Agile Conversations

src: Agile Conversations

• in 90s, models copied from Taylorism, but software development fail
• Dr Alistair Cockburn observed successes and failures depends on humans, people are the central concern of a software methods
  • ⇒ Lean Software / Deveops movement
• simple technique to master to get people back into your process: the conversation
• Agile Manifesto
• agile approach demands a culture that can support collaboration and learning
• devops movement: trust, respect, and collaboration
  • cross-functional team
  • cattle, not pets
  • infrastructure as code
  • automated deployment
  • sharing metrics
• the whole point of devops is to create unity and collaboration among different specialities, no more silos
• even with those promising movement, we are still falling back to Taylorism approach

Improving your conversation

• use 4 R’s:
  1. how to Record your conversation
  2. how to Reflect them to find problems
  3. how to Revise them to produce better alternatives
  4. how to Role Play to gain fluency

Why our power (conversation) is flawed

• it makes collaboration possible but not inevitable
• we come with pre-existing built-in flaws, called cognitive biases
• under those biases, agile practices can fail to deliver the promised benefits

Conversation as an investigative tool

• we all have outcomes we want to achieve, and we use out theory of action to choose which steps to take
• there is often a gap between what we say we would do in a situation and what we actually do

Defensive vs productive reasoning

• things change when the situation is potentially threatening or embarrassing
  • in those situation, people use defensive reasoning
  • people act to remove the threat or potential embarrassment
  • they think in term of winning or losing
• in theory, value diverse team because diversity can be a strength
  • diversity of experience
  • diversity of knowledge
  • diversity of modes of thought
• in practice, we tend to see different opinions as threatening and potentially embarrassing, so we react defensively
• difficult to detect by oneself, and can also be in denial
• change behavior of transparency and curiosity
  • sharing of knowledge across organization boundaries
  • sharing of and resolution of difficult previously taboo issues
  • ⇒ bad news: this takes substantial effort, and this effort involves difficult emotional work
• common pitfalls:
  1. we won’t be transparent and curious when we lack Trust
  2. we will, consciously or not, act defensively when we have unspoken Fear
  3. we will be unable to generate productive conflict when we lack a shared Why
  4. we will avoid definite Commitment as long as those situations feel threatening or embarrassing
  5. we will fail to learn from our experience if we are unwilling to be Accountable
• most effective communication is person-to-person, face-to-face, 2 people at the whiteboard

Record ---> Reflect ---> Revise ---> Role Play
              ^            |             ^
              |            |             |
              |            |             v
              +------------+-------- Role Reversal
           Repeat

• technique for the 4 Rs: take a paper, create 2 columns
  • right column: write down what each person in the conversation said
  • left column: write what you thought at the time as the words were spoken

The Trust conversation

• use the phrase “The story I’m telling myself…” when sharing internal reasoning
  • ex: The story I’m telling myself is that you are not working on this project because it’s boring
• what you see is all there is
  • there’s a lot that you don’t see
• to get past your natural instinct to protect your story, try getting yourself to blurt out “unsafe” things, e.g. ask “dumb”-sounding questions or share your doubts about how you drew a particular conclusion
• sense of comfort and intimacy: tool to help achieve it is the Ladder of Inference, which is the Reflexive Loop where our believe affect what data we select next time

^ I take action based on my belief
| I adopt beliefs about the world                 --+
| I draw conclusions                                | only visible
| I make assumptions based on the meaning I added   | to me
| I add meanings (cultural and personal)          --+
| I select data from what I observe

• from data your derive meanings, which gives you assumptions, conclusions and beliefs, and from these, you determine your action
• Ladder of Inference provides a way to structure alignment: 1st align on the bottom rung, then rung 2, and so on, until your stories match
• only the bottom rung (observation) and the top rung (action) exist outside your head
• when using the Ladder of Inference, you are going to ascend in small tested steps, each of which increases your confidence: TDD for people
• at the end, you and your partner will have move closely aligned your ladders, and therefore your stories, and where you still don’t fully agree, you will at least understand each other’s motive
  • you will build substantial trust for the future

The Fear conversation

• fear is one of the biggest inhibitors of transformations, paralyzes team, inhibiting creativity and cooperation
• normalized deviance means the whole team, including you, has likely become blind to the variation from the espoused norm ⇒ learned helplessness
• once we can imagine conflicting explanation, we are no longer trapped by the original coherent story
• you can use Coherence Busting to help you prepare anytime you are approaching a potentially difficult conversation, especially when you sense that you may have some assumptions about your conversation partner is thinking and feeling
• use fear chart (alone or in group):
  • left column: list of fears
  • middle column: mitigation
  • right column: espoused norm

The Why conversation

• prepare why conversation by creating a table with the position of the parties and the possible corresponding interests, where the positions are specific team or organization goals that you think colleagues may advocate, and the interests describe the broader principles that may be behind their advocacy
• ⚠️ tilting too far toward pure inquiry
  • ⇒ Perry Mason Trap
  • asking a series of question without explaining our reasoning or stating our views behind those questions can make one look like leading the other to their garden
    • much like lawyers?
• combine advocacy and inquiry
  • include your own observations and ideas
• joint design
  • each member “adding their own eggs”
  1. include as many people as possible
  2. ask genuine questions
  3. invite opposite views
  4. timebox the discussion
  5. establish and communicate who will make the final decision (decision-making rule)
• the key elements are inclusion and information flow
• “adding your own egg” is vital to successfully determine the team’s motivating

The Commitment conversation

• commitment vs compliance
• compliance is doing what you are told
  • good when process is table
  • will fail when creativity is needed, process is unstable, when the team needs to identify and overcome unknowns obstacles
• compliance is showing up, filling space
• commitment is engaging with your whole self, participating
• “done” is one important word, the meaning of which you’ll want to discuss and clarify for the commitment conversation
• techniques that gives a structured way to have a discussion about real cases of the feature in use and make sure we are fully aligned on how it should work
  • Gojko Adzic Specification by Example )SBE

The Walking Skeleton

• keep each commitment as small as possible and use a framework that makes it easy to deliver your small commitments over and over
• 2 constraints when creating a walking skeleton:
  1. don’t leave out any limbs, an incomplete skeleton is worse than useless
  2. don’t confuse a walking skeleton with a minimum viable product (MVP)
• steps for a successful commitment conversation:
  1. agree on the meaning of the commitment
  2. agree on the next outcome to commit
  3. reaffirm the commitment

Obstacles to the commitment conversation

• 1st: cultural
  • ex: belief about substitutability and frictionless task-switching fit the Taylorist
• 2nd: existing commitment process
  • use Directed Opportunism “briefing” structure
  • identify what constraints and freedom they can exercise when helping to shape the commitment
• final: partial acceptance
  • ex: indifference, hostility, sheer stubbornness
  • need someone or some group ⇒ champions and evangelist

The Accountability conversation

Theory X and Theory Y: motivation dichotomy

• theory X is closely related to the Taylorist view, i.e. workers are lazy and dumb, and must be presided over by managers
  • accountability here is nonsensical
• theory Y: people want to be engaged, they want to take ownership
  • accountability is vital here
• conflict is exactly what creates drama

Directed Opportunism

• obstacle: naive realism
  • view that we see the world objectively and without bias, and so other people will come to the same conclusion as we do
  • this is a misguided approach
• friction from 3 gaps (Bungay’s 3 gaps):
  • knowledge gap: difference between what we would like to know and what we actually know
  • alignment gap: difference between what we want people to do and what they actually do
  • effects gap: difference between what we expect our action to achieve and what they actually achieve

effect gap  +-------- outcom --------+  knowledge gap
            |                        |
         actions ----------------- plans
                  alignment gap

• fully closing the gaps is impossible
• directed opportunism: one person uses a briefing to describe where we are going, and the other uses a back briefing to explain how we plan to get there
• clear briefing brings at least one party providing accountability
• back-briefing is used to clear misunderstanding
• back-briefing led by the executing party
  • meant to describe how it plans to achieve the desired outcome and to confirm that this plan matches the original outcome, constraints and freedoms
• we should be “radiating intent” at all times
  • share the current state
  • describe plans and intended outcomes
  • alert to obstacles