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

Re: [scrumdevelopment] Promotions/Raises

Expand Messages
  • Paul Tiseo
    Evaluating individuals does not necessarily undermine the team nor only encourage competition. Do you believe that team behaviors and performance are in no way
    Message 1 of 111 , May 6, 2010

      Evaluating individuals does not necessarily undermine the team nor only encourage competition. Do you believe that team behaviors and performance are in no way affected by individuals behaviors?

      On 5/6/2010 8:18 AM, Peter Stevens (cal) wrote:
       

      Hi phenner,

      I think they are mostly groping in the dark ;-). Mike Cohn has identified the traditional HR dept approach with it's yearly (de)motivation discussions as one of a number of long term threats to the success of Scrum in an organization.

      The traditional approach is to evaluate individuals; Scrum is a team based approach. Evaluating individuals undermines the team, as it  1) encourages competition, not cooperation between team members and 2) promotes meddling by management, not servant leadership and self-organization.

      In your case, (and assuming you really have just migrated to Scrum) I would suggest

      1. you suspend your current approach for 6 months while Scrum gels,
      2. someone in your HR department should get some Scrum training so they understand what's happening
      3. then start an improvement community with interested developers, managers and HR people to find a new way of doing things.
      What approaches have you considered?

      Best regards,

      Peter



      On 05.05.10 15:25, phenner@verizon. net wrote:
       


      Since Scrum is team based and you are evaluated as a team instead of an individual conributor, how are companies handling promotions and raises?

      Our department has just moved everyone over to using Scrum and this is something that has not been solved yet.



      --
      _________________________________
      PAUL TISEO
      paul_tiseo@...
    • Ilja Preuß
      I agree that one shouldn t. How does that connect to what I said? Confused, Ilja
      Message 111 of 111 , May 26, 2010
        I agree that one shouldn't. How does that connect to what I said?

        Confused,

        Ilja

        2010/5/26, Paul Tiseo <paul_tiseo@...>:
        >
        > IMO, one should not confuse creativity/innovation with interdependent
        > work. The two are orthogonal.
        >
        > On 5/25/2010 10:15 AM, Ilja Preuß wrote:
        >>
        >> As far as I remember, the Pink talk argues against rewards for tasks
        >> that require creativity (and he actually points out that rewards can
        >> work well for tasks that don't).
        >>
        >> Whereas the research you are pointing to is about rewarding teams vs.
        >> rewarding individuals (vs. doing both). And in the context of, as far
        >> as I can tell, work that doesn't require a lot of creativity.
        >>
        >> Which doesn't render it invalid or uninteresting. I don't see how it
        >> shifts the picture, though.
        >>
        >> Cheers, Ilja
        >>
        >> 2010/5/25 Paul Tiseo <paul_tiseo@...
        >> <mailto:paul_tiseo@...>>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> The Pearsall reference. Beersma et al. I've posted it already,
        >> Yahoo has archived it, and we've debated it.
        >>
        >> I'm not sure why you and Ron seem to have so quickly and
        >> completely forgotten it already.
        >>
        >>
        >> On 5/25/2010 3:36 AM, Ilja Preuß wrote:
        >>>
        >>> Where can I read about that recent research?
        >>>
        >>> 2010/5/25 Paul Tiseo <paul_tiseo@...
        >>> <mailto:paul_tiseo@...>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> Mark:
        >>>
        >>> Just go back to many of my previous emails on this thread,
        >>> and pick up some of the points I made and references I got
        >>> out of the literature. Pink quotes research about 3-5 years
        >>> old, which is better than most, but the picture *is*
        >>> shifting. Recent research is slightly center of left.
        >>>
        >>> _________________________________
        >>> *PAUL TISEO*
        >>> paul_tiseo@... <http://paul_tiseo@...>
        >>> (904) 382-5704 (cell)
        >>>
        >>> On 5/24/2010 5:32 PM, Mark Levison wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Paul Tiseo
        >>>> <paul_tiseo@... <mailto:paul_tiseo@...>> wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>> Thank you, Ron, for that simplified answer.
        >>>>
        >>>> So why not call out what oversimplifications you perceive.
        >>>>
        >>>> Cheers
        >>>> Mark
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>
        >> --
        >> _________________________________
        >> *PAUL TISEO*
        >> paul_tiseo@... <mailto:paul_tiseo@...>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        > --
        > _________________________________
        > *PAUL TISEO*
        > paul_tiseo@...
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.