Flight fight or Unite, Conflict in Agile
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
3 likes•661 views
Conflict is everywhere in the workplace. It is neither good nor bad. Left unchecked it can transform into violence. Agile teams are not immune. In this talk, we will look at the unusual ways conflict was exposed on an Agile project as it attempted to scale under stress. We will look at how the failure to come to grips with the underlying conflicts triggered dysfunction and disengagement. We will see how the conflict affected the people, their relationships and ultimately the project itself.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Flight fight or Unite, Conflict in Agile
Similar to Flight fight or Unite, Conflict in Agile (20)
More from Guy Winterbotham CSM,PMP
More from Guy Winterbotham CSM,PMP (6)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Flight fight or Unite, Conflict in Agile
- 3. “Violence is the smoke, Conflict is the fire.” @JohanGaltung
- 4. Organizations which design systems are constrained to produce systems which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations. ~ M.E. Conway
- 5. Fixed Contract Quick Startup Public Government SDLC over SAFe
- 11. BM: [Developer], ye lice-infested lilly livered landlubber you may have broken this build [XXXXXXXXX] Dev: can you send me the build file error? BM: You believe I can send you the build file error don't you? Dev: who am I chatting with? BM: Do you believe you are chatting with?
- 12. Dev: what is the error? BM: Why do you ask ? Dev: I want to see if it is my error. BM: Do you think its likely that it is your error ? Dev: I do not know usually I see the error(s). BM: You say you do not know usually you see the error s ?
- 13. Dev: I noticed [Dev 2] commit is ”Oops, didn't mean to commit that change” Could he/she have broken the build? BM: I'm not sure I understand you fully. Dev: When did this build error occurred? BM: Does that question interest you ? Dev: yes
- 14. BM: Can you elaborate on that ? Dev: I'm not positive BM: Is it because you are not positive that you came to me ? Dev: you came to me first BM: Why do you think I came to you ? Dev: x BM: What does that suggest to you ? Dev: x ...
- 15. 1.Observations “When you left at 5PM having broken the build…” 2.Feelings “… I felt frustrated …” “… because I was needing to connect with my family.” 3. Needs 4. Requests “Would you be willing to monitor it until it’s green?” http://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/index.htm
- 17. Learned Helplessness Moral Licensing Social Loafing Alienation Desperation Ego Depletion
- 18. Affective: It’s personal! Process: How the work works. Substantive: Different views. Structural Violence: social, structure or institution preventing needs being met.
- 21. Dual Concern Model ~ M. Afzalur Rahim Managing Conflict in Organizations High Low LowHigh Concern for Self ConcernforOthers Compromising Integrating Obliging AvoidingDominating Lose-Win Lose-LoseWin-Lose Win-Win No Lose- No Win
- 22. 1.Separate the People (Affective) from the Problem (Substantive). 2.Focus on Interests, Not Positions. 3.Invent Options for Mutual Gain. 4.Insist on Objective Criteria
- 23. Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement • Develop a list of alternate actions • Improve the most promising ideas • Select the best • Be Prepared to use it! Roger Fisher and William Ury : Getting to Yes
- 24. • Scale the Social Ecosystem over the Method. • Build and Engage in Communities of Practice. • Elevate Conflict Management. • Antimatter Principle: “Attend to folks’ needs.” https://flowchainsensei.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/the-antimatter-principle/
- 25. Anatomy Styles NVC Types Managing Structural Violence Compromising Observations Substantive Problem Positions Obliging Feelings Process Interests Agendas Avoiding EMPATHY Affective Criteria Stressors Dominating Needs Masquerading Options Direct Violence Integrative Requests Transforming BATNA Thanks David Kane for this idea!
Editor's Notes
- Been on a conference call where you didn’t care about In a meeting that turned into a fight A team that never past storming A program that was a Circus of the Dammed Talking about a govvie project with all of those I’m going to talk about some of the techniques and ideas that changed how I think and work on large Agile… Welcome 1st timers
- Transparent that I have an Agenda. Quoted. Possible 2 cultivate empathy in us despite IF w come to terms with CFT in way. DEFN Conflict is a difference of views Varied Experiences | World view | Cultures & Values Give us Different perspectives => influence how we see things CFT not about right or wrong | About different way we see things. | 2 ppl will have diff views I makes these claims [Read points] Coser CFT is socially useful - maintains relationships. CFT generates new norms, new institutions Hope you leave with tools to tune ears| I won’t solve conflicts| Don’t be a therapist CARDS => Needs and Feelings => share with each other
- 1 - State talking about violence COZ of research Not shock value Violence is the manifestation of the underlying CFT Makes it observable. Ask if it is Ok to talk about violence. In orgs CFT = demands, judgments and arguments injected… In CFT, people represent their interests, but not their underlying needs; however, they will use power and coercion to meet those needs It is the needs that drives behavior & what we must search. 2 – SAFe: not digging | take 5 breathes |inanimate tools | How ppl use to get their needs met.
- [NO PICS] Conways Law First VA project existed from 2009 Joined in 2012-2016 as part of new contract w/ new partners Contracts divided on system boundaries Each program that fights for its survival and to win the next rebid This was time during VA under the microscope.
- METAPHOR: Each contractor was in a cave – went looking for other cave dwellers – friends but foes Everybody was protecting their turf with process barriers Under pressure from the outset Hammered by boulders crushing the cave [Read points] *** 1 Page on Agile + pages of 400 artifacts need to be compliant with SDLC *** Stood up SAFe coz it had we wanted in the future [QUESTION – you know SAFe?] Our 4 pillars of SAFe – Innovation, Improvement, Respect and Flow got crushed
- Standing SAFe up quickly: People crept into the layers that looked familiar: Command Control PMs on Program + Strategists to Portfolio. No changed mindset – no servant leadership Adopted the behaviors that worked from before LAYERS became boundaries of conflict – no chance for trust Interests not Aligned | Agile Agendas vs Keeping the business [Read points] Amygdala Hijacks Story Scrum Master Panic Room - talk CFT openly + summits + Community THRESHOLD: Changed Mindset, good ppl bad system. Avoid CFT
- Shot of picture of number of times team wanted to kill someone Needs and feeling cards Created a way of venting violence but know way to combat it. Ask audience to consider what they might think the team is feeling –ve to the outside/program but +ve towards each other.
- Direct Violence is the sort of violence we are familiar with and can see Many of these other types are less visible Disengagement is measurable according to Gallup My opinion is CFT produces the smoke and disengagement is orgs choking. Does any organization plan for disengagement? No silly question In comes into being on its own. Let’ see some weird ways I found it growing.
- Build Monitor The build monitor evolved from standalone talker of build condition When it grew beyond 1 team I added in remote abuse via IM But also added in ability as a test tool the ability to IM a message I used to play with people when they came into the room etc Then one day I was sitting in the room – I gotten used to hear the BM speak abuse. Then this happened
- Talk about the unexpected affect - realization that people were unaware they were speaking to a box ELIZA is an early example NLP Chatbot. Written at MIT AI Lab by Joseph Weizenbaum between 1964 and 1966. I added in some Eliza code that reflected back questions at this point just to continue the interaction. Folks would ask questions in the PIRATE’s chat room and relieve a little frustration. Then this happened.
- Actual log of a developer – For it to know the developer I had to configure it so this guy is new but not unexpected. [Accompanied by an exercise using iGrok Needs and Feelings cards] Think of this sequence of conversations between a developer and the Eliza Chatbot as a metaphor for how new employers can experience an organization lacking empathy. Needs and feelings of a new team member Day 1 Trying to make connections and demonstrate self worth. It’s not about information and education – it’s about discovering needs and making connections to get those needs met.
- Developer is still not aware of the Chabot but begins to get frustrated . Ignores the chatbot filtering the “(“ and “)” as he tries to establish rapport with the build monitor.
- Eventually frustrated the dev disengages but still does not comprehend the chatbot exists.
- I cannot fix alone. You cannot fix a complex system. Putting yourself in their shoes. Testing at what thy might be feeling STEPS What triggered the desire to talk – absent judgment or bullying What emotions were stirred What unmet needs are the source of these emotions What specific actions are needed by you or someone right now Practice on yourself: Mourn and move on Not always negative Describe events and emotions w/o judgement labels or name calling Avoid blaming or acting defensively Make refusable requests as specific as possible. Anyone willing to take NVC for a test drive
- “The Game” Diagram showing the screen => Score list BUT ALSO The ThingSpeak Plot. Jenkin had a CI Game plugin- gave basic scores for build passed and failed We added SONARQube points to try an game quality No rewards, no enforcement, we published results at the end of each release for bragging rights We plotted changes by team [Thinkspeak] and looked a little like a heartbeat. Look at ranges of scores: At individual level there were High flying crafters – competitive nature Negative consisted of risk takers and people who didn’t care. But it also highlighted what I can best describe is individual and team level flatlining.
- Learned Helplessness: CI Failures because of Disk space on CI Moral Licensing: The behavior that results from the subconscious mind justifying negative behavior. Points stockpiling Social Loafing: On a big team people get lost. No activity implies disconnection or checking out. Alienation: Team added tech for REST Clients tanking SONAR. To scared to ask Desperation: Giving up practices to get a release out. Unit Tesing, changes to production. Ego depletion willpower draws upon a limited pool of mental resources that can be used up. Tech Debt is draining SEG: This are the evidence of disengagement. What are underlying conflicts?
- That was the smoke of disengagement and violence but what patterns of conflicts are common [READ Points] Structural Conflict It occurs at different levels Intrapersonal (inside when needs not met) Interpersonal between folks are any level Intragroup: team conflict. Intergroup: between teams. Talk about SAFe being co-opted into a tool for structural violence Discuss how Scaling Agile before you have scaled trust was what allowed Structural violence to be come more of an issue then direct violence. The program was stuck in that mode where by defining a process then not allowing dissention + people finding ways to coerce the structure as a domination system you ended up with a systemic failure of an Agile initiative.
- Conflict in organizations should be managed and not necessarily resolved A team without conflict may suffer from Groupthink Stories: Substantive [Works great on Agile teams up to a point – think retros] Constant change to try and improve things was good up until a point then it was exhausting. Changed teams a management, releases processes. Without creating feedback loops and looking at them we got too much change in process. Metrics program never bother to look at the metrics. Structural [Works great if you are running a fast food joint or car wash] : The constraints of the government SDLC and contract really enforced a no collaboration policy. Second problem was installed Scaled Agile without ever going back and getting the cultural shift from Unscaled Agile. All you got was stock command and control wit a new home in the program layer. The Portfolio layer lost connection to the teams It was doing good work but unfiltered through an ineffective program layer it seemed like idea bombs dropping from heaven. However that passthrough was “how it had to work”. Process [Probably works great when you are designing a factory, not so much when you run it] : and Process were similar. When the SAFe model was co-opted to control the teams through forced and unsubstantiated process there was no chance for evolution of the method. The method backed by an agenda not focused on agility let to structural conflict. This seemed to about the time when a lot of die hards left. Affective [Works Great on Reality Shows] was prevalent from the beginning and a by product of storming. If you can’t minimize that then you exit the storming and forming as clicks of hatred. Masquerading is a secondary effect. You appear focused a problem but it is really is a political battle. This was common when the portfolio folks came with preconceived notion of a solution but the technical folks tended to reject it outright because they didn’t Transforming conflict is when the normally potentially useful substantive conflict turns into a hate fest and starts to retrograde to affective conflict. E.g When we started to lose faith in the change it tended to transform into affective conflict and individual attacks.
- Feelings cards after each round! Only rounds 1 & 2 Round one: Compromising. 1 parent split the orange 3 ways. No one gets what they wanted but no one is left without. Position is formed around the issue represented in this case represented by the orange People start to express their position on the issue. In this case their demands on the orange. I deliberately prompted a solution. This solution oriented thinking can be one way in which options for alternative outcomes are avoided Cognitive Ease, otherwise known as Cognitive Fluency, is quite simply the ease with which our brain processes information Round two: Obliging-Demanding-Avoiding: Child 1: (say loudly) I am the oldest so I demand the orange Child 2: (say meekly) It’s I OK if the oldest gets the orange. I like giving up things to help others. Child 3: I don’t want to talk about it anymore. I don’t want any part of the orange. OK parent who gets the whole orange In this case the mediator is entering the conflict with an agenda. How often is this the case with coaching. I want to show how method X works so I’m going to show it to them.
- ** Break up before Round Three Integrating Style Rahim 5 domain model Talk about Obliging as lose – win | Dominating as win-lose | Avoiding as lose-lose | Compromise as no-win and no-lose Integration as an attempting to win-win. How can we do that? LEGO SERIOUS PLAY PLUG.
- Round Three Continued Mediator – search for List of Objective criteria: Standard is going based first on what you are going to use the orange for. Since as a family we value health and education over anything else those uses will come first. Interests: The Who’s Needs? Over 5 Whys. Focuses on what different solutions mike look like if not stated as a position. 3rd of 4 sides covers a “need” like “need to clean room” or “need it for a science experiment” *** Use Needs Cards to maybe empathize as to the need in each case. Criteria: Once the discussion moves from positions to criteria, different standards are used an the initial argument shifts to how those agreed to standards might be met. You start to move from Affective to Substantive conflict over meeting the new standards/criteria. Options: Look for alternate ways to solve the problem. Once people can become less wedded to their position you can start to engage in collaboration . We have things like Gamestorming and LSP to help. Making problems PICO.
- Round Three Continued Mediator – search for List of Objective criteria: Standard is going based first on what you are going to use the orange for. Since as a family we value health and education over anything else those uses will come first. Interests: The Who’s Needs? Over 5 Whys. Focuses on what different solutions mike look like if not stated as a position. 3rd of 4 sides covers a “need” like “need to clean room” or “need it for a science experiment” *** Use Needs Cards to maybe empathize as to the need in each case. Criteria: Once the discussion moves from positions to criteria, different standards are used an the initial argument shifts to how those agreed to standards might be met. You start to move from Affective to Substantive conflict over meeting the new standards/criteria. Options: Look for alternate ways to solve the problem. Once people can become less wedded to their position you can start to engage in collaboration . We have things like Gamestorming and LSP to help. Making problems PICO.
- In then end there was no Unite as folks chose to leave. However don’t despair there is a happy ending. Other sources of community can help and helped me such as Agile Richmond
- But rather leaving on that purely selfish and personal note I want to leave with something a little fun to take away as a tool to