"Poor management can increase software costs more rapidly than any other factor." (Barry Boehm)

Adopting agile processes (or any new process, procedure, skill, or routine) requires that people change.

With many changes in organizations, some one "up there" decides that a change is necessary, and works out a plan for the "change targets" to get with the program.

This is the "hole in the ceiling" method of change: senior managers drop the change down on the heads of the worker bees.

Another favorite change method is to announce that "We'll be doing (fill in the blank) now" and expect that magically people will start doing (fill in the blank) with no explanation, training, support, or coaching.

Well, there's a little more to it than that.

Christian Sepulveda's July post talks about emotional resistance to change. What is put in place by emotion will not be removed by logic. You need to meet people where they live.

Dale Emery reframes resistance as a response that give information about why people are reacting the way they are to a proposed change.

Steve Smith tells us about the Satir Change Model, which explains the predictable stages that people and organizations go through when faces with a change.

Linda Rising and Mary Lynn Manns offer proven patterns for supporting change in organizations.

posted by Esther Derby at 7:41:00 AM  

|

I'm at Ken Schwaber's ScrumMaster class in Denver.

Yesterday we when through the start of a little project, including meetings with the customer to understand his priorities and desires for the software.

We were advised on the importance of avoiding jargon, and speaking in business terms (a riff I also play from time to time.)

Here are some of the words that slipped into some of the conversations:

transactions
ASP provider
hosting
scalability
maintainability
response time (that was my contribution)

So here's an experiment: try eliminating technical jargon when you are explaining the effects of technical decisions for a day. Speak in terms of business outcomes, money, schedule, risk, customer experience, and politics.

It's harder than you think.

posted by Esther Derby at 7:35:00 AM  

|

I was at the SD Best Practices conference earlier this week, both speaking and sitting in on sessions.

One session I attended cited data on the average time spent on-task -- working directly on a task that shows up on the project plan.

The average task time across 200 projects was 15 hours a week. That means 25 hours a week not spend on getting the product out the door.

Even I found this a little surprising.

The speaker, Noopur Davis, was looking at project teams who were using the Team Software Process (TSP) out of SEI. So it's a high discipline method and I'm guessing there's some process overhead in the organizations. But 25 hours?

Whether you believe the results Davis reported or not, it points the need to verify assumptions about how much time teams are spending getting the product out the door.

One thing I've done is ask people to track their time for just a week or two to get a read on "task time."

I suspect that in many cases you can increase task time (and probably boost morale, too) with some fairly simple interventions.

In any case, knowing -- rather than assuming or guessing -- how much time people actually spend "on task" can only help people manage projects.

posted by Esther Derby at 11:54:00 AM  

|

Johanna Rothman points to demotivators -- a take off on those vapid posters that extol the virtues of TEAMWORK & QUALITY.

I suspect that some people actually believe that putting up posters that say "Teamwork" will engender teamwork.

It's true that posters can shift the culture... think of the posters from WWII "Loose Lips Sink Ships" and "She can do it!" with a picture of a woman riveter.

These posters worked to convey a message, create awareness and build comfort with new ideas. They worked, though, because the poster was consistent with a concerted program of action. (All on the part of the government, which is a whole 'nother story, one I won't go into).

Posters that tout the virtue of teamwork while managers reward individuals, play favorites or spew directives create cynicism. Actions need to match the message.

I have seen some posters work at work: posters that teams make during interim or project retrospectives provide reminders of what worked well and what the team wants to work on doing differently for the next iteration. The big difference is that the posters come from the team and reflect their values and priorities.

Neil Pittman comments via email:

The "teamwork" posters are not the problem. The non-teamwork behaviour is the problem. That behaviour is always a problem, but such posters simply compound it with hypocracy and condescention. "Rosie the Riveter" has neither of these so she contributes positively.

If management would really like to keep those posters then they should consider pairing it with some real-life graphs plotting improvements in quality or significant awards, milestones demonstrating quality. Not only does this demonstrate that the poster is not simply hollow wishes, but it personallizes the issue. Each individual becomes a part of the issue and the team's success.

On the otherhand, it's a lot quicker and easier to buy a bunch of laminated posters.

Indeed. People notice when the words don't match the music.

posted by Esther Derby at 6:59:00 AM  

|

I used to work for a big corporation. (Now I work for a small corporation, a corporation of one.)

Every so often, Management at the big corporation would notice that there was a little problem in the area of morale: people leaving in droves, few applicants, failing projects, complaints to HR.

In response to these events, management would launch a program to repair morale.

When the company was flush, we'd get pep talks, certificates, and silly contests to find ways to recognize employees.

When times were hard, we'd get stern lectures telling us we should be grateful to be employed and we'd better buck up (and oh, BTW, the training budget has been eliminated and we're getting rid of the deadwood.)

None of these management actions had the desired effect on morale. The pep talks and contests contributed to general cynicism. The lectures drove the most employable people out the door.

(So surprising I left!)

How can managers build morale?

Keep workload reasonable. Don't ask people to carry 10 pounds of rock in a 5 pound bucket. Knowing you won't meet the deadline from the get-go is not motivating.

Set a sustainable pace. A 40 hour week will do wonders for morale. Enforced overtime will not. People how are constantly overworked are not happy campers, nor are they effective.

Avoid multi-tasking. Assigning people to work on several projects at once creates the illusion of progress. In fact, multi-tasking slows down progress. Most people are motivated by a sense of accomplishment -- actually finishing something. Multi-tasking works against a sense of accomplishment.

Create a vision for the company or product. People want to know that they are working on something worthwhile.

Set clear goals. People will pull in the same direction when they know what that direction is. Muddy goals make it hard for people to focus their efforts and lead to poor morale.

Set clear priorities. Shifting priorities under cut morale. People don't like to throw away something they've been working hard on. And switching priorities can have the same effect as multi-tasking -- nothing reaches completion. Change priorities often enough, and people will view the newest priority as "flavor of the day."

Remove obstacles. Find out what's getting in the way and work to remove the impediment. When people see their managers are making it easier for them to work, morale goes up.

Don't over specify. Give people the goal, set them in the right direction and let them figure out how to get there. They'll come up with a surprising number of creative ways to get there.

Deal with the un-jellers and net-negative performers. It's hard enough to build software without someone actively working against the goal. Its management's job to field the best team possible. Sometimes that means moving someone off the team. Never underestimate the impact an unjeller will have on the team.

Pep talks, contests and hokey certificates won't build morale. Effective management will.

posted by Esther Derby at 8:16:00 AM  

|

I've been building a new working relationship the last couple of months, or at least a new sort of working relationship.

I've known Diana Larsen for a few years, and we've worked on the annual Retrospective Facilitators Gathering. For the Retro Gathering, we each have taken responsibility for different parts, and our work comes togetger at the actual gathering.

Now we're writing an article and putting together a one-day workshop. Even though we've worked together before, this feels different -- we both own the code (so to speak).

Learning how to work with Diana has given me the opportunity to look consciously at the process.

Here's one thing that I think has helped alot:

Working Session Debrief

At the end of a working session I ask just a few questions like these (in the order of a Focused Conversation near the bottom of this post.):

What stood out for you from this working session?

Where were you surprised?

Where were you challenged?

What worked for you that you'd like to continue?

What would you like to do differently?

What will we change in our next working session?

This little framework provides a way to talk about how we are working together and bring up the inevitable bumps.

We haven't had any serious conflicts yet -- maybe because we've been using this debrief.

My guess is that when (not if) we do run into a larger difference, we'll be able to work it through. In our debrief process, we're learning how to talk about working together and we're building trust.

posted by Esther Derby at 8:04:00 AM  

|

I was talking the other day to a friend of mine, Tom, who was promoted into management last year. Tom's story is not unusual. In fact it's quite common.

Tom was the top technical contributor in his group-- he had the deepest knowledge, best skills, and got the work done.

He's struggling in his new job. He's not doing a great job as a manager and he knows it. He wants to do a good job, but he doesn't know how. He asked to attend management training, but the training budget has been cut.

His boss gives advice when he can, but he's not great coach, and doesn't really have much time to devote to developing Tom's management skills. He's more or less of the "sink or swim" school. He figures he promoted Tom because he was capable, so he should figure it out.

It's just not that easy.

And Tom is miserable. He so miserable he's thinking of quitting. He's got some money saved and his wife makes a good income, so he can quit and take his time finding another job.

This company may have saved a little money on training, but at what cost?

The organization doesn't have Tom's technical contribution any more because he's trying to focus on management. (At least he hasn't fallen into the trap of retreating to technical work and ignoring his management work.) They've lost a great technical person.

The organization is paying Tom a management salary -- roughly $150K at the fully burdened cost. But their not getting their money's worth for his salary -- and it's not Tom's fault.

The team Tom is managing isn't a productive as it used to be. Tom is trying hard, but he's making mistakes. And those mistakes are costing his team time, focus and productivity.

It looks like the organization might lose Tom. Even though he's not effective in his management job yet, he had tons of knowledge about the business, the organization, the systems and the people.

Training, coaching, and support to help Tom make the transition to management would be much less expensive.

But the company probably doesn't realize what their promotion practices are really costing them.

posted by Esther Derby at 10:34:00 AM  

|

Tim Bacon offers this list of questions for XP coaches:

Reflecting: "So if I understand correctly then what you're saying is..."
Prompting: "Have you considered [doing] / [thinking about]..."
Positing: "What if [this were true] / [that were to happen]..."
Suggesting: "If it were up to me then I would..."
Connecting: "Have you talked to [her]? She..."
Digging: "Is that really the problem?" / "How do you know?"
Challenging: "So what are you going to do about..." / "Is doing nothing an appropriate response to..."
Aiming: "What are you really trying to achieve?" / "How will you know when you're done?"
Steering: "How would you get there from here?" / "Can you break that down into smaller steps?"
focusing: "If you could only do one thing..." / "What's the first action you can take?" / "What is most important right now?"
Summarising: "So, the problem is... the alternatives are..."
Chairing: "Shall we take a vote?" / "Give [him] a chance to speak..."
Smoothing: "Why don't we take a quick break..."
Marshalling: "I hear what you're saying but we'll have to come back to that later: right now we need to... "
Taking an interest: "What's new with... That sounds interesting... How does it work?... How did you come up with..."
Encouraging: "Well done..." / "Thank you..." / "...which is a big step forward" / "...which really helps"
Obviously these stances only pay off if the coach actually listens to the response that they get.

Actually, this is a great list for anyone working with other humans.

Well chosen questions help people clarify their thinking, open options, reach decisions.

I often use a method, Focused Conversation (I learned it from the ICA, which is a very interesting organization, BTW) that helps people and groups step through a mental process.

Focused Conversation steps through 4 levels of questions:

Objective - questions that look for external facts, data, and what we've seen, heard, experienced.

Reflective - questions that get at associations, memories, and emotional responses.

Interpretive - questions that ask for values and significance.

Decisional - questions about decisions, actions, closure.

I use this method in all sorts of settings and facilitation -- my favorite example of how it clarifies thinking is personal.

When my husband's grandmother died, he was given the honor of delivering the eulogy. He struggled and stressed over what to say. Finally we sat down over dinner, and I asked him four questions:

When you think about your grandmother, what words, images and scenes come to mind? (Objective - external data).

What feelings come up when you remember those scenes (Reflective - associations, emotions)

What place did your grandmother have in your life? (Interpretive - significance, values)

What do you want people to know about your grandmother? (Decisional - actions, decisions, closure).

At then end of those four questions, he knew what to say at the funeral.

This process works just as well in business -- though I almost never use the F (feelings!) word in technical organizations. I find other ways to ask people about emotional responses.

More on asking questions here.

posted by Esther Derby at 7:49:00 AM  

|