#Stoos got me to reflect, both before and after the weekend, about why the long awaited transformation of management has not yet come to pass. Surely the complexity of issues facing companies (not to mention societies) is great enough to warrant a different, more networked, more values-oriented management paradigm to emerge. As the #Stoos communique opines, leadership should include “the stewardship of the living”. Yet, clearly that is SO not happening.

As Sumantra Ghoshal wrote in 2005, bad management thinking is destroying good management practices. Viewing things as I do from a developmental perspective, I don’t think the majority of the leaders in our world have developed themselves enough to lead from these new models; nor do our organizational cultures support these new ways, even when a given individual ‘sees’ the need.

How do we understand this gap?

Let’s begin with a research-based development model that encompasses people, organizations and even whole societies. Based on the work of Clare Graves and developed by Don Beck and Chris Cowan, Spiral Dynamics reveals eight value memes (vMemes) that encapsulate world and human development all the way back to prehistoric times. Each stage (or wave) represents more complex thinking (and behaving) than the one before. Movement between stages is ‘forced’ by life circumstances, when a given set of problems is no longer solved satisfactorily by the previous collection of values and ways of thinking. A listing of the five most relevant vMemes, with their mottoes (from John Marshall Roberts’ Igniting Inspiration) is:

• Heroic Thinking (Red) – “Express one’s self, to hell with the consequences, lest one suffer the torment of shame.” Red is like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
• Absolutist Thinking (Blue) – “Sacrifice self now to receive later reward.” Blue is absolutism of any kind, where there in only one right way and immutable laws (e.g., fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, etc.)
• Individualistic Thinking (Orange) – “Express self for what self desires, but in a calculated fashion so as to avoid bringing down the wrath of important others.” Orange is the core of capitalism or corporatism, but also individual freedoms (US Declaration of Independence).
• Humanistic Thinking (Green) – “Sacrifice self now in order to gain acceptance now.” Green is relativism (as opposed to Blue absolutism) and holds views such as mankind is a family and all are equal. Green thinking developed the idea of consensus and holds it to a fault. It is an underlying part of much of Agile.
• Systemic Thinking (Yellow) – “Express self for what self desires and other need, but never at the expense of others, and in a way that all life can continue to exist.” Yellow is found in environmental sustainability, quantum theory, integral psychology, and other innovative technologies (including some aspects or manifestations of Agile).

The kind of management transformation many of us want comes out of the Yellow vMeme, yet the heart of the corporate world is thoroughly Orange, with hints of Green that show up in some HR practices, consensus and collaboration oriented teams and cultures, and generally more enlightened organizations. People don’t (and especially organizations) don’t develop from one level to the next overnight. We develop when our value and thinking system begin failing us in dealing with our life circumstances. The fascination with materialistic gains and outward success (Orange) gives way to dissatisfaction and ‘wanting something more (often in mid-life) to move people from Orange to Green. The inefficiency of consensus oriented decision-making and wanting more creative expression for oneself drives Green into Yellow.

We as coaches can facilitate people’s development, but we cannot drive it. And talking more persuasive, or louder, will not move anyone along the path. Communicating with someone within their own values scheme, not wanting them to be different, is a good place to start.

To learn about the use of Spiral Dynamics in a business context (specifically applied to the food industry), read John Mackey’s blog of his keynote given to his Whole Foods tribe. If you are interested in joining in the ensuing conversation from #Stoos, please join the Stoos Network on LinkedIn.

Here’s my list. Feel free to add your own.

1. First, I am grateful for my life partner, Teresa. She is a beautiful artist, a wise medicine woman, and a sexy woman who keeps me in line.
2. Next, I am grateful for my beautiful daughters, Arielle and Chiara. They have both grown into wonderful young women and I am very proud of them.
3. I am fortunate to have a wonderfully inspiring and focused ‘business wife’, Lyssa Adkins (blog). She and I co-founded the Agile Coaching Institute a year ago and life has not been the same. Which leads me to two more things to be grateful for:
4. The students we teach at ACI are quite amazing. They are so much on a path to grow, to serve their teams, and to strive for their own Tao. It is inspiring to see it, class after class. The openness, the striving, the transformations. How fortunate!
5. The other thing at ACI is the great collegues we get to work with: Cynthia, David, Bent, Bachan, Dan, and others that are coming. Choosing the best in the world is such a privilege. Wow!
6. Finally, I am grateful for my teachers over the years. Chogyam Trungpa, Wally Weir, Becky Porter, Carlos Castaneda, Peter Ossorio, Marita & Faith, Daan Van Kampenhout, Arnie Mindell, Max Schupbach. Thank you for the wisdom and skills that make what I do possible.
7. And finally finally, thank you to the Great Spirit. (Sorry, no web address available.)

-Michael

I regret that I did not say it then. But I was not ready, we were not ready. In the intervening hours, I have talked to some of you–bemoaned that we did not collectively ’get to closure’–and I promised to do something. Here is a first thing. [Note: this blog was published Feb. 28, with an edit on March 9.]

Here is one man’s proclamation for our summit, our summit communique. I hope YOU will consider whether you could align yourself with this statement, for the good of our mother Earth and our human family. Change it as you need to make it true for you. Then, please pass it on.

The 400 leaders and coaches of the first Co-Active Summit in Marco Island, Florida, representing 22 countries throughout the world, make known the following Promise to our Co-Active colleagues, to friends and loved ones, to our communities and to the people of the world:

We believe the human community is at the critical time to change the dream of the world, a dream we have created together, a dream that leads to the destruction of the planet through overconsumption, the wasting of our human environment through social injustice, and the loss of spiritual fulfillment through disconnection and fear.

We believe that by uniting together, We can make the critical difference. We are committing ourselves to changing the dream to one that envisions a sustainable environment, spiritual fulfillment, and social justice for all people and beings. We hold that by taking this stand, our decision can provide the tipping point that the world needs now.

Each in our own way, we will help change the dream: in our selves, in our families, with our children, in front of our friends, inspiring our communities. Because we are leaders, we are coaches, we are human activists. Our weapon is love.

We have less than four years to take decisive action. To change our own life, to change our world, to change our collective dream, to alter the Earth’s destiny.  For the sake of our humanness, for the sake of our grandchildren’s grandchildren. In the words of Henry Kimsey-House, we must act from the paradox of Love AND Power, Feminine AND Masculine energies, Co AND Active. We can’t pick sides any more, coming from one OR the other. We must act from both.

One action we can all take right now, together, is to align with over 6,000 others who have taken the pledge at http://www.fouryearsgo.org/commit/

Because if not us, then who will? And if not now, then when, exactly?

We are the ones we have been waiting for. The time is now.

Four years…

Go!

Leading the coaches through numerous exercises—many from the field of professional coaching—participants got a variety of experiences and deepened their skill base to deal with the varied realities of coaching Agile teams.

On the evening of the first day at the Bay Area Agile group, Lyssa and I had the privilege of doing a coaching demo. A brave soul volunteered to offer up his current challenge, both for his own learning, and for the benefit of the group. The result was a riveting live coaching session. (Find someone who was there and ask them—not about the content, but about the impact it had on them.)

It took me back to my own coach training. I remember vividly how impressed I was with the coaching demonstrations of my teachers. They did things that simply blew me away, that got deep to the core of someone’s issue, all in a kind, uplifting and transformative way. I never thought I could do the same.

But last week, there we were—Lyssa and I—helping a man transform his own understanding of his world, his strength, his inner resources. He came up with a plan that he created, that he owned. Lyssa and I guided him in his process—much as an Agile Coach guides a team starting in the Agile way—holding the space, facilitating the (his) process. The client did the work, not us. He did his work, created his plan. Lyssa and I were there as humbled, privileged witnesses. It was a beautiful thing.

Class the next day felt different, though less than a quarter of the class had actually seen the demo. The space was changed. Deeper, charged with insight into the power of coaching.

Lyssa and I have joined together to bring this ability to catalyze transformation to others, to Agile Coaches. The time is right. It will require them (you!) to learn and to practice a new set of skills—coaching skills—ones that most people who have the desire to learn, can learn. And in that practicing, transformation occurs.

The time is right. The time is now.

Your next opportunity with Lyssa and me is December 8 and 9.

Shows genuine concern for the client’s welfare and future.

That seems basic, perhaps, but it is easy for us to get too concerned with our version of the client’s ‘perfect’ future, rather than what the client themselves is actually facing. I know it can be for me, at least. Then there’s the “shows” part. We not only have to be concerned, we have to show it. So the client themselves can see it, feel it. That can be hard, especially when we get lost in our agenda of being Agilistas. Which leads us to…

Attends to the client and the client’s agenda, and not to the coach’s agenda for the client.

Wow! That’s an interesting thought for us as Agile Coaches and educators – don’t be driven by our agenda.  So, we have to stay present with the client, show genuine concern for their welfare, and attend to their agenda, even (especially) when it is not the same as our agenda. What if they don’t agree with some of the principles and values we hold dear? How can we exhibit…

Is open to not knowing and takes risks

Here we could breathe a sigh of relief. Transparency to our own not knowing can be tremendously liberating. I imagine a conversation “I don’t know how, given that you want an Agile team with Agile results, you can do it by holding one person accountable. But let’s find out more what is important to you about that.” This might lead us to…

Provides ongoing support for and champions new behaviors and actions, including those involving risk taking and fear of failure.

Risk taking and fear of failure, both for the client and for us.

(I’m just getting warmed up here, more to come…)

The other is when we step back, look the other way, or avoid confrontations around clear violations of the Agile rules: Product Owners who don’t engage, stories that are not tested within the iteration, managers who slip work in around the Agile prioritization process (and the Product Owner), stand-ups that go on for an hour. Perhaps we are worried about  job security, or don’t want to rock the boat, or just have a hard time with conflict, either way we say nothing, or we ‘complain’ about the violation but don’t actually take a stand.

The irony? The thing that persuades people most strongly is not what we say (trying to convince them), but rather who we are (taking a stand). Think of the ‘blow hard’ people you know who are always preaching about something. Do you find them persuasive, or annoying?

The trouble is we are coaches, first and foremost, and the ethical guidance for a coach (see ICF Coach Core Competencies) is that she hold the client’s agenda as the driving factor, not her own agenda. So, what would it mean for a coach to take a stand, and how can I hold the client’s agenda while holding the line on the Agile rules?

I have found that when I am able to navigate this dilemma well, it is because I maintain a certain sense of engaged neutrality along with courage. On one hand, I let clients know the Agile ‘rules.’ For instance, I may say, “when playing the Agile game, you can only complete a story when the team finishes all the work that fulfills its acceptance criteria and definition of done, including the testing.” “But we just can’t get to all the testing,” the QA manager may complain. “And my people are feeling devalued because you say their stories are not done so they don’t get credit for them.”

Here, I may take a clarification and educational tack: “I want to understand why they feel they are not getting credit? Perhaps the organization does not understand how Agile teams work?” Or, if this is not the first such conversation on the topic, I may need to balance my expert mentor role with being a coach and consultant: “Perhaps Agile is not right for this team at this point? You and the team will have to decide that, I can’t do that for you. But I do know how to play the Agile game, and that includes finishing everything on a story within an iteration.  How can I help you decide what is best for you to do?” From here I may help the client explore what is frustrating them, what the blocks are, what their own values are, etc. I may also need to invoke multiple levels of ‘client,’ the team as client, the vice president who brought me in as client, etc.

What helps is for me to remember two things. I know what is clearly not Agile, and if I don’t take a stand around it, I am colluding with the client in a kind of lie. I must stand in the courage of my convictions. I must also differentiate things that I think are good practices, but are not really part of the Agile rules. I don’t take a stand here, just offer my advice when appropriate.

The other side is detaching from what the client decides to do for themselves. They may not follow the Agile rules or other guidance. They may decide to do “Cragile’ or “Scrumbut.’ As a good coach, I may even help them decide that this is what makes sense for them, that it is honoring their values or needs as an organization. As a good coach, I maintain my respect for them and manage myself to not bring my own judgement into criticizing them for what they decide.

But, I don’t sell them (or myself) out by calling that Agile.

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.