Agile leadership - aginext 2019
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
2 gostaram•361 visualizações
Management and Leadership of the Agile organisation
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a Agile leadership - aginext 2019
Semelhante a Agile leadership - aginext 2019 (20)
Último
Último (20)
Agile leadership - aginext 2019
- 1. Management & Leadership of the Agile Organisation What needs changing? March 2019 Chris Davies chris@aterny.co.uk @aterny
- 2. 1
- 3. 2
- 4. 3
- 5. 4
- 6. “Scientific” Management The Machine model – 3 premises: 1. It is possible to know all you need to in order to plan what to do 2. Planners and doers should be separated 3. There is but one right way 5
- 7. The Problem with Power 6 The Powerful The Powerless Ambition Politics Mistrust Fear Greed Resentment Resignation
- 8. Our Management ’operating system’ • Management creating plans for ‘do-ers’ • ‘Resource’ allocation • Milestones • Steering Groups • Progress reports • Measuring individual performance • Annual budgeting • Organisation silos • Timesheets 7
- 9. Our Operating System is in need of an upgrade 8
- 10. 9
- 11. 10
- 12. The Management Problem 11 Outcomes PlansActions Knowledge Gap Alignment Gap Effects Gap Ref: Stephen Bungay, The Art of Action, 2011
- 13. The Usual Reactions 12 Outcomes PlansActions Ref: Stephen Bungay, The Art of Action, Knowledge Gap: More detailed information Alignment Gap: More detailed instructions Effects Gap: More detailed controls
- 14. Helmuth Von Moltke , 1869 13 Outcomes PlansActions Knowledge Gap: “Do not command more than is necessary or plan beyond the circumstances you can foresee” Alignment Gap: “Communicate to every unit as much of the higher intent as is necessary to achieve the purpose” Effects Gap: “Everyone retains freedom of decision and action within bounds Ref: Stephen Bungay, The Art of Action,
- 15. Directed Opportunism 14 Outcomes PlansActions Knowledge Gap: Limit direction to defining and communicating the INTENT Alignment Gap: Allow each level to define how they will achieve the intent of the next level up and ‘backbrief’ Effects Gap: Give individuals freedom to adjust their actions in line with intent Ref: Stephen Bungay, The Art of Action,
- 16. 15 Alignment Autonomy Intent: what and why Actions: how Adapted from: Stephen Bungay, The Art of Action Confusion Clarity Inaction Effective Targeted action Misdirected action
- 17. 3 Elements of Alignment • Intent - objectives, purpose, direction • Boundaries of decision-making • Competence to make good decisions 16
- 18. Alignment needs to be achieved around intent, and autonomy granted around actions High alignment enables high autonomy 17
- 19. 18Source: Management 3.0, Jurgen Appelo,
- 20. A word on Structure “Any organisation that designs a system will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organisation’s communication structure” - Conway’s Law 19
- 21. Management is a key factor in organisational agility – either constraining or enabling it 20
- 22. 21 Culture
- 23. McKinsey 7 S framework 22 Strategy Structure Systems Shared Values Skills Staff Style
- 24. Schneider model of Culture 23
- 25. 24 Turn the Ship Around! - L. David Marquet • Control • Competence • Clarity
- 26. 25 Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness Control, Competence, Clarity
- 27. LEADERSHIP drives CULTURE drives PERFORMANCE 26Source: Deloitte University Press, Feb 2015
- 28. 27Source: Michael Sahota, Agile Leadership, 2017
- 29. Teams over Individuals • Work is accomplished by groups, not individuals • Individual performance is a myth • High performers distinguished by diverse teams 28
- 30. Empower Teams • Control through bosses • Information flows up, commands flow down • Top-down decision-making • Rules for containment • Control through Transparency, peer pressure • Principles, shared responsibility 29Source : Harvard Business School 2004
- 31. Cross-functional Teams • Groups aligned by function • Work requires handoffs between groups • Co-ordination via managers • Cross-functional teams • Co-ordination among peers • Faster delivery 30
- 32. ‘Integral’ model 31 Interior Perspective Exterior Perspective Individual Perspective Collective Perspective People’s beliefs and mindsets People’s behaviour Organisational Culture Organisational Systems (structures, Processes, Practices) Source: Ken Wilbur & Frederic Laloux
- 33. ‘Integral’ model 32 Interior Perspective Exterior Perspective Individual Perspective Collective Perspective People are motivated by money and recognition Individualistic behaviour, cut corners to make the numbers Internal competition, individual achievers Top-down target- setting, individual incentives Source: Ken Wilbur & Frederic Laloux
- 34. ‘Integral’ model 33 Interior Perspective Exterior Perspective Individual Perspective Collective Perspective Explore and challenge personal beliefs Role-modelling from people with moral authority Organisational Culture Put in place supporting structures, processes, practices Source: Ken Wilbur & Frederic Laloux
- 35. 34
- 36. 35
- 37. The new Agile Leader • Sets vision, purpose; defines intent • Measures outcomes and clear performance goals • Believes people are inherently intelligent and creative • Creates teams, provides bounded autonomy • Creates structures, processes and practices to support the desired culture • Create co-leaders, not followers • Coaches people instead of trying to manage them 36
- 38. 37
- 39. I offer : • Team and Leadership Coaching (ORSC) • Agile Coaching and Consultancy • Workshop Facilitation • Bespoke Agile training 38 Chris Davies chris@aterny.co.uk @aterny
Notas do Editor
- Start with the conclusion: Agile has become mainstream with more companies using agile than not. But to be successful, agility must run through the entire organisation. And this is where a lot of companies fall short; why agile transformations are so hard. Decades of ingrained culture and practices take both commitment and perseverance to change. But what needs changing?... It’s certainly not the introduction of processes and tools! The way managers do their job today has its roots in practices from over 100 years ago. They have been trained to manage people and/or projects, but that is no longer appropriate. Managers need to manage the environment and the system and empower the people. But how? OR Do we really need managers at all?
- Version One publishes an annual “State of Agile” survey. This is the 2015 one. Notice any patterns?
- 6 of the top 8 causes are related to “management”
- How about here?
- It is clear from this that 6 of the top 8 causes are related to “management”. These are things that team members themselves have recognised but are unable to do anything about. Scrum Masters and Agile Coaches are particularly adept at spotting this type of problem, but again, they usually cannot resolve them. Agile fails because organisations ‘bolt on’ agile practices at team level without addressing the underlying organisational operating system. Examples: predictive plans, progress reports, individual measures, annual budgets, org silos, etc This is where management must be able to step in. But…The problem a lot of organisations face is that their management have little understanding of agile, the problem the teams are facing and their implications, and/or have no relevant training and experience in how to fix them How do you fix these things? A lot of managers today are ill-equipped to understand these things, let alone deal with them. But why? What is at the root of these problems? Let’s look at how managers are trained to think
- In 1911 Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced his concept of “Scientific Management”. He espoused simplifying jobs and optimising them, training workers for maximum efficiency, with managers monitoring performance, incentivising, rewarding and optimising worker efficiency. He deliberately separated the roles of Planners and Doers, the idea being that only the thinkers had sufficient knowledge to plan all the work, and the doers were paid to just do the work, and were not required to think. Even today, I hear “Producers and non-producers”. This thinking grew from the fact that a lot of the labour force were poorly-educated and most jobs were menial. People were treated just like machines. “Managers were programmers of robot workers” – Stephen Bungay This led to a generation of managers, tools and techniques for managing and planning that are still in use today. Think about the hierarchy at your company – how many layers of management are there? Managers managing managers? Who or what are they managing exactly?
- The problem with Theory X thinking : Reinventing Organisations Case Study
- Tell story of my 300-line Gantt chart, or the 1100-line one in use at Lloyds People are not resources, swapping people around is counter-productive How effective are date-based milestones? People specially selected to ‘steer’ An ‘alternate universe’ This creates competition that mitigates teamwork. Explain Tell story of project stopped temporarily for lack of budget Explain delays caused by silos with no clear communication mechanism Working hours as important as results? Today, we instinctively realise this thinking is inappropriate in a modern workplace, where so many people are paid to think, to apply their own expertise, so why do we still apply all the old thinking?
- Fortunately there are a lot of ideas out there to hep us
- In “Frontiers of Excellence” (Nicholas Brealey, 1994) Robert Waterman revealed that Theory Y had been a secret weapon in Procter & Gamble's competitive armoury for many years A senior P&G executive had invited McGregor in the mid-1950s to set up a detergent plant in Augusta, Georgia, along the lines of Theory Y. The Augusta plant was run in a non-hierarchical way with self-motivating teams along the lines of Theory Y, and by the mid-1960s it was 30% more productive than any other P&G plant. The principle was subsequently applied to other P&G plants, but the company kept the story secret for almost 40 years, regarding it as a competitive advantage.
- Discuss what SJ is advocating? That employees are free to tell management what to do? Complete autonomy? We need smart people to tell us what needs doing in order to reach the organisation’s strategic objectives We have strategies, we make plans and we hire smart people… so why is it that the outcomes we want so often don’t materialise
- So why is it that managers still feel the need to micro-manage? To control at the detail level? Knowledge Gap: The difference between what we would like to know, and what we actually know Alignment Gap: The difference between what we want people to do and what they actually do Effects Gap: The difference between what we expect our actions to achieve and what they actually achieve
- Filling the ... Knowledge gap: More meetings, reports Alignment gap: More specifications, role descriptions Effects gap: More rules, processes
- Explain von Moltke’s philosophy of ‘independent obedience’ 1) Plan only as far as you can expect reasonable certainty (2 weeks) 2) Alignment of vision, mission and purpose 3) Self-organising teams?
- Walk through bridging each gap
- Contrary to some, alignment and autonomy are not opposite ends of a spectrum
- Provide examples At One Org (Worldpay), teams – lacked decision-making skills without a clear leader or boundaries - lacked interpersonal skills (arguing instead of listening) Autonomy is NOT about simply abdicating authority!
- Walk through Jurgen’s “ Six Eyes “ monster Note how similar these are to Leadership, i.e. Managers Lead. Energize people – give them purpose, clarity Empower teams – give them decision-making control Align Constraints – strategy, purpose, objectives Develop Competence we’ve talked about, but what about Structure?
- Originally coined by Fred Brooks in The Mythical Man Month An HBR study found that the often co-located, focused product teams created software that tended more towards tightly-coupled, monolithic codebases. Whereas the open source projects resulted in more modular, decomposed code bases. Bank Security team had £80m budget, but only PMs & BAs. Each project took more than a year, even the simple ones Worldpay Access tribe had everything they needed and deployed to Production frequently, safely.
- The overlap between management and leadership So, if leaders need to create and manage culture, what is that exactly? Well, there are some models we can look at…
- Strategy: the plan devised to maintain and build competitive advantage over the competition. Structure: the way the organization is structured and who reports to whom. Systems: the daily activities and procedures that staff members engage in to get the job done. Shared Values: called "superordinate goals" when the model was first developed, these are the core values of the company that are evidenced in the corporate culture and the general work ethic. Style: the style of leadership adopted. Staff: the employees and their general capabilities. Skills: the actual skills and competencies of the employees working for the company.
- William Schneider's model describes four basic organisation cultures. Often used to show how Lean & Agile require or fit into certain cultures Describe them
- An example of Leadership, Culture His CO once empowered him, so he studied all he could and when he took command of USS Santa Fe, the worst ship in the fleet, he was determined to do the same. He realised, that his approach relied on three pillars: divest control: “I intend to” emphasise competence : specify goals, not methods Provide clarity : begin with the end in mind, use guiding principles for decision criteria Marquet created not followers, but leaders. In one year: Re-enlistments – 3 to 36 Officer retention – 0% to 100% Weeks to qualify in subs – 45 to 38 And the Santa Fe became the best sub in the fleet EVER!
- Three people have produced very similar pillars to support Leadership.
- Getting back to Agile…
- Teams are now the unit by which objectives are accomplished.
- Ask : what do empowered teams feel like? Story : Teams re-structuring themselves at Spotify Autonomous squads at Worldpay
- Which side is right? Do we focus on the tangible elements of structure and process, or the intangible substance of culture? Ken Wilber’s Integral model shows how this manifests
- People who have a more Orange / Theory X mindset (upper left), will create financial incentive schemes and ambitious targets (lower right). This will affect people’s behaviour (upper right), creating a culture that esteems great achievers above team players (lower left)
- In a hierarchical (Orange) organisation, culture is set by the CEO and filters down through assumptions, norms and concerns From a Teal perspective Organisations have a distinct culture of their own, but how can people consciously bring about that change? To shape culture: Put in place the structures, processes and practices that support that culture, People with moral authority lead by role-modelling the desired behaviours People are invited to explore how their personal belief system supports or undermines the new culture
- 17 Oct 1989, earthquake in San Francisco. Power outages all across the city, including traffic lights. All across the city, people walked home, or sat in their cars in chaotic traffic jams At Kearny and Pine, a homeless man started directing traffic, keeping it flowing. Bankers and stockbrokers who the day before had walked past him without a glance, today waved, cheered, honked their horns and blew him kisses. No one told him he had to step up and lead, but he did. He simply saw the need and decided he was the man for the job. The motorists who obeyed his waves and stop signals became his co-leaders. Organisational culture must permit and encourage this sort of behaviour.
- Leaders are those who are responsible for their world” – Kimsey House. Responsibility - ability to respond is a choice 5 dimensions or ways to lead : Within – Be your best self every day (the change you wish to see in the world) In Front – Engage and inspire; your co-leaders are important and valuable; treat them that way. Make way Behind – Serve and empower and believe in people, listen to them. Coach them Beside – Lead with others, sharing responsibility in partnership. Disagree productively In the Field – Notice and take responsibility for our own impact on the world around us
- A lot of these are new skills for traditional managers. Some will come easily, some won’t. Successful change requires competence, though.