Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: RE: [agileindia] I am much more senior ...

Expand Messages
  • Pankaj Chawla
    Hi Vikram, I totally agree with you and its imperative that technical seniors especially who were not raised in a Agile culture from infancy but got into it
    Message 1 of 24 , May 7, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Vikram,
       
      I totally agree with you and its imperative that technical seniors especially who were not
      raised in a Agile culture from infancy but got into it after working for years in non-Agile setups
      are shown a clear path on how they can do value differentiation as they grow or they can end
      up in a pretty difficult position when asked whats your value differentiation compared to the
      guy with 1/4 your experience. Without that clearly laid out I thing its a problem just waiting to
      explode. I am not so worried about people who got into Agile from day one as they can relate
      more closely to servant-leadership and stuff but I would be watching with interest as to when
      their basic human instinct of being in power takes over. After all there is as little space at
      the top for servant-leaders as there is for leader-leaders.
       
      The basic problem is that Agile is a very engineering solution created by engineers for a problem
      that is engineering in nature but is vastly a human problem (productivity, motivation, teaming
      etc) and like most engineering solutions to human problems this one will also show its weaknesses
      as more and more humans embrace it. The good thing is that Agile is based on the foundation of
      iterative improvement and embracing change and I hope that Agile will use its own founding principles
      to do course correction and find a better solution to a changing requirement of showing a 25 year
      career path to guys in the technical ladder and I dont think anybody talked about it or thought abt
      this as a requirement 10 years back or even 2 years back. Changing requirements can impact the
      process itself and lets see how well Agile copes up with it.
       
      Cheers
      Pankaj     


      From: agileindia@yahoogroups.com [mailto:agileindia@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Vikram Dhiman
      Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 3:57 PM
      To: agileindia@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: RE: [agileindia] I am much more senior ...

      Pankaj:

      Super response!

      I think the answer here is to understand if you need senior people and if you need them then what is it that you would provide them before asking them to provide you something. Also, the cultural shift for these people can be significant, so what you are asking them to do is significantly high and if you can not match it with what is in it for them - at least at the interview stage, you are not going to start any discussion at all.

      I might be interested to hear about how different people create the space/ conditions for the senior people. Simply leaving them to fend for themselves or orient as per our divine leaders are born not created idea, is one strategy - not sure if a very bright one though.

      Thanks

      Vikrama Dhiman
      Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product Consulting]  
      
      Phone: 91-172-4630550
      Extension: 113
      Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@ yahoo.com
      MSN IM: vickidhiman@ hotmail.com
      Skype: vickidhiman


      Pankaj Chawla wrote:

      Hi Ajay,
       
      Even though I totally agree with you but your arguments are only based on the
      logic and ignore the emotional aspect of human behaviour. How many CEOs have
      you seen who have the guts to take a cut on their bonuses and instead allow
      a pay hike for the people way down there in the hierarchy (I havent seen any,
      infact going by the recent turmoils in US for past 8 years, it has brought
      forward leaders who will fight with the board of directors because their wife's
      travel expense was not approved or their compensation was 10% lower than
      their peers in similar fields). You can trickle down the hierarchical chain
      and will find similar behaviour at all levels. Authority and power by nature
      is the differentiator of who perish and who survive (look at NatGeo
      and every single program from the animal kingdom has one message,
      if you arent at the top of the power hierarchy you dont get the female,
      chances are you will die much early fighting the supremacy battle).
       
      The other part of the problem is that leaders cannot be created but
      managers are and most of the people who think they are leaders are
      actually managers. Leadership is a very human quality and not everyone
      can have it. Having said that the core premise on which management
      is based on is "managing something" and that itself means authority
      and power and hence the need for every manager to have it as part of
      their job description.
       
      Finally coming to this specific situation, the problem I see is that all four
      were actually techincal guys and not managers. The problem with Agile
      is that it puts all the technical guys in the same bucket, where as the
      managers (SM, PO, coach etc etc) still are all distinct and have a specific
      job description. The way techincal guys create a differentiatial in non-Agile
      setups is as one grows in experience one gets more into understanding
      customer situations, problem analysis, formulating solutions,architect ing
      and designing. The problem in Agile is that all this is not specific to a
      person but a team ownership and whatever be your experience you will all
      be doing it together and generally in equal distribution which can be very
      threatening to a senior guy as he is getting paid 4 times the money to do
      almost the same type of work and eventually the management can wake up
      to this fact and say - "hey why dont we get rid of some of the expensive 'senior'
      guys as they are doing the same work that a guy with 1/4 the salary is doing".
      The fact is that businesses work on the notion of increasing value differentiation
      as one grows in experience but some how Agile dilutes it all but putting all
      people in the same bucket. I would say that since Agile is only about 6-8 years
      old (has really become mainstream in last 3-4 years) we havent had these situations
      too often till now but as technical guys grow in experience within the Agile teams
      this situation is going to come all too often.
       
      Cheers
      Pankaj    


      From: agileindia@yahoogro ups.com [mailto:agileindia@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Ajay Danait
      Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:16 AM
      To: agileindia@yahoogro ups.com
      Subject: Re: [agileindia] I am much more senior ...

      Ask these 4 guys to read the topic of "Servant Leadership" -- Robert Greenleaf.
      Being a senior does not mean "slight" authority or command.
       
      Seniority is earned through respect of "juniors" and looks like the 4 "seniors" who quit because they saw "A"gile being the issue, then I would say they have not understood the core concept behind being a SM (or coach).
       
      Leadership cannot quit because they have not being given "authority", leaders know when to enable "authority" in the team by consensus and true leaders are those who are successful in building a leader-less (read authority-less, command-and- control less) team.
       
      I sincerely feel that the "seniors" you talk about are command-and- control freaks and not understood the true essence of being a "servant leader".


       
      On 5/7/08, Rashina Hoda <rashina@gmail. com> wrote:

      Hi Vikram/Rahul,
       
      This is very interesting scenario, specially from point of view of my research. I'm exploring Agile Project Management, and in particular 'the role of the project manager in agile projects' as a part of my Phd research, here in New Zealand.
       
      I was in India for the two Agile India conferences in Gurgaon and Mumbai and chatted with many agile practitioners, most of them in managerial positions. Almost all of them were very content with their roles and in general happy about the way agile was working for them. It would be interesting to talk to these managers who had issues with their roles in an agile setting.
       
      Since the 4 senior managers choose to move from an Agile to a non-Agile framework, it seems obvious that they weren't happy with the way Agile was being followed at their organisation, particularly in terms of how they were placed in the system. But do you believe its an inherent issue in Agile and that the fundamental Agile principles don't address the role of the PM (be it SM, PO, or Agile coach) properly?
       
      regards,
      Rashina
       
      --
      PhD Student
      Victoria University of Wellington
      New Zealand
      rashina@gmail. com
       
      On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Rahul Puri <rahulpuri1984@ gmail.com> wrote:

      Vikram:

      I find it hard to believe people leaving because there weren't enough senior people. I believe exprienced people help you a WHOLE LOT to grow as a professional and as an individual. BUT, at the same time I don't believe an individual's growth is STRICTLY dependent on the experienced people. If growth was their concern they could read books and what not to gain knowledge.

      In my opinion, the situation was perfect case for people to take initiattive and assert their leadership skills(when experienced people aren't there, giving confidence to the company that it won't be let down by individuals it has invested in).

      It's my personal opinion, that a Product Owner's role should be played by a person who understands people and their needs(as only then a vaccum is created for the engineering of a "well designed" software system that solves a "real-problem" ). You could raise questions to my belief stating a person reaches that maturity level only with experience(which is true, but there could be exceptions).

      As for your concern about the career transition, I think the organisation as a whole needs to be mentored on Agile(which includes the HR). And, I think then there is strong possibility of not having such a scenario.



      Happy Agile'ing
      Rahul Puri

       
      On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Vikram Dhiman <vikram@netsolutions india.com> wrote:
      Hi Rahul:

      The person does not want to me a Scrum Master or Product Owner. Also, there were 04 such persons. Also, 04 of these went to a rival company. Also, because of this, at least some people migrated from Agile company to a non-Agile one [not because of process, but because there are not enough experienced people on board].

      You have 03 main roles : PO, SM and the team. Of these, the PO and SM are typically given to senior people/ someone really skilled and are generally seen as a reward. I know that these are supposed to be roles rather than titles, but this is rarely done. That can be a reason for the discontent among senior technical people in the "technical team". In older hierarchy - you had two paths of growth : technical [tech architect, enterprise designer etc] and managerial. How do we show this to the people in an Agile set up so that you do not end up loosing good and experienced people?

      Thanks
      Vikrama Dhiman
      Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product Consulting]

      Phone: 91-172-4630550
      Extension: 113
      Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@ yahoo.com
      MSN IM: vickidhiman@ hotmail.com
      Skype: vickidhiman

      Rahul Puri wrote:
      Vikram:

      According to your mail(and provided I comprehended it well enough), I believe the person you mentioning is good at Technical stuff. I find it hard to believe why would be eyeing a role that has less to do where his expertise is. "In theory", I find it hard to believe he would be a good fit for Product Owner's role. Again, in practice things might be different as his personality traits would come into play. But "by default", I would persume a Product owner to be a business oriented person who understands users and their needs, not a Technical guy who can produce tonnes code but that application doesn't have people using it(keep in mind, I said default ... there could be exceptions based on personality traits).

      Even if he is eyeing the Scrum Master role, then I think he has to be management person as that person really is making sure if the process is done right. And, "by default" taking care of processes is a management thingy(It's important I quote "by default" because every organisation is not the same). So, I think the person in question here should think about certifications like PMP and all and get into PMO(Project Management Office) and really then lay out the plans on how he believes the process should be to roll out an application.

      Joining a company thats Agile or Fragile, is really upto an individual. If that individual is a SuperStar then I would suggest he should go into a company where Agile is not the norm. Why? Well, because this way he can play a strong leadership role in shaping the personality of that company and have a serious impact(but like I said, the person should a be a superstar(as far as expertise is concerned to have that kind of an impact)).

      Respect and authority any individual can command through their work. I find it hard to believe a person really being the captain of the ship and taking care of "most" things not having the respect of the crew(damm, even a t00l like Jack Sparrow was able to command respect in Pirates of the Caribean). So, im my opinion he can join any company to get respect and authority(as really work would speak for itself).

      In the end, I'd like to highlight one essential point, it really boils down to the person's personality. How much of an impact can he have, it's hard to really rationalise the whole situation in terms of Agile or (respect and authority). There are way too many variables involved to just give "one right answer" to this issue.

      Happy Agile'ing
      Rahul Puri

      On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Vikram Dhiman <vikram@netsolutions india.com> wrote:
      An interesting thing happened at a friends company. They are really good
      at Agile and I know from first hand experience that right from the value
      system to practices are good. However, of late, 04 senior people whom
      they wanted to hire as a part of the team [technical people] refused to
      join - highlighting what they called "inadequate respect/ authority".
      The problem is that these 04 people have now gone to rival company and
      in last 04 months, the company [not doing Agile what so ever] has made
      rapid strides. If that was not bad in itself, a lot of people from this
      company have also joined the competing company citing what they call "we
      will learn more from seniors in the company." In short, there has been a
      serious human capital loss.

      I tried to call one of these person's and he told me this - "I have
      slogged hard for over 06 years to reach where I have. I don't have an
      issue working with people much less in experience - I would learn
      something from them too. But, I find it degrading to discredit all my 06
      years of experience. How do I know I have grown if all the time its just
      "team's success" thats the metric. Again, I am not against the team - I
      just want respect and slight authority." Then he went on to add - "After
      all, you too strive for a Scrum Master, Scrum Master of Scrum Master,
      Product Owner role as well? Do you give it to someone with 02 years
      experience? Why not have something similar for technically experienced
      people too?"
      I thought long and hard about it. I have to yet come up with an answer.
      I don't know if there are studies whether experienced people
      [development team and not SM's or PO's] prefer Agile companies or more
      process driven companies with titles and authority.

      I would believe this is a real dilemma and there might be things which
      are not being addressed by Agile itself and needs support from some
      other research in HR/ organizational patterns etc. The people vs the
      team debate has an interesting angle.

      I am unsure how best to approach this issue. Any insight and thoughts
      are welcome.

      --
      Vikrama Dhiman
      Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product Consulting]

      Phone: 91-172-4630550
      Extension: 113
      Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@ yahoo.com
      MSN IM: vickidhiman@ hotmail.com
      Skype: vickidhiman

       






  • p_jayadeep
    This problem is well answered by Mary and Tom Poppendiek s book, on Lean Software development. According to them, the senior people in the team should grow
    Message 2 of 24 , May 7, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      This problem is well answered by Mary and Tom Poppendiek's book, on
      Lean Software development. According to them, the senior people in the
      team should grow into the master developers in the team who can not
      only do their own work, but help others in the team becoming better
      engineers and master developers in future. Also in an agile software
      development scenario, engineers need to make important decisions which
      is typically prescribed by an architect in the architecture document.
      Having senior folks around would really help the team make the right
      choices.

      Jayadeep

      --- In agileindia@yahoogroups.com, Vikram Dhiman <vikram@...> wrote:
      >
      > Pankaj:
      >
      > Super response!
      >
      > I think the answer here is to understand if you need senior people and
      > if you need them then what is it that you would provide them before
      > asking them to provide you something. Also, the cultural shift for
      these
      > people can be significant, so what you are asking them to do is
      > significantly high and if you can not match it with what is in it for
      > them - at least at the interview stage, you are not going to start any
      > discussion at all.
      >
      > I might be interested to hear about how different people create the
      > space/ conditions for the senior people. Simply leaving them to fend
      for
      > themselves or orient as per our divine leaders are born not created
      > idea, is one strategy - not sure if a very bright one though.
      >
      > Thanks
      >
      > Vikrama Dhiman
      > Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product Consulting]
      >
      > Phone: 91-172-4630550
      > Extension: 113
      > Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@...
      > MSN IM: vickidhiman@...
      > Skype: vickidhiman
      >
      >
      >
      > Pankaj Chawla wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi Ajay,
      > >
      > > Even though I totally agree with you but your arguments are only
      based
      > > on the
      > > logic and ignore the emotional aspect of human behaviour. How many
      > > CEOs have
      > > you seen who have the guts to take a cut on their bonuses and instead
      > > allow
      > > a pay hike for the people way down there in the hierarchy (I havent
      > > seen any,
      > > infact going by the recent turmoils in US for past 8 years, it has
      brought
      > > forward leaders who will fight with the board of directors because
      > > their wife's
      > > travel expense was not approved or their compensation was 10%
      lower than
      > > their peers in similar fields). You can trickle down the hierarchical
      > > chain
      > > and will find similar behaviour at all levels. Authority and power by
      > > nature
      > > is the differentiator of who perish and who survive (look at NatGeo
      > > and every single program from the animal kingdom has one message,
      > > if you arent at the top of the power hierarchy you dont get the
      female,
      > > chances are you will die much early fighting the supremacy battle).
      > >
      > > The other part of the problem is that leaders cannot be created but
      > > managers are and most of the people who think they are leaders are
      > > actually managers. Leadership is a very human quality and not everyone
      > > can have it. Having said that the core premise on which management
      > > is based on is "managing something" and that itself means authority
      > > and power and hence the need for every manager to have it as part of
      > > their job description.
      > >
      > > Finally coming to this specific situation, the problem I see is that
      > > all four
      > > were actually techincal guys and not managers. The problem with Agile
      > > is that it puts all the technical guys in the same bucket, where
      as the
      > > managers (SM, PO, coach etc etc) still are all distinct and have a
      > > specific
      > > job description. The way techincal guys create a differentiatial in
      > > non-Agile
      > > setups is as one grows in experience one gets more into understanding
      > > customer situations, problem analysis, formulating
      solutions,architecting
      > > and designing. The problem in Agile is that all this is not
      specific to a
      > > person but a team ownership and whatever be your experience you
      will all
      > > be doing it together and generally in equal distribution which can be
      > > very
      > > threatening to a senior guy as he is getting paid 4 times the
      money to do
      > > almost the same type of work and eventually the management can wake up
      > > to this fact and say - "hey why dont we get rid of some of the
      > > expensive 'senior'
      > > guys as they are doing the same work that a guy with 1/4 the
      salary is
      > > doing".
      > > The fact is that businesses work on the notion of increasing value
      > > differentiation
      > > as one grows in experience but some how Agile dilutes it all but
      > > putting all
      > > people in the same bucket. I would say that since Agile is only about
      > > 6-8 years
      > > old (has really become mainstream in last 3-4 years) we havent had
      > > these situations
      > > too often till now but as technical guys grow in experience within
      the
      > > Agile teams
      > > this situation is going to come all too often.
      > >
      > > Cheers
      > > Pankaj
      > >
      > >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > *From:* agileindia@yahoogroups.com
      > > [mailto:agileindia@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Ajay Danait
      > > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:16 AM
      > > *To:* agileindia@yahoogroups.com
      > > *Subject:* Re: [agileindia] I am much more senior ...
      > >
      > > Ask these 4 guys to read the topic of "Servant Leadership" --
      > > Robert Greenleaf.
      > > Being a senior does not mean "slight" authority or command.
      > >
      > > Seniority is earned through respect of "juniors" and looks like
      > > the 4 "seniors" who quit because they saw "A"gile being the issue,
      > > then I would say they have not understood the core concept behind
      > > being a SM (or coach).
      > >
      > > Leadership cannot quit because they have not being given
      > > "authority", leaders know when to enable "authority" in the team
      > > by consensus and true leaders are those who are successful in
      > > building a leader-less (read authority-less, command-and-control
      > > less) team.
      > >
      > > I sincerely feel that the "seniors" you talk about are
      > > command-and-control freaks and not understood the true essence of
      > > being a "servant leader".
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > On 5/7/08, *Rashina Hoda* <rashina@...
      > > <mailto:rashina@...>> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi Vikram/Rahul,
      > >
      > > This is very interesting scenario, specially from point of
      > > view of my research. I'm exploring Agile Project Management,
      > > and in particular 'the role of the project manager in agile
      > > projects' as a part of my Phd research, here in New Zealand.
      > >
      > > I was in India for the two Agile India conferences in Gurgaon
      > > and Mumbai and chatted with many agile practitioners, most of
      > > them in managerial positions. Almost all of them were very
      > > content with their roles and in general happy about the way
      > > agile was working for them. It would be interesting to talk to
      > > these managers who had issues with their roles in an agile
      > > setting.
      > >
      > > Since the 4 senior managers choose to move from an Agile to a
      > > non-Agile framework, it seems obvious that they weren't happy
      > > with the way Agile was being followed at their organisation,
      > > particularly in terms of how they were placed in the system.
      > > But do you believe its an inherent issue in Agile and that the
      > > fundamental Agile principles don't address the role of the PM
      > > (be it SM, PO, or Agile coach) properly?
      > >
      > > regards,
      > > Rashina
      > >
      > > --
      > > PhD Student
      > > Victoria University of Wellington
      > > New Zealand
      > > rashina@... <mailto:rashina@...>
      > >
      > > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Rahul Puri
      > > <rahulpuri1984@... <mailto:rahulpuri1984@...>> wrote:
      > >
      > > Vikram:
      > >
      > > I find it hard to believe people leaving because there
      > > weren't enough senior people. I believe exprienced people
      > > help you a WHOLE LOT to grow as a professional and as an
      > > individual. BUT, at the same time I don't believe an
      > > individual's growth is STRICTLY dependent on the
      > > experienced people. If growth was their concern they could
      > > read books and what not to gain knowledge.
      > >
      > > In my opinion, the situation was perfect case for people
      > > to take initiattive and assert their leadership
      > > skills(when experienced people aren't there, giving
      > > confidence to the company that it won't be let down by
      > > individuals it has invested in).
      > >
      > > It's my personal opinion, that a Product Owner's role
      > > should be played by a person who understands people and
      > > their needs(as only then a vaccum is created for the
      > > engineering of a "well designed" software system that
      > > solves a "real-problem"). You could raise questions to my
      > > belief stating a person reaches that maturity level only
      > > with experience(which is true, but there could be
      > > exceptions).
      > >
      > > As for your concern about the career transition, I think
      > > the organisation as a whole needs to be mentored on
      > > Agile(which includes the HR). And, I think then there is
      > > strong possibility of not having such a scenario.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Happy Agile'ing
      > > Rahul Puri
      > >
      > >
      > > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Vikram Dhiman
      > > <vikram@...
      > > <mailto:vikram%40netsolutionsindia.com>> wrote:
      > > Hi Rahul:
      > >
      > > The person does not want to me a Scrum Master or Product
      > > Owner. Also, there were 04 such persons. Also, 04 of these
      > > went to a rival company. Also, because of this, at least
      > > some people migrated from Agile company to a non-Agile one
      > > [not because of process, but because there are not enough
      > > experienced people on board].
      > >
      > > You have 03 main roles : PO, SM and the team. Of these,
      > > the PO and SM are typically given to senior people/
      > > someone really skilled and are generally seen as a reward.
      > > I know that these are supposed to be roles rather than
      > > titles, but this is rarely done. That can be a reason for
      > > the discontent among senior technical people in the
      > > "technical team". In older hierarchy - you had two paths
      > > of growth : technical [tech architect, enterprise designer
      > > etc] and managerial. How do we show this to the people in
      > > an Agile set up so that you do not end up loosing good and
      > > experienced people?
      > >
      > > Thanks
      > > Vikrama Dhiman
      > > Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product
      Consulting]
      > >
      > > Phone: 91-172-4630550
      > > Extension: 113
      > > Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@...
      > > <mailto:vickydhiman%40yahoo.com>
      > > MSN IM: vickidhiman@...
      > > <mailto:vickidhiman%40hotmail.com>
      > > Skype: vickidhiman
      > >
      > > Rahul Puri wrote:
      > > Vikram:
      > >
      > > According to your mail(and provided I comprehended it well
      > > enough), I believe the person you mentioning is good at
      > > Technical stuff. I find it hard to believe why would be
      > > eyeing a role that has less to do where his expertise is.
      > > "In theory", I find it hard to believe he would be a good
      > > fit for Product Owner's role. Again, in practice things
      > > might be different as his personality traits would come
      > > into play. But "by default", I would persume a Product
      > > owner to be a business oriented person who understands
      > > users and their needs, not a Technical guy who can produce
      > > tonnes code but that application doesn't have people using
      > > it(keep in mind, I said default ... there could be
      > > exceptions based on personality traits).
      > >
      > > Even if he is eyeing the Scrum Master role, then I think
      > > he has to be management person as that person really is
      > > making sure if the process is done right. And, "by
      > > default" taking care of processes is a management
      > > thingy(It's important I quote "by default" because every
      > > organisation is not the same). So, I think the person in
      > > question here should think about certifications like PMP
      > > and all and get into PMO(Project Management Office) and
      > > really then lay out the plans on how he believes the
      > > process should be to roll out an application.
      > >
      > > Joining a company thats Agile or Fragile, is really upto
      > > an individual. If that individual is a SuperStar then I
      > > would suggest he should go into a company where Agile is
      > > not the norm. Why? Well, because this way he can play a
      > > strong leadership role in shaping the personality of that
      > > company and have a serious impact(but like I said, the
      > > person should a be a superstar(as far as expertise is
      > > concerned to have that kind of an impact)).
      > >
      > > Respect and authority any individual can command through
      > > their work. I find it hard to believe a person really
      > > being the captain of the ship and taking care of "most"
      > > things not having the respect of the crew(damm, even a
      > > t00l like Jack Sparrow was able to command respect in
      > > Pirates of the Caribean). So, im my opinion he can join
      > > any company to get respect and authority(as really work
      > > would speak for itself).
      > >
      > > In the end, I'd like to highlight one essential point, it
      > > really boils down to the person's personality. How much of
      > > an impact can he have, it's hard to really rationalise the
      > > whole situation in terms of Agile or (respect and
      > > authority). There are way too many variables involved to
      > > just give "one right answer" to this issue.
      > >
      > > Happy Agile'ing
      > > Rahul Puri
      > >
      > > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Vikram Dhiman
      > > <vikram@...
      > > <mailto:vikram%40netsolutionsindia.com>> wrote:
      > > An interesting thing happened at a friends company. They
      > > are really good
      > > at Agile and I know from first hand experience that right
      > > from the value
      > > system to practices are good. However, of late, 04 senior
      > > people whom
      > > they wanted to hire as a part of the team [technical
      > > people] refused to
      > > join - highlighting what they called "inadequate respect/
      > > authority".
      > > The problem is that these 04 people have now gone to rival
      > > company and
      > > in last 04 months, the company [not doing Agile what so
      > > ever] has made
      > > rapid strides. If that was not bad in itself, a lot of
      > > people from this
      > > company have also joined the competing company citing what
      > > they call "we
      > > will learn more from seniors in the company." In short,
      > > there has been a
      > > serious human capital loss.
      > >
      > > I tried to call one of these person's and he told me this
      > > - "I have
      > > slogged hard for over 06 years to reach where I have. I
      > > don't have an
      > > issue working with people much less in experience - I
      > > would learn
      > > something from them too. But, I find it degrading to
      > > discredit all my 06
      > > years of experience. How do I know I have grown if all the
      > > time its just
      > > "team's success" thats the metric. Again, I am not against
      > > the team - I
      > > just want respect and slight authority." Then he went on
      > > to add - "After
      > > all, you too strive for a Scrum Master, Scrum Master of
      > > Scrum Master,
      > > Product Owner role as well? Do you give it to someone with
      > > 02 years
      > > experience? Why not have something similar for technically
      > > experienced
      > > people too?"
      > > I thought long and hard about it. I have to yet come up
      > > with an answer.
      > > I don't know if there are studies whether experienced
      people
      > > [development team and not SM's or PO's] prefer Agile
      > > companies or more
      > > process driven companies with titles and authority.
      > >
      > > I would believe this is a real dilemma and there might be
      > > things which
      > > are not being addressed by Agile itself and needs support
      > > from some
      > > other research in HR/ organizational patterns etc. The
      > > people vs the
      > > team debate has an interesting angle.
      > >
      > > I am unsure how best to approach this issue. Any insight
      > > and thoughts
      > > are welcome.
      > >
      > > --
      > > Vikrama Dhiman
      > > Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product
      Consulting]
      > >
      > > Phone: 91-172-4630550
      > > Extension: 113
      > > Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@...
      > > <mailto:vickydhiman%40yahoo.com>
      > > MSN IM: vickidhiman@...
      > > <mailto:vickidhiman%40hotmail.com>
      > > Skype: vickidhiman
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    • Venkatesh
      I can see two different issues in this scenario, an issue with those 4 people who didn t join the Agile company, and the second one is with the company
      Message 3 of 24 , May 7, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I can see two different issues in this scenario, an issue with those 4
        people who didn't join the Agile company, and the second one is with
        the company practicing Agile itself.

        Both seem to have shown pretty immatured behavior. My personal view
        is this company practicing Agile seems to be pretty immatured because,
        it doesn't seem to have put forth right policies/procedures in place
        while introducing Agile in the organization. I am assuming that
        somebody at the top might have felt Agile to be good and told
        everybody to start practicing Agile without looking at the human
        aspect. Practices like self organizing teams, flat team structure, etc
        cannot be implemented in one go, it needs its own time and effort to
        take off before it reaches maturity level. Many a times dedicated
        Agile coaches/behavioral experts are brought into picture to monitor
        the impact of such practices on teams before giving the final go.
        This Agile company that we are discussing many not have looked into
        any of the above aspects, before introducing Agile.

        Also senior members should be empowered to be coaches/mentors for
        juniors, during the initial days of creation of self organizing/self
        managing /flat structured teams. This in turn does not hurt the ego
        and at the same time, junior members would be benefited as they get to
        learn a lot from seniors.

        In one of the case studies I have seen, junior team members wanted to
        participate in design and architecture. Senior folks used to brush
        them aside saying they don't have necessary skills. The Agile coach
        for this project in turn made all the seniors to be mentors and
        assigned a senior to a junior. As soon as the seniors title changed
        from calling themselves as "architects" to "mentors/coaches", the
        relationship transformed to a "teacher/student" relationship, leading
        to a good atmosphere. I sometimes feel "titles" do matter and
        retaining/changing them makes a lot of difference.

        Self organizing does not mean that seniors or capable people should
        not be respected. In most of the self organizing teams I have seen,
        seniors and much experienced people have been voted to do the roles of
        Scrum Master and PO by their team members. Always due respect is given
        to the right people. If the people are matured enough, they would try
        to understand the scenario, their weaknesses and strive to improve
        upon them rather than quitting !!!

        Cheers,
        Venkatesh
        http://agileworld.blogspot.com






        --- In agileindia@yahoogroups.com, Vikram Dhiman <vikram@...> wrote:
        >
        > An interesting thing happened at a friends company. They are really
        good
        > at Agile and I know from first hand experience that right from the
        value
        > system to practices are good. However, of late, 04 senior people whom
        > they wanted to hire as a part of the team [technical people] refused to
        > join - highlighting what they called "inadequate respect/ authority".
        > The problem is that these 04 people have now gone to rival company and
        > in last 04 months, the company [not doing Agile what so ever] has made
        > rapid strides. If that was not bad in itself, a lot of people from this
        > company have also joined the competing company citing what they call
        "we
        > will learn more from seniors in the company." In short, there has
        been a
        > serious human capital loss.
        >
        > I tried to call one of these person's and he told me this - "I have
        > slogged hard for over 06 years to reach where I have. I don't have an
        > issue working with people much less in experience - I would learn
        > something from them too. But, I find it degrading to discredit all
        my 06
        > years of experience. How do I know I have grown if all the time its
        just
        > "team's success" thats the metric. Again, I am not against the team - I
        > just want respect and slight authority." Then he went on to add -
        "After
        > all, you too strive for a Scrum Master, Scrum Master of Scrum Master,
        > Product Owner role as well? Do you give it to someone with 02 years
        > experience? Why not have something similar for technically experienced
        > people too?"
        > I thought long and hard about it. I have to yet come up with an answer.
        > I don't know if there are studies whether experienced people
        > [development team and not SM's or PO's] prefer Agile companies or more
        > process driven companies with titles and authority.
        >
        > I would believe this is a real dilemma and there might be things which
        > are not being addressed by Agile itself and needs support from some
        > other research in HR/ organizational patterns etc. The people vs the
        > team debate has an interesting angle.
        >
        > I am unsure how best to approach this issue. Any insight and thoughts
        > are welcome.
        >
        > --
        > Vikrama Dhiman
        > Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product Consulting]
        >
        > Phone: 91-172-4630550
        > Extension: 113
        > Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@...
        > MSN IM: vickidhiman@...
        > Skype: vickidhiman
        >
      • Vikram Dhiman
        Venkatesh: I went through your email and then I went through my email. After reading your assumptions, it seems that I did not articulate my question/ context
        Message 4 of 24 , May 7, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Venkatesh:

          I went through your email and then I went through my email. After reading your assumptions, it seems that I did not articulate my question/ context well.

          Regardless of that, I do not see how doing everything in one go is immature at all? It is a choice available in implementing a change and I have seen it work in two contexts, and much faster too. It does have some repercussions but going slow and steady has some other repercussions too [in fact every choice you make has repercussions]. What I like about agile is the focus on continually learning and adapting rather than judging and reprimanding - applicable for individuals as well as organizations.

          Thanks
          Vikrama Dhiman
          Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product Consulting]  
          
          Phone: 91-172-4630550
          Extension: 113
          Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@...
          MSN IM: vickidhiman@...
          Skype: vickidhiman


          Venkatesh wrote:


          I can see two different issues in this scenario, an issue with those 4
          people who didn't join the Agile company, and the second one is with
          the company practicing Agile itself.

          Both seem to have shown pretty immatured behavior. My personal view
          is this company practicing Agile seems to be pretty immatured because,
          it doesn't seem to have put forth right policies/procedures in place
          while introducing Agile in the organization. I am assuming that
          somebody at the top might have felt Agile to be good and told
          everybody to start practicing Agile without looking at the human
          aspect. Practices like self organizing teams, flat team structure, etc
          cannot be implemented in one go, it needs its own time and effort to
          take off before it reaches maturity level. Many a times dedicated
          Agile coaches/behavioral experts are brought into picture to monitor
          the impact of such practices on teams before giving the final go.
          This Agile company that we are discussing many not have looked into
          any of the above aspects, before introducing Agile.

          Also senior members should be empowered to be coaches/mentors for
          juniors, during the initial days of creation of self organizing/self
          managing /flat structured teams. This in turn does not hurt the ego
          and at the same time, junior members would be benefited as they get to
          learn a lot from seniors.

          In one of the case studies I have seen, junior team members wanted to
          participate in design and architecture. Senior folks used to brush
          them aside saying they don't have necessary skills. The Agile coach
          for this project in turn made all the seniors to be mentors and
          assigned a senior to a junior. As soon as the seniors title changed
          from calling themselves as "architects" to "mentors/coaches" , the
          relationship transformed to a "teacher/student" relationship, leading
          to a good atmosphere. I sometimes feel "titles" do matter and
          retaining/changing them makes a lot of difference.

          Self organizing does not mean that seniors or capable people should
          not be respected. In most of the self organizing teams I have seen,
          seniors and much experienced people have been voted to do the roles of
          Scrum Master and PO by their team members. Always due respect is given
          to the right people. If the people are matured enough, they would try
          to understand the scenario, their weaknesses and strive to improve
          upon them rather than quitting !!!

          Cheers,
          Venkatesh
          http://agileworld. blogspot. com

          --- In agileindia@yahoogro ups.com, Vikram Dhiman <vikram@...> wrote:
          >
          > An interesting thing happened at a friends company. They are really
          good
          > at Agile and I know from first hand experience that right from the
          value
          > system to practices are good. However, of late, 04 senior people whom
          > they wanted to hire as a part of the team [technical people] refused to
          > join - highlighting what they called "inadequate respect/ authority".
          > The problem is that these 04 people have now gone to rival company and
          > in last 04 months, the company [not doing Agile what so ever] has made
          > rapid strides. If that was not bad in itself, a lot of people from this
          > company have also joined the competing company citing what they call
          "we
          > will learn more from seniors in the company." In short, there has
          been a
          > serious human capital loss.
          >
          > I tried to call one of these person's and he told me this - "I have
          > slogged hard for over 06 years to reach where I have. I don't have an
          > issue working with people much less in experience - I would learn
          > something from them too. But, I find it degrading to discredit all
          my 06
          > years of experience. How do I know I have grown if all the time its
          just
          > "team's success" thats the metric. Again, I am not against the team - I
          > just want respect and slight authority." Then he went on to add -
          "After
          > all, you too strive for a Scrum Master, Scrum Master of Scrum Master,
          > Product Owner role as well? Do you give it to someone with 02 years
          > experience? Why not have something similar for technically experienced
          > people too?"
          > I thought long and hard about it. I have to yet come up with an answer.
          > I don't know if there are studies whether experienced people
          > [development team and not SM's or PO's] prefer Agile companies or more
          > process driven companies with titles and authority.
          >
          > I would believe this is a real dilemma and there might be things which
          > are not being addressed by Agile itself and needs support from some
          > other research in HR/ organizational patterns etc. The people vs the
          > team debate has an interesting angle.
          >
          > I am unsure how best to approach this issue. Any insight and thoughts
          > are welcome.
          >
          > --
          > Vikrama Dhiman
          > Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product Consulting]
          >
          > Phone: 91-172-4630550
          > Extension: 113
          > Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@ ...
          > MSN IM: vickidhiman@ ...
          > Skype: vickidhiman
          >

        • Venkatesh Krishnamurthy
          Vikram You are right, you had not articulated anything about the company and so I made assumptions based on the following things: 1. Those 4 people who were
          Message 5 of 24 , May 7, 2008
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Vikram

            You are right, you had not articulated anything about the company and so I made assumptions based on the following things:

            1. Those 4 people who were supposed to join didn't join stating that they don't get respect as seniors

            2. Another set of employees also left the company and joined rival company.

            Above points made me to think that there is something wrong in the way the company is handling people and process !!

            Thanks,
            Venkatesh



            Vikram Dhiman <vikram@...> wrote:
            Venkatesh:

            I went through your email and then I went through my email. After reading your assumptions, it seems that I did not articulate my question/ context well.

            Regardless of that, I do not see how doing everything in one go is immature at all? It is a choice available in implementing a change and I have seen it work in two contexts, and much faster too. It does have some repercussions but going slow and steady has some other repercussions too [in fact every choice you make has repercussions] . What I like about agile is the focus on continually learning and adapting rather than judging and reprimanding - applicable for individuals as well as organizations.

            Thanks
            Vikrama Dhiman
            Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product Consulting]

            Phone: 91-172-4630550
            Extension: 113
            Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@ yahoo.com
            MSN IM: vickidhiman@ hotmail.com
            Skype: vickidhiman


            Venkatesh wrote:

            I can see two different issues in this scenario, an issue with those 4
            people who didn't join the Agile company, and the second one is with
            the company practicing Agile itself.

            Both seem to have shown pretty immatured behavior. My personal view
            is this company practicing Agile seems to be pretty immatured because,
            it doesn't seem to have put forth right policies/procedures in place
            while introducing Agile in the organization. I am assuming that
            somebody at the top might have felt Agile to be good and told
            everybody to start practicing Agile without looking at the human
            aspect. Practices like self organizing teams, flat team structure, etc
            cannot be implemented in one go, it needs its own time and effort to
            take off before it reaches maturity level. Many a times dedicated
            Agile coaches/behavioral experts are brought into picture to monitor
            the impact of such practices on teams before giving the final go.
            This Agile company that we are discussing many not have looked into
            any of the above aspects, before introducing Agile.

            Also senior members should be empowered to be coaches/mentors for
            juniors, during the initial days of creation of self organizing/self
            managing /flat structured teams. This in turn does not hurt the ego
            and at the same time, junior members would be benefited as they get to
            learn a lot from seniors.

            In one of the case studies I have seen, junior team members wanted to
            participate in design and architecture. Senior folks used to brush
            them aside saying they don't have necessary skills. The Agile coach
            for this project in turn made all the seniors to be mentors and
            assigned a senior to a junior. As soon as the seniors title changed
            from calling themselves as "architects" to "mentors/coaches" , the
            relationship transformed to a "teacher/student" relationship, leading
            to a good atmosphere. I sometimes feel "titles" do matter and
            retaining/changing them makes a lot of difference.

            Self organizing does not mean that seniors or capable people should
            not be respected. In most of the self organizing teams I have seen,
            seniors and much experienced people have been voted to do the roles of
            Scrum Master and PO by their team members. Always due respect is given
            to the right people. If the people are matured enough, they would try
            to understand the scenario, their weaknesses and strive to improve
            upon them rather than quitting !!!

            Cheers,
            Venkatesh
            http://agileworld. blogspot. com

            --- In agileindia@yahoogro ups.com, Vikram Dhiman <vikram@...> wrote:
            >
            > An interesting thing happened at a friends company. They are really
            good
            > at Agile and I know from first hand experience that right from the
            value
            > system to practices are good. However, of late, 04 senior people whom
            > they wanted to hire as a part of the team [technical people] refused to
            > join - highlighting what they called "inadequate respect/ authority".
            > The problem is that these 04 people have now gone to rival company and
            > in last 04 months, the company [not doing Agile what so ever] has made
            > rapid strides. If that was not bad in itself, a lot of people from this
            > company have also joined the competing company citing what they call
            "we
            > will learn more from seniors in the company." In short, there has
            been a
            > serious human capital loss.
            >
            > I tried to call one of these person's and he told me this - "I have
            > slogged hard for over 06 years to reach where I have. I don't have an
            > issue working with people much less in experience - I would learn
            > something from them too. But, I find it degrading to discredit all
            my 06
            > years of experience. How do I know I have grown if all the time its
            just
            > "team's success" thats the metric. Again, I am not against the team - I
            > just want respect and slight authority." Then he went on to add -
            "After
            > all, you too strive for a Scrum Master, Scrum Master of Scrum Master,
            > Product Owner role as well? Do you give it to someone with 02 years
            > experience? Why not have something similar for technically experienced
            > people too?"
            > I thought long and hard about it. I have to yet come up with an answer.
            > I don't know if there are studies whether experienced people
            > [development team and not SM's or PO's] prefer Agile companies or more
            > process driven companies with titles and authority.
            >
            > I would believe this is a real dilemma and there might be things which
            > are not being addressed by Agile itself and needs support from some
            > other research in HR/ organizational patterns etc. The people vs the
            > team debate has an interesting angle.
            >
            > I am unsure how best to approach this issue. Any insight and thoughts
            > are welcome.
            >
            > --
            > Vikrama Dhiman
            > Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product Consulting]
            >
            > Phone: 91-172-4630550
            > Extension: 113
            > Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@ ...
            > MSN IM: vickidhiman@ ...
            > Skype: vickidhiman
            >



            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

          • Vikas Hazrati
            Hi, I think this would be a record thread in the history of agileIndia group with immense amount of activity wonderful to see that :) Coming back to the thread
            Message 6 of 24 , May 8, 2008
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi,

              I think this would be a record thread in the history of agileIndia group with immense amount of activity wonderful to see that :)

              Coming back to the thread and my 2 c.

              It is true that vis a vis the traditional team structures the senior members of an agile team tend to feel that their experience is not being utilized and they would not get the same amount of respect as they deserve. In an Agile team everyone is equally involved and strives for developing the right software. However, being equally involved does not necessarily mean that expectations from all the individuals is the same.

              As members pointed out earlier the senior members of the team need to give direction in terms of architecture, design, help new members to get on board and be productive, mitigate issues and conflicts etc etc. These are some of the things which are implicitly expected from senior people on the team. The idea is to be effective in a cohesive fashion.

              Apart from the regular project work there is also an expectation from these senior members to keep an eye on new and emerging technologies and introduce them to the core projects as and when required. Of course this again is a two way street, the company needs to give space and the people need to respond.

              If the senior people are doing all of this then as per my experience they would be respected and acknowledged much more than what the title on their business card says. Unfortunately at least in the domestic market we attach a lot of value to the designation on the business card but that would change :)

              On a tangent thinking from the perspective of those senior guys, may be they were never conveyed that they would still be respected by a virtue of their deeds. 

              Recently I was talking to a friend of mine who happens to be an HR manager in a respected software company. We were discussing our experiences on various companies that we have been to and what we have learned. I talked to him about a few of my experiences where I said it hurts in the long run to be a whistle blower and nobody loves that. If you feel that there is something wrong and you highlight that then it comes back to you even though you had good intentions.

              What he had  to say really changed my perspective and I can relate to some of my mistakes. He said that it is easy to be whistle blower, though it takes courage to be one. It is easy to say that this is wrong and that is wrong, what makes the difference is the people who can also suggest solutions. You should say that this is wrong and this is the possible solution for that. It is only when you accompany your whistle blowing with a possible solution then you are doing your full job, else you get only half ear to what you have to say. May be one of those 4 guys is reading this and would respond with a possible solution ;)

              Regards | Vikas



              On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Venkatesh Krishnamurthy <venky_nk@...> wrote:

              Vikram

              You are right, you had not articulated anything about the company and so I made assumptions based on the following things:

              1. Those 4 people who were supposed to join didn't join stating that they don't get respect as seniors

              2. Another set of employees also left the company and joined rival company.

              Above points made me to think that there is something wrong in the way the company is handling people and process !!

              Thanks,
              Venkatesh





              Vikram Dhiman <vikram@...> wrote:
              Venkatesh:

              I went through your email and then I went through my email. After reading your assumptions, it seems that I did not articulate my question/ context well.

              Regardless of that, I do not see how doing everything in one go is immature at all? It is a choice available in implementing a change and I have seen it work in two contexts, and much faster too. It does have some repercussions but going slow and steady has some other repercussions too [in fact every choice you make has repercussions]. What I like about agile is the focus on continually learning and adapting rather than judging and reprimanding - applicable for individuals as well as organizations.

              Thanks
              Vikrama Dhiman
              Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product Consulting]

              Phone: 91-172-4630550
              Extension: 113
              Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@...
              MSN IM: vickidhiman@...
              Skype: vickidhiman


              Venkatesh wrote:

              I can see two different issues in this scenario, an issue with those 4
              people who didn't join the Agile company, and the second one is with
              the company practicing Agile itself.

              Both seem to have shown pretty immatured behavior. My personal view
              is this company practicing Agile seems to be pretty immatured because,
              it doesn't seem to have put forth right policies/procedures in place
              while introducing Agile in the organization. I am assuming that
              somebody at the top might have felt Agile to be good and told
              everybody to start practicing Agile without looking at the human
              aspect. Practices like self organizing teams, flat team structure, etc
              cannot be implemented in one go, it needs its own time and effort to
              take off before it reaches maturity level. Many a times dedicated
              Agile coaches/behavioral experts are brought into picture to monitor
              the impact of such practices on teams before giving the final go.
              This Agile company that we are discussing many not have looked into
              any of the above aspects, before introducing Agile.

              Also senior members should be empowered to be coaches/mentors for
              juniors, during the initial days of creation of self organizing/self
              managing /flat structured teams. This in turn does not hurt the ego
              and at the same time, junior members would be benefited as they get to
              learn a lot from seniors.

              In one of the case studies I have seen, junior team members wanted to
              participate in design and architecture. Senior folks used to brush
              them aside saying they don't have necessary skills. The Agile coach
              for this project in turn made all the seniors to be mentors and
              assigned a senior to a junior. As soon as the seniors title changed
              from calling themselves as "architects" to "mentors/coaches", the
              relationship transformed to a "teacher/student" relationship, leading
              to a good atmosphere. I sometimes feel "titles" do matter and
              retaining/changing them makes a lot of difference.

              Self organizing does not mean that seniors or capable people should
              not be respected. In most of the self organizing teams I have seen,
              seniors and much experienced people have been voted to do the roles of
              Scrum Master and PO by their team members. Always due respect is given
              to the right people. If the people are matured enough, they would try
              to understand the scenario, their weaknesses and strive to improve
              upon them rather than quitting !!!

              Cheers,
              Venkatesh
              http://agileworld.blogspot.com

              --- In agileindia@yahoogroups.com, Vikram Dhiman <vikram@...> wrote:
              >
              > An interesting thing happened at a friends company. They are really
              good
              > at Agile and I know from first hand experience that right from the
              value
              > system to practices are good. However, of late, 04 senior people whom
              > they wanted to hire as a part of the team [technical people] refused to
              > join - highlighting what they called "inadequate respect/ authority".
              > The problem is that these 04 people have now gone to rival company and
              > in last 04 months, the company [not doing Agile what so ever] has made
              > rapid strides. If that was not bad in itself, a lot of people from this
              > company have also joined the competing company citing what they call
              "we
              > will learn more from seniors in the company." In short, there has
              been a
              > serious human capital loss.
              >
              > I tried to call one of these person's and he told me this - "I have
              > slogged hard for over 06 years to reach where I have. I don't have an
              > issue working with people much less in experience - I would learn
              > something from them too. But, I find it degrading to discredit all
              my 06
              > years of experience. How do I know I have grown if all the time its
              just
              > "team's success" thats the metric. Again, I am not against the team - I
              > just want respect and slight authority." Then he went on to add -
              "After
              > all, you too strive for a Scrum Master, Scrum Master of Scrum Master,
              > Product Owner role as well? Do you give it to someone with 02 years
              > experience? Why not have something similar for technically experienced
              > people too?"
              > I thought long and hard about it. I have to yet come up with an answer.
              > I don't know if there are studies whether experienced people
              > [development team and not SM's or PO's] prefer Agile companies or more
              > process driven companies with titles and authority.
              >
              > I would believe this is a real dilemma and there might be things which
              > are not being addressed by Agile itself and needs support from some
              > other research in HR/ organizational patterns etc. The people vs the
              > team debate has an interesting angle.
              >
              > I am unsure how best to approach this issue. Any insight and thoughts
              > are welcome.
              >
              > --
              > Vikrama Dhiman
              > Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product Consulting]
              >
              > Phone: 91-172-4630550
              > Extension: 113
              > Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@...
              > MSN IM: vickidhiman@...
              > Skype: vickidhiman
              >



              Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

            • Rahul Puri
              Agile Enthusiasts: I think what Agile really does is, it makes the whole process transparent. And, any rough edges within the team would get highlighted. Now,
              Message 7 of 24 , May 8, 2008
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Agile Enthusiasts:

                I think what Agile really does is, it makes the whole process transparent. And, any rough edges within the team would get highlighted. Now, some people may like this transparency some may not. But, one thing is for sure in the long run it will augur well for the whole software development community.

                Happy Agile'ing
                Rahul Puri

                On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Vikas Hazrati <vhazrati@...> wrote:

                Hi,

                I think this would be a record thread in the history of agileIndia group with immense amount of activity wonderful to see that :)

                Coming back to the thread and my 2 c.

                It is true that vis a vis the traditional team structures the senior members of an agile team tend to feel that their experience is not being utilized and they would not get the same amount of respect as they deserve. In an Agile team everyone is equally involved and strives for developing the right software. However, being equally involved does not necessarily mean that expectations from all the individuals is the same.

                As members pointed out earlier the senior members of the team need to give direction in terms of architecture, design, help new members to get on board and be productive, mitigate issues and conflicts etc etc. These are some of the things which are implicitly expected from senior people on the team. The idea is to be effective in a cohesive fashion.

                Apart from the regular project work there is also an expectation from these senior members to keep an eye on new and emerging technologies and introduce them to the core projects as and when required. Of course this again is a two way street, the company needs to give space and the people need to respond.

                If the senior people are doing all of this then as per my experience they would be respected and acknowledged much more than what the title on their business card says. Unfortunately at least in the domestic market we attach a lot of value to the designation on the business card but that would change :)

                On a tangent thinking from the perspective of those senior guys, may be they were never conveyed that they would still be respected by a virtue of their deeds. 

                Recently I was talking to a friend of mine who happens to be an HR manager in a respected software company. We were discussing our experiences on various companies that we have been to and what we have learned. I talked to him about a few of my experiences where I said it hurts in the long run to be a whistle blower and nobody loves that. If you feel that there is something wrong and you highlight that then it comes back to you even though you had good intentions.

                What he had  to say really changed my perspective and I can relate to some of my mistakes. He said that it is easy to be whistle blower, though it takes courage to be one. It is easy to say that this is wrong and that is wrong, what makes the difference is the people who can also suggest solutions. You should say that this is wrong and this is the possible solution for that. It is only when you accompany your whistle blowing with a possible solution then you are doing your full job, else you get only half ear to what you have to say. May be one of those 4 guys is reading this and would respond with a possible solution ;)

                Regards | Vikas





                On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Venkatesh Krishnamurthy <venky_nk@...> wrote:

                Vikram

                You are right, you had not articulated anything about the company and so I made assumptions based on the following things:

                1. Those 4 people who were supposed to join didn't join stating that they don't get respect as seniors

                2. Another set of employees also left the company and joined rival company.

                Above points made me to think that there is something wrong in the way the company is handling people and process !!

                Thanks,
                Venkatesh





                Vikram Dhiman <vikram@...> wrote:
                Venkatesh:

                I went through your email and then I went through my email. After reading your assumptions, it seems that I did not articulate my question/ context well.

                Regardless of that, I do not see how doing everything in one go is immature at all? It is a choice available in implementing a change and I have seen it work in two contexts, and much faster too. It does have some repercussions but going slow and steady has some other repercussions too [in fact every choice you make has repercussions]. What I like about agile is the focus on continually learning and adapting rather than judging and reprimanding - applicable for individuals as well as organizations.

                Thanks
                Vikrama Dhiman
                Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product Consulting]

                Phone: 91-172-4630550
                Extension: 113
                Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@...
                MSN IM: vickidhiman@...
                Skype: vickidhiman


                Venkatesh wrote:

                I can see two different issues in this scenario, an issue with those 4
                people who didn't join the Agile company, and the second one is with
                the company practicing Agile itself.

                Both seem to have shown pretty immatured behavior. My personal view
                is this company practicing Agile seems to be pretty immatured because,
                it doesn't seem to have put forth right policies/procedures in place
                while introducing Agile in the organization. I am assuming that
                somebody at the top might have felt Agile to be good and told
                everybody to start practicing Agile without looking at the human
                aspect. Practices like self organizing teams, flat team structure, etc
                cannot be implemented in one go, it needs its own time and effort to
                take off before it reaches maturity level. Many a times dedicated
                Agile coaches/behavioral experts are brought into picture to monitor
                the impact of such practices on teams before giving the final go.
                This Agile company that we are discussing many not have looked into
                any of the above aspects, before introducing Agile.

                Also senior members should be empowered to be coaches/mentors for
                juniors, during the initial days of creation of self organizing/self
                managing /flat structured teams. This in turn does not hurt the ego
                and at the same time, junior members would be benefited as they get to
                learn a lot from seniors.

                In one of the case studies I have seen, junior team members wanted to
                participate in design and architecture. Senior folks used to brush
                them aside saying they don't have necessary skills. The Agile coach
                for this project in turn made all the seniors to be mentors and
                assigned a senior to a junior. As soon as the seniors title changed
                from calling themselves as "architects" to "mentors/coaches", the
                relationship transformed to a "teacher/student" relationship, leading
                to a good atmosphere. I sometimes feel "titles" do matter and
                retaining/changing them makes a lot of difference.

                Self organizing does not mean that seniors or capable people should
                not be respected. In most of the self organizing teams I have seen,
                seniors and much experienced people have been voted to do the roles of
                Scrum Master and PO by their team members. Always due respect is given
                to the right people. If the people are matured enough, they would try
                to understand the scenario, their weaknesses and strive to improve
                upon them rather than quitting !!!

                Cheers,
                Venkatesh
                http://agileworld.blogspot.com

                --- In agileindia@yahoogroups.com, Vikram Dhiman <vikram@...> wrote:
                >
                > An interesting thing happened at a friends company. They are really
                good
                > at Agile and I know from first hand experience that right from the
                value
                > system to practices are good. However, of late, 04 senior people whom
                > they wanted to hire as a part of the team [technical people] refused to
                > join - highlighting what they called "inadequate respect/ authority".
                > The problem is that these 04 people have now gone to rival company and
                > in last 04 months, the company [not doing Agile what so ever] has made
                > rapid strides. If that was not bad in itself, a lot of people from this
                > company have also joined the competing company citing what they call
                "we
                > will learn more from seniors in the company." In short, there has
                been a
                > serious human capital loss.
                >
                > I tried to call one of these person's and he told me this - "I have
                > slogged hard for over 06 years to reach where I have. I don't have an
                > issue working with people much less in experience - I would learn
                > something from them too. But, I find it degrading to discredit all
                my 06
                > years of experience. How do I know I have grown if all the time its
                just
                > "team's success" thats the metric. Again, I am not against the team - I
                > just want respect and slight authority." Then he went on to add -
                "After
                > all, you too strive for a Scrum Master, Scrum Master of Scrum Master,
                > Product Owner role as well? Do you give it to someone with 02 years
                > experience? Why not have something similar for technically experienced
                > people too?"
                > I thought long and hard about it. I have to yet come up with an answer.
                > I don't know if there are studies whether experienced people
                > [development team and not SM's or PO's] prefer Agile companies or more
                > process driven companies with titles and authority.
                >
                > I would believe this is a real dilemma and there might be things which
                > are not being addressed by Agile itself and needs support from some
                > other research in HR/ organizational patterns etc. The people vs the
                > team debate has an interesting angle.
                >
                > I am unsure how best to approach this issue. Any insight and thoughts
                > are welcome.
                >
                > --
                > Vikrama Dhiman
                > Manager, Business Analyst [Pre-sales and Product Consulting]
                >
                > Phone: 91-172-4630550
                > Extension: 113
                > Yahoo IM: vickydhiman@...
                > MSN IM: vickidhiman@...
                > Skype: vickidhiman
                >



                Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


              • Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.