Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: At what point would you correct the team?
- Hi Petri,
>> 2 What is your definition of authority ?I remember a list of different sources for authority, but
> This can be either "moral" (that's not a good word for it but has to make do because I can't come up with a better one) or "hierarchical". The former is based on respect and trust, the latter fundamentally on a position. A person can have both kinds at the same time.
unfortunately can't find it anymore. Possible sources included
position (legal authority), charisma and competence. There was more...
>> 3 Does the SM has authority (some kind) ?It think it should certainly be competence. Charisma might be nice,
> Yes, primarily of the first kind.
too, as long as it doesn't replace competence (otherwise it could
obviously get dysfunctional).
> There was a good discussion of the SM as the "PO of Scrum process", so in that sense there is a slight bit of the latter as well.I still think the notion of the SM as the "PO of the process" is
fundamentally flawed. But then, my personal vision of the SM might
well be in conflict with the official definition of the role.
>> 4 Does the SM ensure observance of the Scrum rules ?So, why would he ensure it, if it's not his final responsibility?
> Yes, but the final responsibility for following them rests on the PO and the team.
I see the SM basically as a facilititator and coach - helping the team
to come up with good rules, and telling them when they are not
following their own rules, helping them to resolve that problem.
>> 7 Do you think that exists a situation where urgency beats importanceIt also sets a powerful precedence.
>> when doing or deciding something ?
> Yes, like when extinguishing a burning house. In software development, not really. If I ask someone to do something "urgent", it almost invariably leads to either bad outcome or excessive time spent on further communication.
>> 9 If the team cannot be convinced by reasoning that the company valueother options:
>> being destroyed tops the value generate for the project, and still wants to
>> work naked, what is your suggestion ?
> Option one: do nothing. Wait till someone actually protests about the behavior, then try to help the team and the (probably) management person to resolve the issue.
> Option two: ask the team how they would like me to help them resolve the issue. What would be their suggestion as to enable them to work naked, in the face of the corporate guideline.
- help them to better understand the needs of the other side
- help them to think about how they want to deal with the conflict
But I actually like option one a lot.
- Ilja,On the "egoists" label, I'm generally very much against labels. I don't think behavior can be separated from the perspective of the observer.I used it as a reply where egoist was used originally, my mistake not to clarify that and continue with the label. I honestly thought about more or less this point when I wrote the first reply, but I thought it was more important to clear the matter of the use of force. The label clarification would deviate the discussion from the point I was trying to make.I agree that the label does not help on solving the "problem". I don't even think it is a problem.Thinking of it backwards, a person with more perceived conflicts and difference of opinion tends to be labeled more often.If the difference of opinion seems (to the observers) to be often in the thought of self first, team, project and company later, that person ends up being labeled as selfish and egoistic. Even if these are very specific events.In this case, the others, think that convincing is needed. I'll also think on your point here in future events, indeed very well put.Best Regards,Victor Hugo de Oliveira
Scrum & Agile Blog
new edition: http://www.concretesolutions.com.br/index_eng/
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 7:04 AM, Ilja Preuß <iljapreuss@...> wrote:
I felt uncomfortable with your statement regarding "egoists", and it
took me quite a while to figure out why exactly.
First, I feel that putting the label "egoist" on people is probably
not a good idea if I want to get into a productive relationship with
them. Perhaps it's just me, but when I use that term, it typically
means that I pidgeonholed someone. Using that stereotype helps me
explain someones behavior, but it doesn't help at all really
*understanding* it - let alone improving the relationship.
This is amplified by the fact that for me it also is a strongly
judgemental statement: it's certainly the "egoist" who is wrong. If
just *he* wouldn't be so egoistical, everything could be fine. That
also seems to be reflected in your statement that those people need
more coaching and "convincing". But in fact, an "egoist" is just
someone who possibly doesn't share all of my values, or perhaps just
has some strong needs I don't see and/or misinterprete. How much more
egocentric could I get?
I hope that in the future, when I perceive someone as egoistical, I
will remember that it might just be me who needs some coaching. That
might enable me to get into a constructive conversation about our both
needs, and how we can evolve our relationship so that everyone
Thanks for making me think,
2009/7/25 victor oliveira <victor.oliveira@...>:> --
> as I see it, the egoists will run into more situations of conflict
> because their perspective of value will be distant from the team and
> the company.
> For the same reason, in my experience it is harder to establish
> legitimate authorities with them.
> This is probably why you see managers acting with force towards them.
> Having said that, you should be aware that as much as I believe
> enforcement is unavoidable at times, most of the times it is
> Enforcement (with or without legitimacy) is a bitter medicine, like
> doing chemotherapy. You must be aware that the medicine is also
> killing the patient.
> The vast majority of managers are just used to force because of
> it's efficiency and they are forgetting overall effectiveness and
> As a reaction, the biggest chance is that the team member will see
> the manager as having less and less legitimacy and things will only
> get worse.
> The egoists need more work in coaching and convincing, but when
> they start to see that the common benefit is strongly related to their
> own, they can become you best team member.
> Managers also need to be encouraged to be patient and a partner
> with all team members to end antagonism.
> I had a pertinent situation in a team once. One of the team
> members, a senior programmer, was used to do a lot of freelance and
> work on his own before joining my company.
> He had a very narrow mind in terms of team values and company
> values. Conflicts with him were constant. I spent a lot of time
> talking to him about company values, client values, whole-team values,
> over a period of months until he started to get that everyone there
> was on the same side. When he finally got it, he became a white
> knight, with a totally different perspective on what it is to truly
> work in a team.
> In this particular case, there was only one occasion of enforcement
> done in a period of over a year. In every other occasion, a lot of
> patience and talk did the job.
> Quoting yoda :-) Yes, run! Yes, a Jedi's strength flows from the
> Force. But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark
> side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a
> fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate
> your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice.
> Best Regards,
> Victor Hugo de Oliveira
> Scrum & Agile Blog
> Concrete Solutions
> new edition: http://www.concretesolutions.com.br/index_eng/
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:25 AM, R. Sankara
> Narayanan<sankara.narayanan@...> wrote:
>> From: "Ilja Preuß" <iljapreuss@...>
>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:33 PM
>>> Hi Victor,
>>> now I'm confused.
>>> If there are other alternatives, of which most things are better than
>>> enforcement, when would enforcement be unavoidable?
>>> Curious, Ilja
>> As per my previous experiences, when the person is egoistic/ egocentric,
>> enforcement is just unavoidable. I have observed that my egoistic peers gets
>> enforced by my manager in several occasions. In general, egoistic persons
>> generally accept the decision/ order if they are threatened from
>> psychological standpoint.
> To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links