the change agent. Until the world is completely teal and corporations “flat”, great managers will continue to play a key role in many large organizations.

In a self-organizing world, managers should no longer oversee every aspect of the work.  Instead they should attend to the environment. Where the Product Owner focuses on the product, the manager focuses on high performing teams. Managers are to teams what gardeners are to plants.

Gardening by Stephanie Wauters from the Noun Project

We would all have a good chuckle if we saw a gardener asking the tomato plant for a commitment on when its fruits will be ready, telling the cucumber where to stretch its vines, challenging the cabbage and broccoli to get rid of pests on their own, weighing and comparing the squash against objectives determined at the beginning of the growing season, and grandstanding in the middle of the pumpkin patch on the lofty harvest aspirations of the landlords. We would laugh, because we know that none of those behaviors will lead to results. However, in most corporations today, this is exactly what managers do.

I don’t believe this is what we want from managers anywhere, but it is especially damaging in organizations that are trying to embrace the discovery mindset. Managers, like good gardeners, must be responsible for the environmental conditions and trust that their people will maximize their own potential.

To push the gardening analogy a bit further, here’s one way to illustrate the point:

Gardener Manager
Fertilizes the ground for maximum growth Trains the people on technical and people skills
Protects the plants from strong winds Shields the people from needless distractions and enables a culture of focus on the work
Tills the soil and removes rocks Provides the best tools and devises a plan to manage technical debt
Meters the amount of sunlight reaching the plants Interprets the organization’s strategy and gives people a clear sense of “true North”
Prunes the plants to maximize the output of the garden Mentors and coaches people so that they either realize their potential or find a role that is a better fit
Plucks weeds as they appear Removes impediments on behalf of the teams
Installs trellises to steer plan growth Expands the teams’ bounded authority as they become more skilled at self-managing
Waters regularly Fosters a culture of continuous improvement

I don’t know about you – and please feel free to give me your thoughts in the comments section – but that still feels like a lot of work to me. However, it’s a work of a different nature for sure; it’s more leadership than management. As such, not everybody will immediately excel at it. Nevertheless, I think the investment of energy in better leadership is well worth it. Also, isn’t it a lot more fun and ultimately impactful? Therefore, I think managers should view an Agile transformation with optimism.

Works cited

Gardening, Stephanie Wauters, Noun Project, Web. 1 Sep. 2015.

Where to Start a Transformation?

So you’ve decided to go ahead with a transformation. How should you go about it? Where should you start? And whom should you start with? Does it matter? I suggest that it does indeed matter, and a lot.

For me anyway, one method has worked so much more successfully than the others that in my mind it is a “no-brainer.” That method is to cultivate fully the most fertile plot first. I call this the depth-first approach. Let me explain that. One of the first decisions that need to be made is whether the transformation will be attempted by moving everyone in lockstep, or whether there will be some form of staggered rollout and whom to start it with.

False Choice

Forgetting for a second the irony of using a big batch approach to lead a Lean or Agile transformation, we find that even the lockstep method ultimately devolves in a gradated approach. I’ve never seen a sizable group of people in which everyone is subject to identical constraints or internalizes new concepts at the same rate. Thus, even when the big batch method is attempted, you end up with pockets where certain concepts are applied ahead of others. Therefore, in no time at all some individuals and teams require a different kind of coaching. Whatever economies of scale are hoped for with the big batch approach, they quickly evaporate due to the now differentiated demand for coaching. Since coaching and mentoring capacity is usually limited, the change agents have to prioritize the opportunities for assistance.

The Who

Perhaps you pick the toughest critics and attempt to convert them first, figuring that if you can move them, you can move anybody in your organization. Or perhaps you are better off aligning with like-minded people and equipping them to evangelize on your behalf so that you can magnify your influence.

The Where

Space-wise, you could identify some of the organization’s biggest problems and attempt to solve those with the Agile mindset. If you crack one of those nuts, the likelihood that the others can be cracked too increases. On the other hand, maybe you should be wary of what is likely to be a tougher slug and instead pick a space where success is both more likely and less distant.

Mind Your Credibility

If you work in an organization that looks anything like the ones I’ve worked in, you know that people are more swayed by results they can see than unverifiable tall tales of riches. I try to never forget that as the change agent, I’m also perceived as the salesman. Increasingly tangible evidence of success may be required to move the transformation through the typical phases of adoption. This is where native stories are so important, and why I set out to create and record them as soon as possible.

Selecting the Right Investment

Every bit of transformational success is akin to making a payment to the bank. With that payment usually comes a deadline extension and an increase in credit score. Over time, as a portfolio of native successes is built, there are fewer resistors. Success begets success.  That’s why I choose to cultivate deeply the most fertile organizational plot I can find.

I’d sincerely love to hear from those who have experienced success with the breadth-first approach. I’m curious to know what conditions had to be true to make it work.

What Are The Benefits Of Agile?

. . . or Lean, or whatever one may wish to call the discovery mindset? My thoughts on the benefits an organization stands to gain by going through an Agile transformation have evolved over time. I’ve come to believe there are benefits on multiple levels. Awareness of them helps me focus on the prize and become a more effective participant, coach, and leader. Here are some of the benefits I have witnessed first-hand.

Effectiveness

When I first experienced Agile, I was a participant in a Scrum team. My initial reaction was that we were going to be a lot more effective at our job. With better communication, a focus on a common goal, and more frequent validation of our wares, there would be less wasted time and fewer self-inflicted reworks. And so it was.

Money

Over time, the organization got better and faster at cranking out products and services through a more flexible, more collaborative workforce, and I concluded that the transformation was about more money for the corporation. We were operating with a higher level of quality, so better financial results were indeed part of the equation.

Customer Intimacy

After better internalizing the “customer collaboration” aspect of the manifesto, we developed outstanding relationships with customers. We had a stretch of more than a year when we did an end-of-sprint demonstration to one or more customers without exception (See this post for tips on making demonstrations happen). At one such demonstration, a customer asked if she could purchase the product right then, about three months prior to our expected release date, because it met her needs! It then dawned on me: this new mindset is really about delivering customer value. Better financial results are just a trailing consequence.

Fun

Later still, as the rest of the leadership team and I evolved our main management paradigm, I started to piece together a different picture. There was a lot more energy in the office. Employees had taken control of their physical space, work tools, and organization. People from far-flung divisions wanted to join us just for the sheer fun of it. It felt like a much happier place, driven by intrinsic motivation. And since plenty of research suggests that happier employees lead to more successful organizations, I began to think that a perfectly valid reason to pursue such transformation is the pursuit of happiness.

Effectiveness, financial rewards, customer value, and happiness all seem like valid reasons to start down the path of a transformation. In fact, I think they all co-exist to some degree. Have you found something else? What is driving your transformation?