The results were confirming on the one hand, surprising on the other. As a cultural meme, Agile is fundamentally patterned on the Collaboration culture type (not surprising). A strong second preference, however, is the Cultivation culture type (surprising). On the overall level, there are only slight differences culturally between the 3 Agile methods studied (a bit surprising). However, on the level of specific culture levers (things like Power & Influence, Decision-making, etc.) the results were either different from the overall pattern (e.g., Collaboration followed closely by Cultivation) or showed a different pattern between the 3 methods.

Background

Fundamentally, organization culture is to organizations what personality is to people. Culture combines many things: work practices, values, how processes and other systems are carried out, styles of leadership, decision making and thinking about organizational challenges and solutions. I have been using a specific culture typology for working with Agile transformation efforts for many years, and that approach is the basis of this research.

In The Reengineering Alternative: A Plan to Make Your Current Culture Work (1994), William Schneider outlines his researched-based model of organizational culture (Bill is a great guy, and one of our partners–see our Partner page). Schneider outlines four core cultures. Similar to a person taking the Myers-Briggs type inventory, there is no “right” answer or “better” culture. Any culture (like a personality) can be adaptive to its environment or not, in balance or not, and authentic or not. Determining and aligning a management approach (such as Agile) that is being implemented with the existing organizational culture is the difference between flourishing success or abject failure. Not all ideas are good ones, depending on their fit with the organization’s culture. Here’s a brief description of the four cultures.

Control

If a culture could be said to have a quest, in the Control culture that quest is for certainty and predictability. Not surprisingly, the Control culture loves data and objective analysis. It strives for market share dominance with customers and to be the ‘only game in town.’ Managers in a Control culture tend to be directive and authoritative. Jobs are focused on functional need, even functional loyalty. The archetype of the Control culture is the military, where a strict chain of command is followed and rank means everything. The climate in such a culture is serious, formal, at times even secretive. The underlying psychological motive here is power. A potential misunderstanding is that a Control culture is inherently ‘controlling.’ The urge of the culture is for certainty—the kind of certainty needed in a nuclear power plant, for instance—which is not necessarily controlling, but rather orderly and procedural. When the culture is overly controlling, that represents an out of balance situation.

Competence

The quest of the Competence culture is for freedom, distinction and uniqueness. A consistent product strategy in such a culture is striving to be the best, innovative, one of a kind, cutting edge. In contrast to a Control culture, the role of employees here is to become an expert within one’s specialty. The culture is oriented towards learning and development in service of becoming the best. The climate is intense and competitive, with a tendency towards being Spartan and prideful. Power comes not through position per se, but through prowess in one’s field, a meritocracy. Organization structure tends towards the matrix or an adhocracy. The underling archetype is the traditional University, where people pursue being the best. Achievement is the driving motivation in the Competence culture. Many engineering organizations and specialty product companies are Competence cultures, as are many IT organizations.

Collaboration

The quest in the Collaboration culture is for unity and connectedness. The relationship with customers is synergistic and oriented towards partnering. The natural organizational form that goes along with this intent is the cluster, often a cluster of teams. Leadership in the Collaborative culture is participative and collegial, focusing on team building and developing trust. Employees are encouraged to be generalists, to honor diversity and utilize others as resources. There is an atmosphere of informality, of “let’s try it and see what happens,” of on the job training and learning. The climate is harmonious, trusting, spontaneous and egalitarian with a ‘can do’ philosophy. (Parallels to the Agile philosophy are perhaps obvious.) A Collaboration culture is motivated primarily by affiliation. The archetype is the family or sports team. Collaboration  is the favored culture of many consulting companies and other highly collaborative service providers.

Cultivation

The final of the four core cultures is called Cultivation. Its quest is for meaning, for making a contribution. The relationship to its customer (or constituent) is their growth, the realization of their highest potential. Leaders in the Cultivation culture are catalysts, cultivators and stewards of human potential. The role of employees can vary from functionalist to generalist to specialist, depending on organizational need and personal inclination. Mentoring, sponsoring and a fervor to learn and grow are common. The climate of such an organization is lively, magnetic, committed, emotional and giving. The organizational structure is unconventional such as a wheel or lattice. Cultivation is the ultimate ‘values-driven’ organization. It is the least common type in the for-profit world, but quite prevalent in non-profits and religious and spiritual organizations, which provide the underlying archetype. Self-actualization is the primary motivator in a Cultivation culture.

The four core cultures are generally depicted by Schneider on a 2×2 matrix, where the horizontal axis represents the Personal cultures on the left and Impersonal ones on the right. Likewise, the vertical axis represents an Actuality culture on top, a Possibility one on the bottom. Collaboration and Cultivation are Personal cultures, Control and Competence are Impersonal ones, etc.  The matrix also represents the fact that Control and Cultivation are opposite culture types, as are Competence and Collaboration.

Results

The following diagram represents results from the Agile culture survey, combined across Scrum, XP and Lean-Kanban:

The digram shows Collaboration to be the strongest culture preference (47%) for the ideal Agile team, as judged by the 120+ respondents to the survey. Cultivation is a strong second at 41%. Competence shows up a distant 3rd at 9%, while Control (predictably) is a meager 3%. What this confirms is that Agile is clearly a strong culture meme (it is not, for instance, spread somewhat evenly across the four types) and it is decidedly a Personal culture. Further, if you are implementing Agile into a Competence or (especially) a Control culture, beware. (There are ways to mitigate this risk, but that is beyond the scope of this blog).

A further detailing of the results is revealed by examining each of the 10 culture levers measured in the survey (overall, Schneider identified 20; I choose the most salient 10 for this research).

The following diagram shows results for each of the 10 culture levers, again summarized across all 3 methods:

At this greater level of detail, some new  patterns emerge. First, in only four of the ten levers does Collaboration have the strongest preference, while the other six have Cultivation as a preference. In general, Collaboration and Cultivation are number one and two. In three instances, however,  the Competence culture is the second strongest. These three levers are Approach with Customers, Power & Influence, and Key Norms.

Two cautions: the results d not represent the study of actual Agile teams, but rather the ‘ideal’ preference for a good Agile team as expressed by practitioners. Second, when Schneider measures an organizations culture, he does it with a much more extensive (and statistically validated) instrument. These results may be incomplete due to this limitation of the survey.

I hope to publish a full report on this work later in the year. I will also be providing further detail on my analysis during my Agile 2010 tutorial, Blueprint for an Agile Enterprise. Hope you will stop by and say hello!

Michael is excited to be starting a  leadership coaching group for managers & executives engaged in Agile transformations. From the beginning of his Agile career, Michael has worked extensively with management and their unique perspective on the world of self-organized teams and the necessary changes to management assumptions that accompany an Agile transition. Managers making the (at times difficult) transition to Agile is a subject near to his heart.

The group is exclusively for those in management or executive level positions to help us ground fully and focus in the managerial perspective. The group will consist of coaching, peer support, and expert advising from Michael, based on his nine years doing large scale Agile transformations. It  will have elements of group coaching, a mastermind group, and peer supervision. The group will be limited to 4-6 people and will meet on a biweekly basis for 3-6 months.

Potential Topics:

• Organizational transformation & change models
• Leading teams from the boundary
• Leadership agility
• Eight Agile Manager competencies
• Leadership style assessment
• Issues in Agile Leadership

There are currently several slots open, so if you are interested please let us know.

Michael’s purpose is to share two things: his experience in coaching and organizational transformation, and his professional coach training as a relationship systems coach. He believes coaching groups are part of something trying to happen in our world. . .bringing coaching and mentoring to more people and creating community bonds and networks in the process. A colleague, Bachan Anand, recorded a brief interview with Michael about coaching circles. It is available onYouTube. Or see his blog post on the overall topic of Coaching Circles. Coaching circles are also available for Agile Coaches.

I have long taken the position that Agile teams seek to develop a specific type of culture identified by Schneider. Lately, I have begun to wonder whether the big three Agile methods–Scrum, XP and now Lean-Kanban–might have different underlying core cultures. To explore that question, I developed a brief (10 question) survey. I don’t want to say anything further about my expectations, so as not to bias anyone taking the survey.

If you are an Agile practitioner of any kind, I would be very grateful if you click on the link below to take the survey. It should only take 5-7 minutes. I will report back on the results when I have sufficient numbers.

Survey now closed. Results coming soon!  http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/agileculturesurvey01

Thanks very much for your help!

This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being thoroughly worn out before you are thrown on the scrap heap; the being a force of Nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.
-George Bernard Shaw

Teams, I’ve become fond of saying, are a force of Nature. They allow us to be used for a purpose recognized by ourselves as a mighty one. They get results. More often than not, they are FAR better at getting things done than are individuals, even than collections of individuals who exhibit good teamwork!  If you have been on a real team, you will never forget it. You will always long to be on one again. Real teams simply ‘destroy’ business problems, thereby creating awe in management; they are favored by their leaders, thereby creating envy in other ‘teams.’

Can’t all teams be such forces of Nature, you ask?  Well, yes and no, depending on the business problem on the one hand, and your willingness to let go, on the other.

For many years, I have been a student of Jon Katzenbach and Douglas Smith’s heavily research-based book, The Wisdom of Teams.  One of the book’s central findings is that teams form only because they have to, more or less. That is, when the performance challenge being faced cannot be solved by individuals–even those exhibiting good ‘teamwork’–a team is the solution.

Wisdom’s specific definition is “a small number of people with complementary skills, committed to a common purpose, with a set of performance goals and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.” The common purpose and performance goals are critical: they must be substantive and meaningful, both in business and in personal terms to team members. Likewise, the team holds themselves mutually accountable: when team members say (or think) “well, I did what I was supposed to do, but . . .” then you know its not a team. On a team, it can only be that ‘we didn’t get it done.’ Wisdom’s term for this kind of team is a performing team.

I call it a team entity. I use the word ‘entity’ deliberately. Teams are living systems, with their own personality, culture, and self-regulating mechanisms. This entity can be evoked and nurtured and grown. Most importantly for a team, it can simply be revealed, which tends to grow and nurture it. Revealing is most easily done by outsiders like leaders and coaches.

The accountability and the entity observation come together in another: on a real team–a team entity–it is as if the primary identification of the members shift from them as individuals to the team as a whole. When we work on a real team, we do whatever we must do to fulfill the team’s mission; I as an individual come second. Ironically, its not like losing yourself, instead its more like finding yourself, finding your home, belonging.

It’s like finding the true joy in life: becoming a force of Nature.

The backstory here is my exploration of different ideas relating to coaching circles, mentor groups, and other formats. As often happens when working with a concept important to our own development, the idea keeps coming up all around me. The group with Bachan is the second such group I’m leading with Agile coaches. Then, last week a coaching colleague (not an Agile coach) asked me to help her start a group coaching program for a large financial institution. Suddenly, I realized how my world was calling me into something.

What I’m wrestling with is how to choose–or perhaps better, to synthesize–from amongst different forms to guide these groups. My purpose is to share two things: my experience in coaching and organizational transformation, and my professional coach training as a relationship systems coach.

One form is the self-organized Coaching Circle. The Orlando Scrum Gathering recently held a session on this format, documented here. This form taps into the richness of community that comes from peer collectives and the power of the Community of Practice, a concept articulated by the anthropologist Etienne Wenger.

A second form is one I have personally experienced: the Mastermind group, originally articulated by Napoleon Hill. My mastermind group is a source of inspiration, intimacy, tremendous personal support, as well as accountability and challenge. It is a group that will ‘call me forth’ to my own greatness. (If you don’t have one, do yourself a favor and investigate it.)

I grew up as a clinician with case presentations in Peer Group Supervision. The learning that happens in this context can be both deep and vulnerable. Even though the center of attention seems to be the client problem you brought to the party, what is truly revealed is our own patterns, limitations, preconceptions and false beliefs, in addition to our magnificence and power.

Finally, the Mentor Group is a form I am starting to explore in a big way. It leverages one or more people with extensive experience across multiple mentees, who both benefit from the mentor and from the network of their peers.

The synthesis for me right now could be called a Coach Mentor Circle. It combine the Mentor Group with the Coach Circle, while also using a component of Peer Group Supervision. This will go on for a set number of sessions, then the group will become whatever it needs to be, perhaps a Mastermind group. I believe this is part of something trying to happen in our world. . .bringing coaching and mentoring to more people and creating community bonds and networks in the process.

By the way, there are still two slots open, so if you are interested please let me know.

Following was inspired by the Tao Te Ching (Dao De Jing). I was preparing to teach a new Agile team and wanted a simple version of the rules of Scrum. I started with the Scrum Guide, which I distilled down into 15 basic rules and 53 sub-rules. The basic rules, in this Taoist-like format, are a kind of Ri (expert or master) version of Scrum.  This post contains the third and final installment, with all 15 rules included (go to the bottom for the third set not previously published).

The Underlying Tao

The Way is Transparent. The Way should be Inspected. What is Inspected should be Adapted to.

The basis of Scrum is that it is transparent:  to the people who pay for development, to management, to customers and users, to the team itself. Of course, this sounds good, but in fact people often hate it. It is hard to give up old ways, to be exposed in our comfy habits. So we don’t always take full advantage of transparency. We want transparency of some things, but not others.

Then, given that we have transparency, we are now in a position to inspect what actually happened. Did our plan work out? Did the change to greater detail in our stories actually make a difference? Were we able to get QA more involved this sprint?

Finally, when we see the results clearly, it is incumbent upon us to make changes, to adapt. If QA did not get more involved this sprint as we wished, what happened? How did we fail? What can we do differently? The questioning mind is an open mind. In the beginners mind there are many options, in the expert’s there are few.

The Tao of People

The Product Owner decides the ‘what’ of the Way.

With only one person making decisions on what to work on (and why), teams are able to get very clear and move very fast. With inspection, everyone  sees whether those ‘what’ decisions actually worked out. The Product Owner is likely to either love or hate this arrangement. If we know where we want to go–and are able to adapt quickly to feedback–it is wonderful to be the driver. On the other hand, if our success has been due to maneuvering around accountability, this will be an unhappy path with which we will likely find fault.

The Team decides the ‘how’ and ‘how much’ of the Way.

In regards to the Product Owner’s direction, the Team decides both how to accomplish the ‘what’ and how long it will take. To do otherwise will tip the scales of power unwisely, in ways that do not reflect reality accurately. Teams feel the integrity of the process when this dictum is upheld. It conveys respect and professionalism.

The Scrum Master serves the Way, and tells others when the Way has been lost.

Ultimately, the Scrum Master must serve the Way itself. For Scrum, the Way is embodied in its rules and in its essence. At times, the Scrum Master may feel like a voice in the wilderness, trying to be heard above the din of ‘deadlines and demos.’ But if she serves the Way truly, her voice will eventually be heard. If it is about his ego (or results), the Scrum Master will fail, both himself and the Team. This is hard for the new Scrum Master to learn. We have been trained that we must be responsible for the team’s results. Ultimately, attempting to do so will compromise our allegiance to the Way of Scrum.

The Tao of Events

Release Planning defines what users of the Way will find of value, and by when.

Release Planning may remind us of the old days, when management asked for dates (and commitments) that we could not give, or could not keep. It can be tempting to skip over Release Planning, especially for a new team. But having a view of where we are going gives us confidence, and helps us know when we have lost our way. Release Planning is not about dates (though everyone wants them), but about sequence and size. Release Planning might be best done during the first Sprint, after we have the chance to get our mind on straight as a team.

Sprints are the Way of the Team, and do not vary in length.

Sprints are the heartbeat of a Scrum Team. They provide the rhythm and backbone on which ritual can form, rituals that teams need as human systems. The Sprint cycle provides a beginning and an end, creating a familiar comfort against which to remember where we are, where we are going, and how we can do better the next time around. Over time, the Sprint may get shorter, but do not let it get longer.

Sprint Planning defines the Way for this week, and for next.

The Sprint Planning meeting begins the cycle. It says this is a new day, we can do anything, together. It lets the business customer tell their story and the team ask their questions. It gives the team their marching orders, and the Product Owner, hope for the immediate future. It is the project community’s central ritual, along with the Sprint Review. It should be adjusted to fit the community, whether with food, music or anything that connects people’s hearts.

The Daily Standup helps the team Adapt to the Way, for today.

The standup is the place where accountability within the team becomes real. Those embarasssed to ask for assistance will be stuck on the same task, day after day, while declaring ‘no impediments.’ Some will be vague when declaring what they will do today, unsure of themselves and of their support. For others, the standup is a celebration of how well they work together and how much they can conquer as a team. If everyone does not learn something during the standup, there is either a lack of real listening, or the team is talking only from rote. Perhaps there is a lack of trust?

The Sprint Review helps the users of the Way Inspect what has been done in two weeks time.

We come back to inspection. The Sprint Review is for the project community–as many of them as possible–to come together and see what has been done. Real feedback is essential: the good, the bad and the controversial. Senior leaders are sometimes reluctant to attend. That is a shame. This is where the ‘real’ work gets done. Perhaps they haven’t heard?

The Retrospective helps the team decide the Way forward, by Inspecting the Way that is past.

The Sprint Review is to the project community what the Retrospective is to the team: it is their inspection (and introspection) process for themselves. Did they get better this Sprint? Did they accomplish all they could as a team? Did they have fun and feel relaxed? Where is their cutting edge? And how can they get over it?

The Tao of Things

The Product Backlog is the Way, in order.

The Backlog is a garden that must be weeded and watered. Sometimes we only develop as much Product Backlog as the team will need for the next Sprint or two. This may work for a time, but we need to plant more seeds. The thinking that creates the Backlog should be allowed to run its course, or the Way will be inarticulate. A finished Backlog is an oxymoron: this is not the goal. Do plant more seeds.

Likewise, the Backlog may be relatively full, but not in order. This is like weeds in our garden. The Backlog must be nurtured each Sprint by the Product Owner, and by the Project Community.

The Sprint Backlog is the ‘How’ of the Way, for two weeks time.

The Sprint Backlog is to the team what the Product Backlog is to the project community.  It too must be nurtured every day. Do we have all the tasks? Are we keeping track of where we are? It is easy for us to get lost in our own tasks and forget the big picture, but ’seeing from the whole’ is what makes us truly a team. If we don’t see, the Scrum Master will.

The Product Burndown shows the Way of the Product Backlog.

The Product Burndown can be tedious. Who wants to calculate all that’s been done and all there is left to do? But seeing how much value is left, and how much effort it will require, is what keeps us honest about business decisions: is this still the most valuable product to pursue?

The Sprint Burndown shows the Way of the Sprint Backlog.

The Sprint Burndown can seem annoying to update every day, even pointless, especially after 12 Sprints. But the burndown is not just for the team: it is for the stakeholders, patiently trusting that the team is making progress, silently biting their lip so as to not interfere, now they have been told they are ‘chickens.’  Try seeing what the pattern of your burndowns are over 5 Sprints. What do they tell you? How could you get better?

The Tao of Endings

The definition of Done must be agreed upon by all who follow the Way.

Deciding the rules for when we are finished — with a task, a story, the Sprint, or even the product — should be decided at the beginning, but discussed repeatedly. Were we really done with this task? Did our team think so? Did we use too much effort to finish this story? What do the tests say? Have we gotten as much value as we need, for now?

Are there greater horizons ahead?

How can we get even better?

My attempt to frame a new discussion about PMOs was inspired by a client request, as well as conversations with my friend and colleague, Lyssa Adkins. The client–we’ll call him Jack–wanted to know how to run a PMO at enterprise scale in light of the changes brought by Agile. This started me on a quest to find something I felt comfortable giving Jack from the recent literature on Agile PMOs. What I turned up did not satisfy me, so I felt compelled to write my own. (By the way, you probably know Jack: he’s typical of PMO directors everywhere.)

I approached Lyssa about collaborating with me on this idea. I ended up writing it alone, but Lyssa provided very valuable feedback, the kind a good editor does: not about the grammar or punctuation or other tactical matters. Rather, Lyssa helped me find my own voice. As she reflected, what I was articulating was more related to the being of a PMO than the doing of one. She also encouraged my bluntness, telling it like it is: PMOs are generally disliked by many of the people they are supposed to serve. It does not have to be that way. Getting there does require a fundamental shift in mindset and values.

The whitepaper is entitled The Principled PMO: Creating a PMO that Matters. If you are interested, it is available here by request.

The Tao of Events

Release Planning defines what users of the Way will find of value, and by when.

Release Planning may remind us of the old days, when management asked for dates (and commitments) that we could not give, or could not keep. It can be tempting to skip over Release Planning, especially for a new team. But having a view of where we are going gives us confidence, and helps us know when we have lost our way. Release Planning is not about dates (though everyone wants them), but about sequence and size. Release Planning might be best done during the first Sprint, after we have the chance to get our mind on straight as a team.

Sprints are the Way of the Team, and do not vary in length.

Sprints are the heartbeat of a Scrum Team. They provide the rhythm and backbone on which ritual can form, rituals that teams need as human systems. The Sprint cycle provides a beginning and an end, creating a familiar comfort against which to remember where we are, where we are going, and how we can do better the next time around. Over time, the Sprint may get shorter, but do not let it get longer.

Sprint Planning defines the Way for this week, and for next.

The Sprint Planning meeting begins the cycle. It says this is a new day, we can do anything, together. It lets the business customer tell their story and the team ask their questions. It gives the team their marching orders, and the Product Owner, hope for the immediate future. It is the project community’s central ritual, along with the Sprint Review. It should be adjusted to fit the community, whether with food, music or anything that connects people’s hearts.

The Daily Standup helps the team Adapt to the Way, for today.

The standup is the place where accountability within the team becomes real. Those embarasssed to ask for assistance will be stuck on the same task, day after day, while declaring ‘no impediments.’ Some will be vague when declaring what they will do today, unsure of themselves and of their support. For others, the standup is a celebration of how well they work together and how much they can conquer as a team. If everyone does not learn something during the standup, there is either a lack of real listening, or the team is talking from rote. Perhaps there is a lack of trust?

The Sprint Review helps the users of the Way Inspect what has been done in two weeks time.

We come back to inspection. The Sprint Review is for the project community–as many of them as possible–to come together and see what has been done. Real feedback is essential: the good, the bad and the controversial. Senior leaders are sometimes reluctant to attend. That is a shame. This is where the real work gets done. Perhaps they haven’t heard?

The Retrospective helps the team decide the Way forward, by Inspecting the Way that is past.

The Sprint Review is to the project community what the Retrospective is to the team: their inspection, and introspection, process for themselves. Did they get better this Sprint? Did they accomplish all they could as a team? Did they have fun and feel relaxed? Where is their cutting edge? And how can they get over it?

Following was inspired by the Tao Te Ching (Dao De Jing). I was preparing to teach a new Agile team and wanted a simple version of the rules of Scrum. I started with the Scrum Guide, which I distilled down into 15 basic rules and 53 sub-rules. The basic rules, in this Taoist-like format, are a kind of Ri (expert or master) version of Scrum. In this post are the first four rules, with comments.

The Underlying Tao

The Way is Transparent. The Way should be Inspected. What is Inspected should be Adapted to.

The basis of Scrum is that it is transparent:  to the people who pay for development, to management, to customers and users, to the team itself. Of course, this sounds good, but in fact people often hate it. It is hard to give up old ways, to be exposed in our comfy habits. So we don’t always take full advantage of transparency. We want transparency of some things, but not others.

Next, given that we have transparency, we are now in a position to inspect what actually happened. Did our plan work out? Did the change to greater detail in our stories actually make a difference? Were we able to get QA more involved this sprint?

Finally, when we see the results clearly, it is incumbent upon us to make changes, to adapt. If QA did not get more involved this sprint as we wished, what happened? How did we fail? What can we do differently? The questioning mind is an open mind. In the beginners mind there are many options, in the expert’s there are few.

The Tao of People

The Product Owner decides the ‘what’ of the Way.

With only one person making decisions on what to work on (and why), teams are able to get very clear and move very fast. With inspection, everyone  sees whether those ‘what’ decisions actually worked out. The Product Owner is likely to either love or hate this arrangement. If we know where we want to go–and are able to adapt quickly to feedback–it is wonderful to be the driver. Conversely, if our success has been due to maneuvering around accountability, this will be an unhappy path with which we will likely find fault.

The Team decides the ‘how’ and ‘how much’ of the Way.

In regards to the Product Owner’s direction, the Team decides both how to accomplish the ‘what’ and how long it will take. To do otherwise will tip the scales of power unwisely, in ways that do not reflect reality accurately. Teams feel the integrity of the process when this dictum is upheld. It conveys respect and professionalism.

The Scrum Master serves the Way, and tells others when the Way has been lost.

Ultimately, the Scrum Master must serve the Way itself. For Scrum, the Way is embodied in its rules and essence. At times, the Scrum Master may feel like a voice in the wilderness, trying to be heard above the din of deadlines and demos. But if she serves the Way truly, her voice will eventually be heard. If it is about his ego, or results, the Scrum Master will fail: himself and the Team. This is very hard for the new Scrum Master to learn. We have been trained that we must be responsible for the team’s results. Ultimately, attempting to do so will compromise our allegiance to the Way of Scrum.

I applaud Jean for having brought the issue up and agree with her on many of her points. At the same time, I also agree with some of those saying their conflict is necessary and fruitful, notably my friend Tobias and others. For what it’s worth, I wanted to offer my take.

First, conflict is beyond inevitable, it is essential for any relationship–such as teams–especially where people are trying to achieve something together. In my practice as a team coach, the lack of conflict is a signal to me that something is wrong. Perhaps there is not enough trust, communication patterns may have become toxic, people may simply not care about each other enough to risk disagreeing, or maybe there is an abusive managerial dynamic giving rise to an environment of fear.

Healthy conflict is the sign of a mature relationship, whether within a team, between business partners, or within a marriage. So, what makes for healthy conflict and why is it so important?

Let’s first examine why it’s important. Based on extensive research conducted at the University of Washington by renowned relationship expert Dr. John Gottman, positivity in relationships is the key to long term sustainability and happiness. His observation of relationships that last over time is that the ratio of positive to negative behavioral “transactions” needs to be about 5 to 1. He describes it like a bank account, where you make deposits in positive interactions and you make withdrawals with destructive interactions.

Gottman’s research led him to document a taxonomy of the most destructive types of negative interactions. They are:

1. Criticism/Blaming
2. Defensiveness
3. Contempt
4. Stonewalling

Briefly, by Criticism Gottman does not mean giving direct feedback on someone’s behavior, but rather a form of blaming where the person’s character is impugned. For instance, a tester says in a retrospective, “development just doesn’t care about quality with all the bugs they are allowing to get to us.” Not surprisingly, such Criticism can give rise to Defensiveness. A developer in the same retrospective responds, “we can’t help it, we’re under a lot of time pressure to finish all the stories.” The manager chimes in “can’t you people figure anything out! I’m sick of having to help you deal with your kindergarten name-calling. I should probably just work on getting a whole new team. Hope your resumes are up to date.” At this point, Contempt has shown up, the most dangerous of the four toxic communication styles. Meanwhile, the team sits there as the manager rants, not reacting, pretending not to even hear him. This last style Gottman calls Stonewalling.

The interconnection of these four communication patterns is clear: Criticism often leads to Defensiveness which can lead to an increase in Criticism and, eventually, to Contempt. Lots of Contempt can result in closing down or Stonewalling.

Back to Jean’s post. I believe at least part of what she is identifying is the presence of these toxic styles within the Agile community. Certainly, a fair proportion of blog posts and email list exchanges could not be described as positive interactions, and I have not infrequently felt the parties were demonstrating contempt for each other’s opinions. The cumulative affect of this can create a culture of negativity, not positivity (remember how important that is for good relationships?).  But is this negativity only a problem for the “thin skinned”?

In Gottman’s research, there was an extensive physiological component, including blood tests and biofeedback monitoring during and after arguments. As Gottman accumulated evidence about this, particularly the toxic physical affects of enduring someone else’s contempt, he made a change in the research. Gottman concluded that so much physical and emotional harm was caused during an argument involving contempt, that he decided to stop the research whenever such arguments occurred in order to act in an ethical way.

Now, back to Tobias. When some people have a “conflict,” they really do enjoy it, while respecting and potentially even having fun with their “adversary.” If team members can come from the place of curiosity, respect, playfulness and real appreciation when they debate various team issues, suddenly it does not have a negative impact at all. In fact, if taken with the right attitude, it may lead to being able to celebrate the diversity of views and perspectives inherent in relationship.

Here’s the rub: the difference between an argument that feels contemptuous and a debate that is stimulating is in the experience of the behholder, so to speak. You can only know how the other person experiences what is happening by asking them.

I would be interested in any thoughts you all have about this topic.

Cheers!