Thursday, September 15, 2016

What Caused Your Success?

Of course I know why I am successful, I am talented :-)

In the past few months I have been asked and/or told that I was not clear on what was the cause of my success(es), that is assuming I have actually had any.

Without being clear on what is the source of success, it is very difficult to duplicate it.

I have a hypothesis that most change initiatives and transformations fail for a very similar reason. We try to duplicate a success and it does not happen. We use the same methods, techniques, practices and patterns. We teach the same values and principles. Despite that, the results are less than impressive.

Of course I know why things didn't go well, it's those other people :-(

We have many reasons for these failures: lack of alignment of culture with new values or outcomes, stuck in their old ways of thinking, lack of knowledge or experience, lack of support at the right levels, unwillingness of those that need to change, mechanical following of the rules, lack of trust, not a safe learning environment, etc.

I have used almost all of these reasons, or to be fair excuses, for why things failed or at least didn't get to the level of success I hoped for. I am also clear that each of these reasons direct the cause of failure away from me.

An interesting observation is, I have seen success when each of those reasons existed. Somehow we found a way, despite those reasons, to do something awesome. Actually, I have not seen any situation where multiple or even many of these did not exist. That is why I am clear that they are just excuses. The fact is, I am not at the source of what enabled us to overcome these excuses in one context and not in another.

Surely, there is a way of operating that does not need to blame

I am on a journey to discover what it takes to cause a group of people to become a team and iterate towards success. That is, to take on something that they say is worth doing and overcome every excuse we have to achieve it. I do not think this will guarantee success. I hope it will reduce the excuses and blame for what happens.

Here are a few things I have observed about myself that likely can help me to have empathy for others. I bring a lot with me that is unlikely to lead to success. I have biases and thoughts that run through my head that I have trouble "getting rid of". These thoughts often sound like: they don't care, they don't get it, what !@#$%^&* idiots and worse. This might also sound like: if they would just do what I told them because I am the expert, I have done this in the past and it worked so you should too, everyone knows this is the best/right/proven/[insert other make wrong term here] way to do it. I can usually find a good justification for the thoughts in my head and they are still not likely to be very helpful.

I have also observed a few other thoughts, that frankly I listen to less often than those previous ones. They sound something like this: I know this person is not an idiot so what do they see that would cause them to view the situation so differently, I wonder what they know that I do not, I wonder if they have had an experience that I have not or why is that causing me to react so strongly.

Based on my experience with my own thoughts, one of the first things to deal with is the first set of thoughts, which are the ones I tend to act on. How many of the normal failure reasons can be attributed to those thoughts and the reactions they generate? If people in a group come with those thoughts what is the likelihood we will have the actions that we associate with alignment, trust, safety, support, discovery, new options for how and what we do? Since we likely all come with those types of thoughts, what will cause us to put those aside, as many times as necessary, in order to create space for a group to act together towards a goal?

When I cannot or do not even try to get clear on where the other person is operating from I have only one option left to me, convince them to agree with me (see previous post on agreements), or put another way, use force to convince people I am right and they are wrong.

Ugh! Surely, there is a better way.

Another aspect is the ability to be responsible and accountable for what happens without blaming. Success or failure will have consequences. This seems to be the reality we live in and it is not easy to cope with.

So they journey continues...

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Working Agreements

Working Agreements

In a recent post, making a distinction between agreement and alignment, I discussed helping two groups of teams develop a partnership. One valuable discovery was watching how working agreements developed.

Starting with an Intention

We started with an intention not a set of working agreements. The intention was created based on what the group was out to achieve.

The intention was, with names removed, "Team Blue requires Team Green in order to achieve it's desired outcomes. Team Blue will groom the backlog to a level that Team Green can say they are ready to be planned." This was done in the context of developing a partnership.

Discovery of working agreements and rules that support the intention

Working agreements were discovered by doing the work and a common intention.

We discovered how often we needed to meet and for how long. We discovered how best to track where we were and how to make that visible. No one had to be convinced to use the tools or follow the agreements, it would have been silliness not to.

We discovered what topics and discussions lead us away from our goal, and rules were setup regarding those topics.

Acts of Leadership will cause working agreements

"Teams develop norms whether they are paying attention to norms or not." Esther Derby - See more at.

It was acts of leadership that injected the possibility of a future of partnership and participation. From this created possible future came working agreements that supported that possible future. 

A common practice I observe is getting people together to create working agreements. This is done without creating a future, an intention, that resonates with people. The outcome of this is a set of agreements that we use to make excuses for not keeping them.

Leadership injects what is missing that creates space for people to win. In this example, leadership injects partnership and removes anything that is not partnership. 

Leadership removes what exists that will hinder people from winning, by helping them see what is in the way of them winning, in this case blame, disappointment, broken promises, lack of concern for others and more. Much of this was displaced by injecting partnership. 

A leader helps people see their normal way of being and acting that is taking them where they say they do not want to go. 

A leader develops people to have the compassion to develop others such that they see and deal with their inconsistent actions, as the leader sees and deals with their own inconsistent actions. From this real working agreements can develop and evolve.

Effective working agreements are not a team goal they are an outcome of being team.

Monday, April 27, 2015

Alignment vs Agreement

verb: agree; 3rd person present: agrees; past tense: agreed; past participle: agreed; gerund or present participle: agreeing
  1. 1
    have the same opinion about something; concur.
    • approve of (something) with regard to its moral correctness.
      "I'm not sure I agree with abortion"
  2. 2
    consent to do something that has been suggested by another person.

verb: align; 3rd person present: aligns; past tense: aligned; past participle: aligned; gerund or present participle: aligning
  1. 1
    place or arrange (things) in a straight line.
    "gently brush the surface to align the fibers"
    synonyms:line up, put in order, put in rows/columns, straightenplacepositionsituatesetrange
    "the desks are aligned in straight rows"
    • put (things) into correct or appropriate relative positions.
      "the fan blades are carefully aligned"
    • lie in a straight line, or in correct relative positions

Agreement is less helpful than we think

Agreeing and blaming

I have been pairing with another coach, in a high dependency environment, to help create a team phenomenon, a partnership, within a team of teams. A phenomenon we have observed is the how the need for agreement tends to slow conversation and cause partnership to deteriorate.

The initial place the teams operated from was trying to get the other team(s) to agree with them. These conversations were quite painful and not very productive. Trying to get agreement was leading to one group trying to convince the another group that their view was the right view.


noun: dissonance; plural noun: dissonances
  1. lack of harmony among musical notes.
    "an unusual degree of dissonance for such choral styles"
    • a tension or clash resulting from the combination of two disharmonious or unsuitable elements.

Outcomes of agreements tend to be contract like. I will give you X if you give me Y with these caveats. There are plenty of outs if one side did not meet the contract exactly. There is no commitment.

Agreement tends to bring a dissonance, in the conversation, when their are break downs. When break downs occur, i.e. people's intentions are being thwarted, one group is trying to "fix" the other group. The discussion sounds like "it should not be this way" or "it should be this way". As a group they are unable to deal with what is happening. Instead on an inquiry into what is happening, blame and excuse exists.

Alignment is an interesting distinction to agreement

Alignment and committing

As we introduced the idea of partnership and listening for what it takes to meet another teams concerns, agreement started to disappear. Teams would have discussions that started with what do you need to know to be ready to do this. It started with an inquiry into the feature. The inquiry would then go back and forth. Often a team member would take information from one team and start walking through the steps it implied and finally just stop and go, "ahh I get it".


noun: resonance; plural noun: resonances
  1. 1
    the quality in a sound of being deep, full, and reverberating.
    "the resonance of his voice"
    • the ability to evoke or suggest images, memories, and emotions.

Alignment looks like resonance, deep, full and reverberating. All concerns are out and everyone is clear the direction we are headed will fully deal with them.  The attitude is, we can make this happen and it leaves space for an authentic commitment, despite any complexities.

Teams in this stage trend away from excuses and blame when things do not go as expected. Teams at this stage understand that breakdowns will happen and they can look at what is happening and where they are intending to go and deal with the break down versus blame someone for it.

Give it a try

Why not try coming to alignment instead of getting agreement the next time you need to work with someone.

Instead of trying to convince them to agree with you, inquire into what their concerns are. Listen and look for possibilities to deal with those concerns. When all parties concerns are on the table and it is clear everyone is committed to meeting those concerns, observe what happens to the conversation.

Notice your own ability to deal with others concerns. Can you be with them and deal with them or do you simply explain why they are wrong?

As with all inquiry, you will learn more about yourself than anything else.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Agile Process Coach, Really?


Agile is not a process... Here's an Agile Process Coach to help you understand that. :-)

It shocked me the first time I heard that title.

Of course, when I am honest with myself, I know that I fallback to being a process consultant instead of a coach when I hit certain impediments.

Tools and Techniques are Process Consulting

I am seeing way to much of agile IS:

Doing 1.5 hour retrospectives using the 5 stages as defined in the book by so and so.

Stories are written in the format in that book by that other Scrum dignitary.

The ideal team size is...

The ideal planning cycle is...

The best tool for this practice is...

blah, blah, blah...

There is nothing wrong with these things. These are tools and techniques, often good ones, and they are not agile.

They do not generically combine, without context, into an agile process.

The Easy Way 

The easy and minimally effective way is to use this tool, technique or process.

Do it this way and it will solve all of your problems.

Standup is asking these 3 questions.

Here is the correct tool, technique and/or process.

You must use Scrum or Kanban or XP or or or

I have the answers for you.

Making people bad and wrong.

If you do not use so and so's 5 steps for retrospective you are doing it wrong.

Defining the right process outside of doing the work as if there is a generic context.

Release planning IS all of the stories organized by team and by sprint for the next n Sprints.

There is nothing wrong with these things, they may be helpful at times. These things are process consulting, not coaching and not agile.

The Hard Way

There is a more powerful way based on being compassionate, inquiring, being curios, discovering and being generous. You might call this leadership.

This is hard and it will require uncertainty and fear to be dealt with.

Getting comfortable with what is happening.

Getting comfortable with entering into an inquiry with curiosity and learning.

Developing our ability to discover and uncover better ways of working by doing and helping other do.

Discovering what people are committed to. What are they out create or do?

Helping them see when their level of performance in achieving the things, they say, they are committed to, versus measuring how agile they are, or how well they follow the defined process.

These things are not more right than the easy way. They are more powerful at allowing people to uncover and discover for themselves who they are and what they are out to create.

These things will enable people to become profoundly aware of what they say and what they actually do.

A coach will do this with compassion remembering what they had to discover.

A coach will be someone who remembers how painful it was for them to admit, to themselves, that they say one thing and do another.

A coach will remember how often they judge people on a standard they do not follow.

Where am I

I know I struggle with going back to the easy way.

To often, I encounter a situation where I sell out.

I turn back to being nice outwardly and thinking inwardly how bad and wrong you are.

When I see that in me, I simply acknowledge and get back up and go again... Often with help of my own coaches.

Where are you?

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Manifesto for Blame Driven Development

Manifesto for Blame Driven Development

Performance Improvement Plans and Firing People over Resources and Interactions

Bug Triaging over Working Software

Personal Agendas over Customer Collaboration

Endless Debates over Responding to Change

That is, while the items on the right will give us a chance to succeed,
we value covering our ass over a possibility to do something meaningful.


Principles behind the Blame Manifesto

Our highest priority is to deflect blame for all problems
through early and continuous failure of others.

Welcome changing requirements, even late in
development. Blame processes harness change
for opportunity to delay commitments.

Deliver non-working software infrequently, from a
couple of quarters to a couple of years, with a
preference to the longer timescale or not at all.

Business people and developers must make
vague and incomplete requests of each other 
daily throughout the project.

Build projects around depressed resources.
Give them judgement and punishment,
and watch them squirm.

The most efficient and effective method of
conveying information to and within a development
team is domination and intimidation.

A high bug count is the primary measure of progress.

Blame processes promote sustainable employment.
The sponsors, developers and users should be able
to maintain employment for an indefinite period 
regardless of their inability to honor commitments.

Continuous attention to technical incompetence
and poor design enhances blame-ability.

Simplemindedness — the art of maximizing the amount
of useless conversations—is essential.

The best straw men architectures, incomplete requirements and aimless design
emerge from withholding information.

At regular intervals, the team reflects on who
needs fixing, then tunes and adjusts this person’s


Here is a blog post with an example of implementing Blame Driven Development.

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Accomplishment and Satisfaction Over Happiness

“Great things are done when men and mountains meet.” 
― William Blake

“You may not control all the events that happen to you, but you can decide not to be reduced by them.”
― Maya Angelou

The Challenge Accepted

Wow! No one had asked me about that tool in over a year. I was sure that no one was using it anymore, I thought to myself as I read the request to review a set of changes and update requests. A bit excited that something I had created was still interesting to others; I decided to take on the work of reviewing changes and updating the tool.

I was satisfied with the tool after I created it. Over time, my skills and the available tools have improved and the code looked very inadequate. That is me trying to be easy on myself. Of course, the inadequate area of the code happened to be the area I needed to update due to a deprecated API.

Continuing despite how I felt

It took me a day to recreate my desire to update the code after looking at it and feeling frustrated about it's state. I was definitely not happy!

Once I started working on the code, I was sure things would get better quickly and I would have it back to a state that made me smile. Nope! After an hour of working, I had completely obfuscated the code. So, I reverted it back to the original state to get the test working again. At this point I was feeling angry with myself and I definitely was not feeling happy!

This unhappy state was not due to an oppressive working environment. It was not due to anyone around me not doing their job and dumping all the hard stuff on me. It wasn't even due to terrible, buggy code, this code only had one defect reported by users and that was for a test case that did not exist when I released it. It was simply the emotions I felt as I went through relearning and dealing with the state of something that was not easy to deal with, mostly due to time.

Accomplishment and Satisfaction

The next day, I set all of those feelings aside and worked on updating the code. The first I noticed was there were things I did not need. The code that needed updating came from someone who required features I did not need so I deleted those parts. That made it much easier to deal with and understand.

The person who asked for the update sent me a link to a document that described updating from the old style to the new style and this turned out to be simple with the unused parts removed. After a couple of hours I was done and all the old tests still passed. I accomplished what I set out to accomplish and it was satisfying. I was happy for a while, as well.

Wes, why do you write this simple story?

It was been relatively popular of late to recommend people measure happiness to see how well teams and people are performing, especially in the agile community.  It generally works by asking question like the following:

  • How happy are you? (on a scale from 1 “very unhappy” to 5 “very happy”)
  • What makes you feel best right now?
  • What makes you feel worst right now?
  • What would increase your happiness?

NOTE: The implementation of the happiness index at Crisp had very specific intentions and a better wording than the generic one about. e.g. How happy are you with Crisp? vs. How happy are you? Though still using the idea of happiness, they also state in the blog post that "The important thing is not really the content of the A3 sheets. The important thing is how they were created, how they are used, and the fact that we now have an explicitly defined identity & strategy, which makes it easier to criticize and iteratively improve over time."

I have strived for happiness, and still do at times and seeking happiness in and of itself is never satisfying. If happiness was what I really wanted, I would not take on many challenges. The example I gave is quite a simple one that involved a few hours over 2 days. In other words, it does not compare to most of the bigger challenges in life I take on.

The intention people seem to have with the happiness index or metric is not my concern. The intent is usually related to creating an environment where people can achieve mastery, autonomy and purpose.

I have the same concern for an environment that allows people to achieve mastery, autonomy and purpose. In my experience happiness does not represent those achievements. This could be a simple definition problem for many using the term. e.g. languages other that english tend to have a broader selection of words that are incorrectly translated to happiness. The first meaning of happiness, from Merriam-Webster is:


 adjective \ˈha-pē\
: feeling pleasure and enjoyment because of your life, situation, etc.
: showing or causing feelings of pleasure and enjoyment
: pleased or glad about a particular situation, event, etc.

Maybe others are different than me, but my feelings, i.e. emotional states or reactions, change throughout the day and usually minute by minute. These feeling are always with me and often affect my actions, yet they do not tend to cause actions that lead to outcomes that move me towards mastery, autonomy, purpose, accomplishment or satisfaction.

In my experience, my feelings often lead me in quite the opposite direction of my intentions. They lead me to stop taking on challenges. They lead me to not do things I thoroughly enjoy. I get to the end of the day and I question why I wasted so much time, feeling sorry for myself, watching TV or reading social media, instead of playing the ukulele, writing down what I have learned today or creating something that solves a problem I saw.

I am not trying to call happiness, and my other feelings, good or bad, that is a bit irrelevant as they are always with me and I must deal with them. I am saying these are not the things to measure.

In order to keep happiness high or more likely return it to some 'acceptable' level, I will need to constantly input some type of stimulus.

I propose we replace the happiness goal with goals for:

Accomplishment: to achieve what we set out to achieve.


Satisfaction: fulfillment of our intentions

As with those experimenting with the happiness index, I am aware that these in and of themselves are not complete. I can easily see someone with destructive intentions using these incorrectly. The very definition leaves room for people to 'fail' because they do not define what we are out to achieve nor what our intentions are.

In my experience, the possibility of failure is required for me to achieve those deeper intentions beyond my own happiness.

I have shared some of my experiences and I do not ask you to apply this to yourself. What would be much more interesting would be for you to look at your own experiences, which will differ from mine, and answer the questions:

Is happiness what helps you verify that you are heading towards your intentions or purpose?

Do accomplishment and/or satisfaction come closer to allowing you to adjust your path towards your intention and purpose?

Maybe there is something else?

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Shu-Ha-Ri Applied

Shu-Ha-Ri  Applied

edited: 2014-03-10 - grammar issues

The Issue

Shu-Ha-Ri and the Dreyfus model are very helpful tools I have used to help understand the point of view of a person I am working with and guide me in how I coach them. I am seeing a use of these models that concerns me and appears to hurt our ability to change more than help. These models are quite helpful at the individual level for a specific skill. Shu-Ha-Ri seems to always be described, in its initial context, as a relationship between teacher and student. Applying it beyond that without potentially significant changes appears to be an abuse of the model.

I intend this article for experienced coaches, change agents and change organizations and think that other individuals and groups with a global, enterprise or other large scope will find benefit in thinking about this subject. This article is focused on when these models are applied to a software organization moving towards Agile and Lean.

More background

Articles, such as this one by Rachel Davies have implied the models are wrong to apply for forcing someone to do agile practices. I tend to agree with Rachel on this issue and would like to expand on where I see the problem. The biggest issue I seen is when applied in a larger scope of people, team or organization, they seem to be misleading and guide us to treat knowledgeable people as overall beginners. The danger here should be obvious, smart people treated as beginners will be put off at best and likely fight against us.

Interestingly, when I read Alistair Cockburn's article, where he introduced Shu-Ha-Ri, he applied this to training courses. These can be targeted at individuals at a specific level. Books and articles as well can easily target and let people know who the intended audience is. Many people have no problem reading beginner material or attending a introduction class to start understanding a new skill or topic. These are all targeted usages of the models that allow the individual to choose to be a part of.

Jeff Sutherland also uses shu-ha-ri in guiding Scrum implementations. Notice that this is also a shu targeted at the Scrum Master. In the shu state, the ScrumMaster sets up the process, helps the team get to a sustainable pace with known velocity and uses the
Retrospective to introduce change that improves velocity. I disagree with the velocity target but I will use it as an example goal. In this description the scrum master is looking at the team, though the article seems to mix abstraction levels between Scrum Master level and team level. Sutherland could have said the Scrum Master doesn't allow them to vary the process but he does not. He does not say the Scrum Master tells the team to do practice X. Instead the Scrum Master guides towards achieving goal Y via retrospection. He might recommend a practice to help achieve goal Y if the whole team cannot identify a possible practice to improve the current situation but the Scrum Master does not dictate the practice.

Looking for guidance in helping an organization change

I think Sutherland starts to imply a difference in applying the shu-ha-ri idea in a larger context beyond the individual, we target goals and outcomes to a less mature group and guide them towards that. This is not the same as you do exactly the one practice taught by the teacher. I believe it is a bit more than simply a goal. I like the way Don Reinertsen states a similar idea, "decentralized control with decision rules". See the video LSSC12 : Decentralizing Control: How Aligned Initiative Conquers … 

Based on my experience organizations fight back against the absolute one way given by a enterprise or global level group. They often do so with the right intention. The group fighting back knows their context and see weaknesses in the one practice for beginners. Having the organization work at the shu level as a directive is where we lose supporters. We are not talking about people new to software development, shu in Aikido is someone completely new. It is a rare circumstance that we are talking about people that have not delivered software in the past. Agile and Lean are not the goals or at least should not be. They are mechanisms to help us think about the situation and see it more clearly. If we are guiding a team or organization we should be guiding them towards the goal. Let's assume for example, in the rest of this post, that the goal is delivering value more often to our customers and other stakeholders.

What does team level maturity look like 

I think I have jumped a bit far ahead and assumed we are ok with the idea that there are no shu level teams and organizations where the teacher gives them the one rule, way or practice to follow. So let's back up and look at what is implied by a team or organization being shu level at their primary tasks.

If the shu fits we are in big trouble

Maybe a shu level team is one that all members are at the shu level. Can they be at the shu level for their primary tasks of delivering software? Maybe, but this would be for such a short stage that by the time someone is invited in to help they have already left the shu state. If they stay at this state for any time at all they will no longer exist because the organization, product or team would fail in a way to bring a drastic change to the team or it would cease to exist. This seems like such a bad state to be in that it would be rare and could not last long. We really should not assume all teams are at this level and dictating the one way is not likely to fix this team. The team has to be changed in a more drastic way.

This state does not match my experiences. I have seen a team that really could not deliver but the organization caught this mistake relatively quickly and fixed the problem. I say team but it was an organizational problem where people were hiding the real state to protect themselves and it failed relatively quickly. In this state, they also did not ask for help. It was not until they had failed and realized the problem that they asked for help. They also realized most of their issues and it was clear they were not a shu team. When they admitted the failure the true level of people who were being silenced by the system came out and they new how to fix their issues with very minimal encouragement and guidance.

Maybe a shu level team is a team where all team members are at the shu level for a specific new practice. Would that make them a shu level team? Meaning, a team which we treat as beginners because they do not know a practice we believe would make them more effective. I am thinking of practices like TDD and Uncle Bob's idea of a foreman. My experience matches more with Jason Gorman's. It just will not work to impose these practices. In my experience teams will meet any metric you impose to verify it and will actually make themselves even less effective. If we want to call them a shu level team we will have very little success. I am proposing they are not a shu level team. They are likely far from a Ri level team but they are not shu. They have some experience and success at delivering software and we do damage by treating them as beginners. They are likely shu at TDD and they likely need to be challenged to improve their capability to deliver. In my opinion, this is different than being a shu level team.

Maybe a shu level team is a team with so few ri/ha team members that they cannot successfully guide the shu level members and keep them from doing more harm than good. This seems more likely than the first example of all shu level members. This team actually has an advantage and solves the problem faster than the mythical all shu members team above. The few ri/ha team members make this visible quickly out of fear of their own failure if nothing else. I have seen this team get the problem fixed relatively quickly.

For me the real issue is having a shu level team or organization is never what we need to solve. That shu level team or organization gets eaten alive by the market, internal or external, or they fix the beginner problem so quickly that we would never be asked to come in and help. If you think your organization is at the shu level ask a few questions about it. Do people know where they, the team or organization, is not very effective, at least in some areas? So far I have not seen any organization where people could not answer this question to some degree. Enough people to know that change was necessary at a minimum. All of these organizations are currently delivering software. I would put them at the compotent state in the Dreyfus model at least. They need and benefit from someone looking at what they are doing and reminding them of the goals. The need and benefit from someone pointing them to solutions they have not tried and influencing them to think about them. The need and benefit from someone guiding them in practices they do not have experience implementing. They usually need to choose those practices based on the goal discussion first. 

At this point I may not have convinced you that shu level organizations and teams are not who we are asked to work with. If I have not convinced you; then please keep testing to see if the one way is causing more good than bad and is change truly sticking. 


If I have at least convinced you that it is possible there are no important shu level teams and organizations, or at least you are not working with or for one, let's continue. Ri level organizations and teams are probably very rare and frankly unimportant. If you are competing against one you will not likely be in business long, unless of course you have the cash to buy them in which case you probably should. So let's not even worry about that.

Most of teams and organizations are at the ha level or Competent level. These are the ones that see the need for improvement. They likely have asked you to help them by using Scrum, Kanban, Lean, XP or some other change to make the more effective. Likely, they have even asked you to teach the one true way. There are ha level organizations it seems to me. Interestingly, they often even state in contradiction to their request to you, to teach
the one way and be consistent across all teams in the organization, that they do not want be prescriptive. What would lead them to say this? Maybe it is the fact that they see multiple activities and in many cases teams and groups with a poor vision of the goals behaving in a way that they want to put structure on. They often see that being prescriptive is not likely to work and yet they ask for it anyway. They have not seen how to achieve similar goals in different ways while dealing with conflicts between groups that deliver together. These are ha level teams and organizations that need to be aligned to a goal before any of these ways will make sense.  Once they have that, then they can be guided to practices and may even be willing to try a practice they are at a shu level to see if it helps.

We, as coaches and change agents, need to help them understand the goal and make that clear from top to bottom. Once we do that we can help them see with some minimal guidelines where they could improve to meet the goal. They will also see when they have a goal that is different and start pushing back on the system that is giving conflicting goals. Interestingly, until they see this conflict teams and organizations do not push back openly in a way that can get the conflict resolved. It is usually not politically safe to do so. They push back in a politically safe way that continues towards their conflicting goal while meeting a metric, in number but not value, that is meant to show direction towards a goal they are not trying to achieve.

When we start treating people like they are successful and knowledgeable, by asking their input on how to achieve the goal, we will find a better way to achieve these goals. We will often be asked how can that be done and give us the opportunity to introduce a new practice that helps them. They are more likely to be open to the new idea sooner if they have asked for help achieving the goal. They are more likely to spend the effort it takes to learn the practice than simply fake the metric. They are even likely to help choose a metric that helps them determine if they are getting better. The first XP team I worked on was this way. We had the opportunity to try something and we started seeking ways to do it even better. We learned metrics that helped guide us. We started to understand weaknesses and strengths of our own metrics. Teams that were forced to do the XP practices did not get the same benefits. Their builds were often broken, their test coverage went up in unimportant areas but met the targets. 

Most organizations will not allow Uncle Bob's foreman to control the code, it would have appeared significantly slower. They are still a ha level organization hiring more and more developers to fix a problem more developers will make worse. However, it probably would require a foreman to check everything in this forced 'treat the team as shu level' environment. Treating the team and organization as though they are a ha level team and they will start to see the trusts and reciprocate by helping the organization see the problems and find practices that help improve them.

Summing it up

When a team or organization has experience at their primary tasks it is wrong and dangerous to treat them as beginners. It is wrong because they are not. They need some time to choose the practice that moves them closer to a goal and learn that practice they are beginner at. They also need to see the goal in the bigger context. 

I really doubt you are working with or for a shu level organization or team. Is it possible, that we as change agents and organizations, due to our own level of HAness, are treating teams and organizations as if they are shu when they are not? Should we make sure we
are not teaching the one way because it is easier than dealing with people and helping them understand the goal? I know I need to think about this more often based on my past mistakes.

As always, I am seeking your feedback more than agreement. Please leave your comments and help me improve.