I’ve written quite a lot over the last few weeks about Safety in team discussions. What I haven’t really discussed is how to detect when the safety is starting to fail. Imagine you’re in a conversation with someone, at work or at home and they’re starting to feel unsafe. We know that this means they will stop sharing and will result is poorer group decisions. But how do we know if someone is feeling like that and what can we do to prevent it?
If you haven’t read it already I strongly recommend picking up a copy of the book Crucial Conversations. In it, the authors discuss that people generally go one of two ways when they’re feeling unsafe. They either go to silence or violence.
When someone goes silent they often stop talking or become very monosyllabic in their responses. Perhaps they want to shut down the conversation or move onto another, safer topic or maybe they’re only sharing certain parts of the story – the parts which support their argument rather than discussing the potential problems with it. However silence manifests it’s usually because the person doesn’t feel comfortable with the topic and wants to move on or gloss over the real issue.
Other people tend to go to violence. I’m not talking about physical violence (at least I hope we’re not making people so unsafe they have to lash out). I’m talking about attacking an idea or, even worse, a person. Comments like “that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard” or “only a moron would say that” are attacks. People raise their voices and try to dominate the conversation through shear volume rather than calmly discussing the topic with someone else.
It’s important to realise that both of these are natural reactions when someone feels insecure discussing something. It may be that you’ve said something which has upset them, or it may be that they’re worried about the whole topic of conversation.
In the example I gave a few weeks ago the developer had an idea which he refused to share with the group because he didn’t think the team would listen to his opinion. However, he could equally have turned to violence and tried to force his point on the group by making them feel unsafe challenging him. Both of these are defense mechanisms. It’s our role as colleagues, as human beings, to look for signs that someone is starting to feel unsafe in a conversation and to look for ways to reassure them so we can resume constructive dialogue.
Collaboration is hard, if we really want the best decisions then we need to hear all viewpoints and listen to everyone’s experience. We can’t do that if we bulldoze our view too firmly. The next time you’re passionate about an idea take a look around you and see how others are reacting to you… are they going to silence or violence? We cannot change other people’s behaviour but if we try and support other people’s confidence then we’re likely to get ideas and suggestions presented which we’d never have considered ourselves – after all, isn’t that the point of a team?
I attended Agile Yorkshire last week and saw two great talks by Tom Hoyland and Jon Fulton. I really enjoyed both but a few points in Tom’s talk really interested me and I’d like to take a few minutes to share them.
Tom is a Scrum Master at Sky Betting and Gaming, I’ve heard good things about the company in the past so I was interested to hear one of their success stories. It turns out that Tom was part of a team of twelve who really stripped Agile “back to basics” and conducted a series of experiments on the road to continuous delivery. Working in a regulated industry myself I was intrigued how they’d got on.
One of the first things Tom talked about was how many different people in the team came to the table with ideas of what was agile best practice. We all laughed at his “my guru is better than your guru” but it makes a lot of sense! I am heavily influenced by Jez Humble, Gene Kim, and Clarke Ching but many of my colleagues may watch talks and read blogs from very different thought leaders. Tom explained that one of the first thing they had to do in the team’s formation was break many of the concepts down to their fundamental concepts and understand what worked for them.
Something else Tom discussed was how the team consolidated their own backlog. This was not controversial, how else would you prioritise the work against it? It was only when he gave examples of some of the different backlogs they’re identified that I became intrigued. Risk Logs, Retro Actions, and Design Session – all of these moved onto the board and each became visible and prioritised.
It’s dangerous out there – take your buddy! I’ve heard many of the advocates or pair programming before but the idea of your buddy following you into meetings, design sessions, and CABs!? Tom explained that if your buddy went with you to these sessions not only would they learn how to design, and walk work through the CAB but they’d also know the current state of everything you were working on. If you were sick or the proverbial bus came along the team wouldn’t need to bother you because everyone would know what was going on.
There were many other good ideas (and I intend to borrow quite a few of them myself) but the final one I’m going to mention was the idea that Velocity is in fact a vanity metric (read The Lean Startup if you have no idea what I’m talking about). Velocity is just a number, like Number of Users or Number of Page Views). What we want are actionable metrics, like team predictability and accuracy of forecasts. As a Development Manager I frequently use the team’s average velocity to forecast delivery dates, Tom recommended that there are better measures out there such as a temperature check of the team’s current mood (which would often dip before any reduction in velocity). It’s an interesting idea, and one I intend to think more about over the next few weeks!
A big thank you to Royd and the guys who put Agile Yorkshire together each month. An equally big thank you to Tom and Jon for their great talks!
I have recently coined the term Lock Concept as a symptom of what many people call Fake Agile. Allow me to explain…
Waterfall development is often described with the Design, Development, and Testing phase structure. Many teams adopting Scrum tend to fall into one of two mistakes.
The first mistake is to split up these into sprints. So Sprint 1 is for design. Sprints 2, 3, and 4 are for development and testing and bug fixing will go into Sprints 5 and 6. This isn’t Scrum. Clarke Ching uses a phrase I like in his book Rolling Rocks Downhill, he talks about GETS software. That’s Good Enough To Ship, at the end of each sprint the software must be production ready. By falling into the sprint phase trap you’re lowering quality between releases and not realising the value of scrum.
The second mistake teams make is to try and run each Sprint as a mini waterfall. This is what I now describe as The Lock Complex. Teams falling into this trap will design in the first few days, develop for a few more, and then test their work towards the end. Yes, the software is GETS at the end… but doesn’t this look like a waterfall on a smaller scale?
The main symptom with this approach is people twiddling their thumbs (testers at the start of the sprint and developers at the end). While wasted time is frustrating, the real problem is the lack of shared knowledge and by unlocking that you can quickly raise your game towards Continuous Delivery.
The way to solve this becomes quite apparent if you look at the DevOps utopia we’re all told about. In a world of Continuous Delivery and automated approvals we create automated acceptance tests to ensure that our code functions as expected. If the feature doesn’t meet these automated tests then it will not be merged in, or if it has been then the deployment pipeline will stop.
In this world, not only are we deploying faster and achieving single piece flow but we’re breaking that Lock Complex. People are busy all the time and pair and mob programming becomes the norm. Instead of having a testing phase where it’s our QA’s engineers’ time to shine we have continuous collaboration and our quality specialists advising on the best tests and mechanisms to be implemented. Testers no longer run manual tests, we get computers to do that. Testers work to ensure that the automated tests give us a coherent test strategy.
If we can help our teams to break the Lock Complex and stop working in mini-waterfall sprints then we’ll see the benefits as people collaborate more and achieve better velocities and higher qualities as a result.
I’ve been posting a lot about communication and safety recently and I want to give credit to the book which kickstarted my renewed interest.
Crucial Conversations is by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, and Ron Mcmillan. In the opening chapters the authors explain that a crucial conversation is any exchange where the stakes are high and emotions are running rampant. They describe how avoiding these conversations or handling them badly can leave lasting repercussions on our wellbeing.
Over the following chapters they describe how to recognise safety, how to reinforce it, and how to reach a positive outcome. It’s really strong stuff, in fact I’ve incorporated many of their ideas in my own style and recent talks.
The book isn’t targeted to a work environment, in fact many of the examples are close to home and personal scenarios. Asking for a raise or disagreeing with someone over a design choice will seem like small fry compared to some of the issues the characters in the book face.
However, I believe strongly that by using these techniques teams can communicate more effectively. By using some of the ideas Kerry and his fellow authors use to monitor safety in a conversation we’ll have better retros, planning sessions, and general collaboration.
If you’ve not read it then I strongly suggest you pick up a copy – it’s one of the few books I’ve rated 5* this year.