As I said in an earlier column, it’s not enough to slap the tile of Scrum Master or Agile Coach on a project manager, manager, or whatever other warm body happens by.  It’s also not enough to look for the keywords “CSM” or “coach” on a resume.

If you are serious about helping teams learn and thrive as self-organizing Agile teams, get serious about ScrumMasters and Agile Coaches. Start thinking about the work, the role, and the job–not just the job title.

Here’s my initial take on a job analysis of the role (using the job analysis template from Johanna Rothman‘s very useful book, Hiring the Best.)

First, I considered the qualities, preferences, and skills. Second, I thought about the sort of knowledge and understanding that’s essential for the role.  Then, I thought about elimination factors, patterns of thought and behavior that would eliminate a candidate from consideration.  Of course, you can’t just ask yes/no questions for any of the characteristics on this table. You have to do behavioral interview questions and auditions (see Hiring the Best if you need a refresher on interviewing and auditioning candidates).

After I had a handle on the skills, qualities, and characteristics, I considered the interactions, activities, and deliverables for the job. I summarized it all here:

Of course, what you look for in an agile coach or Scrum Master will be somewhat different. Each team has different needs for coaching. A given team may need more (or less) help with specific engineering practices. Another team may need more help with retrospectives or planning. The key is to think of this like any other job. ScrumMaster or Agile coach are not a plug-and-play roles. You need to look for fit–with your culture and with the needs of the team.

I recently met with a group of managers who work in organizations adopting agile methods. Several of them asked whether functional managers should become ScrumMasters or coaches.

That’s a risky road.

One manager was adamant. In his view, making managers ScrumMasters was the best course of action. According to this fellow, managers already know people’s strengths and weaknesses. They know the domain, and the organization. So, he reasoned, the managers are already equipped to tell people what to do.

Errr. Not so much.  Coaches and Scrum Masters rarely tell people what to do. Usually, they work by different means–modeling, coaching, teaching.

But it begs the question, can a manager be an agile coach or ScrumMaster?

Here’s what I look for in an agile coach/ ScrumMaster.

Experience. If your company has used serial life cycles or ad hoc methods changing to agile methods is not a trivial matter. Nor is it simply a matter of adopting a few engineering practices or using time boxes.  Succeeding with agile does require engineering practices and time boxes. But the real change happens between peoples ears. It’s a shift in thinking–and not just by the development team. Some people change the way they work by changing their thinking. But many more change their thinking by changing the way they work.  Book learning and training is good, and it’s no substitute for experience in the agile way of working.

A deep understanding of agile practices and methods. Coaches need to know the why and when, as well as the how. They need to understand how practices fit together, the intent behind practices. People do need to adapt methods to local conditions.  Without understanding, adaptation is risky. I’ve seen teams and companies “adapt” themselves right back into the situation they were trying to fix because they didn’t fully understand the “why” behind some agile practices. An agile coach needs to be able to think through what adjustments maintain the essence of a practice, and which adaptations sustain the current pattern.

Coaching skills.  Seems obvious. An agile coach should know something about coaching. That means helping people learn skills through practice and feedback. It means helping people think through issues and see new alternatives.  It may mean providing answers, facilitating, or acting as a mirror. If often means helping people think about the way they are thinking, and helping teams get unstuck.  (It does not necessarily include “life coaching.”)

Coaching is tricky when a person also has the responsibility to rate and rank individuals. Coaching requires openness and trust. When people fear that revealing lack of knowledge or skill will show up on their annual review, they are less likely to ask for help. I know of several companies where managers are now “coaches” (and managers). Its confusing for the team members.  They don’t know who they are talking to–the person who helps, or the the one who will hand out a rating at year end.

Understanding of teams and team dynamics. Another skill that would seem obvious, but is often overlooked. When the job is coaching a team, the coach needs to understand something about how people behave in goal-oriented social units. He needs to know the foundations and enabling conditions that allow teams to form and thrive. He needs to recognize when problems are related to the design of the team, when they are system patterns, and when there are individual problems.

Interpersonal and collaboration skills. Coaching is about enabling other people to be more effective. The zeroth step is to make contact with people. If a coach cannot do that, he won’t be able to build relationships and trust. I do sometimes meet coaches who are all about “me.” Doesn’t work. Coaches need to be able to work with others, share credit, and let others shine.

Influence and organizational smarts.  It is silly (or worse) to expect a ScrumMaster to remove significant organizational impediments and drive organizational change–even though that’s often the hype. Coaches need to be savvy about the organization and to have influencing skills, so they can help managers understand the costs of impediments.

If you want empowered teams, you need to change the dynamic between managers and teams.  Slapping a new tittle on a manager (or project manager) will not change the dynamic unless the manager’s mindset and actions also change.

Of course, some managers do have all the qualities and skills to make the transition.  And some teams have the gumption to call out their former managers when they slip back into command and control thinking or acting.  Even when the mangers is willing and capable of changing the way he interacts with a team, it will take time for the new pattern of interaction to take hold.

But for many companies, calling managers “coaches” or “ScrumMasters” is really hierarchical control in coaches clothing.

Organizations still need managers.  Call them managers, and have them do management work–improving the organizational system and translating strategy into action. And get a coach to be the coach.

Agile coaches are expected to help teams learn agile methods, engineering techniques, and improve the productivity of the teams they work with.  But before they can do they need to be ready to coach.  Being ready to coach means that you have coaching skills, relevant technical and process skills.

But the  foundational skill in coaching is skill in managing yourself.

Your attitude will contribute or detract from your ability to make contact, assess what coaching is needed, and actually help the client.   So,  before you begin, ask yourself a few questions.

Are you aware of your own emotional state? Manage your own emotions before you coach. Coach from a neutral, curious, and encouraging attitude. If you’re feeling angry or impatient, your emotions will leak into the coaching. Anger, frustration, or impatience won’t create a helpful interaction. Look inside to see where your emotions are coming from: Are you expecting an inexperienced person to perform as well as a master? What are your assumptions about what the other person should know or be able to do? Rather than blame the other person, reframe your judgment as “He doesn’t do that as well as I wish he did” or “She doesn’t know as much about this topic as I wish she did.” Shifting your attitude will make you a better coach.

Is coaching the best learning opportunity? When the team struggles and puts the team goal at risk, ask yourself: Where is the biggest opportunity for learning? Will the team learn most from making their own mistakes and learning from the consequences (That’s the beauty of short iterations—if the team misses a goal, the risk is limited by the length of the iteration) or will the team learn most if you coach them in a different direction?

Does the other person want coaching? Coaching always works better when the other person actually wants help. Try to wait for the person or team to come to you for help rather than immediately stepping in the moment you see trouble. Many people learn from solving problems on their own. That doesn’t mean you always have to wait until someone asks you for coaching. Coaching is part of your job, so you can always offer. But remember that it’s an offer—so ask before you inflict help. However, if you see a pattern emerging—a team member repeatedly refuses help when stuck—you have an opportunity to give feedback on how that pattern of behavior affects the team as a whole.

Does the other person want for coaching from you? Sometimes people want help, but they want it from someone else. Don’t take it personally if a team member would prefer to receive help from someone other than you. But again, look for patterns. If a team member is open to coaching from everyone but you, it’s a clue that the relationship may need repair.

Are you clear on the goal? If you aren’t clear on the desired outcome, you risk setting up a frustrating cycle called “bring me a rock.” “Bring me a rock” happens when success criteria are vague (or nonexistent). Here’s how it goes. You say, “Bring me a rock.” The other person goes off and finds a rock, and brings it back to show you. You look at the rock and realize it’s not the rock you had in mind. You hand the rock back and say, “Not that rock.” And the cycle begins again. The result is frustration and de-motivation—guaranteed! Of course, sometimes the goal isn’t known in detail. In that case, make it clear that the goal is to explore options and gain clarity.

Are you open to other approaches? You may have a very clear idea of how to accomplish the work or handle the interaction. But is it the only way? In most situations, there are many reasonable and acceptable paths to success. If you find yourself expecting things to be done a certain way, ask yourself if that way is simply your preference and not the only correct method. Help the person you are coaching think through different options and discuss the pros and cons of each approach. Then let the person choose the one that fits best for him or her. Team members gain capability when they develop based on their own thinking modes, strengths, and talents.

Are you ready to encourage rather than evaluate? Coaching is about helping another person develop skills and capabilities; it’s not a time for evaluation. Evaluation hinders coaching by creating a “one-up, one-down” dynamic. Most people have enough trouble asking for help in our culture without adding this burden. Stay away from comparative words such as good, better, worse, and bad. When you think the other person is headed down a rat hole, ask questions about risks and impacts rather than criticizing. Then help generate new ideas. Offer encouragement to let people know they are moving in the right direction.

When you can answer “Yes” to these questions, you’re ready to make contact.  And then you  can start to coach.

“….leadership may be defined as:
the ability to enhance the environment
so that everyone is empowered
to contribute creatively
to solving the problem(s).”

Gerald M. Weinberg

I talk to many managers (and some coaches) who bemoan that their teams can’t function without a leader (in this case “leader” usually means someone who set standards, assigns work, and tracks progress, tells people what to do.  That’s a leader? What ever.)

It is true that some teams need a leader. Occasionally, I run into a software teams whose members were all recent college graduates. Those teams do need guidance. With a team whose members lack real work experience, it might well be folly to create a team charter and then set the team loose on a project that is the life blood of the company. Oh, wait. That’s how some really big tech companies started–and sometimes they weren’t even graduates yet…or in college. So it depends.

When the team isn’t a collection of juniors and still relies on someone else to give day to day direction, make decisions, assign work and track progress, I suspect something else is at play.

Now, I assume that most members of work teams are not utterly dependent people. They are adults.  They make important choices–where to live, when to invest. The enter into financial contracts such as taking out a mortgage. They make short and long term decisions about health and investments. They pay the bills on time. Some have marriages, and raise children.

Navigating life is just as challenging as identifying edge cases for testing, designing a data base or writing an algorithm. So you’d think such people could make decisions at work.

What happens when they get to work that makes them incapable of working without supervision?

Teams exist in relationship to the rest of the organization and their managers. The pattern of behavior on the team is in response to the system, environment and how they have been managed. Without intending to, a manager may create a team acts dependent. It’s a dynamic. Here’s how it works.

A manager–let’s call him Ted–tells a team he wants them to take more responsibility and be more empowered.

This is waaaaay different than the Ted the team has come to know. So the team hesitates.

Ted urges the team to step up, then crosses his arms over his chest and waits. The team hesitates some more. Then the tentatively begin a discussion, all the while looking over their shoulders to see how Ted is reacting (at least metaphorically speaking).

Then one of two things usually happens. In one scenarios, the team comes back with a decisions or takes a course of action that Ted thinks is a bad idea. So he countermands the decision. In the other, Ted, impatient with the time the team is taking to make a decision or act, steps in and tells them what to do.

You can guess what happens next. The team takes Ted at his actions, not his words. They know that he didn’t really want them to be more empowered and responsible. He wants to tell them what to do. In any case, once bitten, twice shy.

The next time Ted tells the team to be empowered (there’s a paradox in telling someone else to be empowered, isn’t there?), the team members sit back and wait. Ted can only take it so long before he steps in again.

And then you have this:



Management action reinforces team response. Team action reinforces management response.

It becomes a self-reinforcing pattern.

The good news about dynamics is that they are not immutable; they can be changed.

There are situations that call for one person to lead. Planning meetings, decision meetings, design sessions, customer conversations, and retrospective all benefit from having a leader—where leader is defined as one who provides a process and guides the group to think, learn, and decide together. Some work requires a supporting actor in addition to the one who takes the lead. And some decisions require knowledge that isn’t spread through the team. Then it makes sense to have one leader. But that doesn’t mean it’s a permanent position—far better for the team in the long run if it isn’t.

Teams need leadership and direction. Direction–the problem the team is chartered to solve, comes from management. But leadership comes from within and from all.

Leader-full, not leaderless or leader dominated.

I noticed at the recent agile conference that there were lots of people who billed themselves as agile coaches, and several sessions on coaching. Seemed like more of both than in past years.

I consider myself a coach, too, though not with a capital C.  I usually coach managers or teams, and sometimes coaches. Mostly, I’m a consultant and coaching is part of the work I do in that role.  But some people lay claim to “coach” as their job description.  And some of those people have training from a coaching school.

All this, and a little story my friend Johanna told about an experience she had with a coach got me thinking about the different sorts of problems people bring to coaches, and the confusion that results when the coach is a “coaching process” type coach, and the problem is a skills-based problem (which requires content knowledge, in addition to process knowledge). Or a problem that calls not only for a coaching model, and a bunch of other models.

Back when she had a corporate job, my friend Johanna Rothman had the opportunity to work with a coach on a problem she was experiencing at work.  It must have been an enlightened work place, because they employed Johanna AND coaches, whom they dispatched when a manager needed a bit of help. Johanna’s hope was the the coach could help her with the specific problem, which she hadn’t been able to figure out on her own.

Johanna explained the problem to the coach.  The coach responded, “The answers are inside you.”

Johanna tried explaining the problem again.  The coach answered, “The answers are inside you.”

The answers were not inside Johanna (at that time…I bet they are now).  She needed specific information, direction and guidance to develop a new skill that would enable her to solve the problem.  The response Johanna received to the problem she described was woo woo nonsense. It was no help at all. The coach was trying to be helpful, I’m sure. And she was acting out of a coaching model, just not one that fit the situation.

The Range of Coaching Practice

If we’re talking about a skill—whether it’s TDD, interpersonal feedback, or object oriented design, influencing change across the organization—the answer is not inside you.  If you are shifting from a serial mental model of software development to a iterative/incremental mental model of software development, the answer is not inside you.  Willingness to learn is inside you. The desire to maintain a good working relationships is inside you.  The yearning for pride in work is inside you. The desire to see the organization improve is inside you.

The specific skill is not.

You need teaching, training, and  direction, along with coaching and feedback. A coach in this situations needs to have task-specific (content) knowledge, in addition to coaching skills. And those coaching skills are likely different from the skills a life coach or goal coach brings to the table—unless they worked in the content field prior to studying a coach curriculum or taking up the coach label.

Life coaching—finding the answer in side you— is useful when you have a life problem; when you need a skill, you need  skill coaching

Another friend, Don Gray, recently helped three people understand how an interaction blew up. As they unwound personalities and communication styles, two of them heard some information their default preference didn’t deal (well) with.  He helped them recognize how their communication preference helped them, and hindered them. He helped them see additional options. To do this, he needed a coaching model(s), plus content knowledge on communication, human interaction, personality and cognition. Rare indeed.  The answers may have been inside these people, but it took more than a coaching model to bring them out.

And of course, some times the answers are inside us.

Satir coaching assumes that each of us has the resources to be be happy and successful as a human—but may not be using all our resources to their full potential.  Jerry Weinberg’s fab book, More Secrets of Consulting: The Consultants Tool Kit, is inspired by Satir’s self-esteem toolkit, and the book is tremendously helpful.  I’ve studied the Satir model for many years, it informs much of the work I do with individuals and groups (and certainly how I live my life).

Likewise, the Solution-focused Coaching model assumes that the person being coached has some experience solving the problem for which they have sought coaching.  This model assumes that the coachee has all the competencies needed to come to a solution.  I had a little experience of this at the previous Retrospective Faciliator’s Gathering in Tisvilde, Denmark.  Josef Scherer offered a session on Solution Focused Coaching, and since I a little stuck in my writing practice, I volunteered to be coached.  It helped me  a lot—the answer was inside me.  But this sort of coaching wouldn’t have helped if my problem was that I didn’t know how to structure a coherent sentence.

There are other Coaching models:  GROW, Achieve, and many more. More than you can shake a stick at (just google “coaching models”).

When someone is stuck, they may need a jiggle, in the form or a reframe, or a prompt to remember what they do know about solving the problem. When someone is struggling with an interpersonal issue or a life issue, they answer may lie within, and need a little help from inner resources to come out.

But sometimes, the person needs context, information, demonstration, a straight answer, or a skill.

Related:  A Coaching Toolkit

As a coach, your job is not to solve or do—it’s to support other people as they develop skills and capabilities and as they solve problems on their own. When it comes to coaching, one size does not fit all. You need to have a variety of practices in your toolkit in order to approach each situation and individual differently. Here are some of the approaches I use when coaching other people.

Provide Context

Sometimes all a person needs is some context. Knowing how a specific task or skill fits into the work of the team or supports the product helps people make better decisions. And knowing the importance of an activity can motivate people to do tasks they don’t normally enjoy. For example, a person may not like test-first development when he first tries it, but when he understands how it contributes to clean code and good design, he may be more willing to stick with it.

Frame the Problem

Sometimes people need help framing the problem. When people are learning a new skill or a new way of thinking they don’t always have a clear understanding of the problem they’re trying to solve. Ask them questions to help them consider and verbalize different aspects of the problem—the what, where, when, who, and how. Having a clear problem statement is (at least) half the battle.

Generate More Options

In other cases, a team member may choose a solution that you know will not be effective. How do you help without being directive? Well, it helps to know that people always choose what they perceive to be the best option available. Always. The trouble is, sometimes people don’t have enough good options to choose from—the only options they can think of either won’t work or work only in the short term. To help them come up with a longer list of options, ask questions. These questions might include:

• What other ways could we accomplish the same goal?
• What would happen if we did this part differently?

Rather than reject an option (or worse, dismiss the person), walk through the option with him or her. Start by saying, “You could do that—and here are some of the risks I see.” Generate additional options together. You can offer the first option, then move to jointly generating alternatives. Between you, come up with at least three options. Having only two options is a dilemma; and it forces a choice between “your way” and “my way.”

Provide Real-Time Feedback

Many times, when performing a new skill, people need to hear some real-time feedback to get a feel for how what they are doing is affecting the project. Help them by offering course corrections and confirmation. Just remember that feedback is information that enables different choices; it’s not criticism or evaluation. Describe what you see or hear and state the impact.

Ask Questions

Sometimes people just get stuck. A few well-chosen questions can prompt new thinking. Here are some that work well for me:

• If you did that, what would you gain? / If you did that, what would the collateral consequences be?
• What are three things that could go wrong with that approach?
• What else have you tried?
• What are you hoping to accomplish?
• Who else is affected by this?
• Who else / what else will be affected by this solution?

Catch People Doing Something Right

You don’t have to wait until something is going wrong to provide coaching. Notice when people are performing a new skill correctly and comment on it. If the moment seems right, use the opportunity to explore the root causes of the success. When people know more about the steps and circumstances that lead to good results, they can consciously recreate them.

Demonstrate

Some individuals learn best by seeing it done. In those cases, demonstrating a new skill for them might be your best option. For example, you might teach about Test-Driven Design (TDD) by demonstrating with FitNesse. As you demonstrate ask if your pace is too slow, too fast, or just right. If you only ask if you’re going too fast, the other person may be embarrassed to admit he isn’t keeping up.

Review

Other people learn best by trying it themselves first and then reviewing it with the coach. Always start by stating what works and making global comments about the work product. Only then should you talk about the problems or issues. If there are classes of issues, discuss those rather than pointing out each instance of the problem.

Provide Information

Coaches are a source of information—and sometimes that’s all the other person needs. Depending on your own skill level, ask questions to understand the problem the person is trying to solve. After you understand the problem, offer examples of what has worked before or what factors they might want to consider. It’s common for people who are learning a new skill to think they need one thing when they really need another.

Bring In an Expert

No one expects you to have all the answers. So when you don’t have the answer, don’t hesitate to bring in another knowledgeable person. You’ll solve the problem sooner and model that it’s okay to ask for help.

Listen

One of the most powerful (and underutilized) coaching practices is listening. Being a sounding board as someone talks through a problem or proposed course of action lets the other person hear their own logic. And as people talk they often come up with new ideas or see weakness on their own. Listening also conveys that you are interested in them not just in showing off your expertise.

Coaches look for opportunities to help build skills and capabilities. The more coaching approaches you have available to you, the more opportunities you will see—and use.

This article originally appeared on scrumalliance.org.