Agile Management | NOOP.NL

Stop Blaming the System!

I see it again and again. The suggestion of systems thinkers and Agile writers to stop blaming people and instead try blaming the system.

“It’s not the people who perform badly, it’s the system that doesn’t enable people to perform.”

“It’s not the employees’ decisions that are wrong, it’s the rules and procedures we should get rid of.”

“It’s not the individuals who screw up, it’s the organization that drives everyone to failure.”

Oh, really?

Who created that bad “system”? Did some alien life form impose it on the people?

What are those rules and procedures actually? Are they how we program human beings?

What is the “organization” really? Can we point at it, without pointing to ourselves?

Blaming the System? What System?

Seriously, what is the difference between blaming other people versus blaming the system? It seems to me it’s all the same, as long as we’re not blaming ourselves!

How convenient.

One of my best friends has been hating her job for years, and I’m sure many of her 4,000 colleagues feel the same. How much does it help her switching from blaming her colleagues to blaming the system? I’d say, “blame yourself!”

The “system” is 4000 colleagues just like her who make each others lives miserable every day. The “rules and procedures” are people’s own behaviors that they inflict upon each other. And their “organization” only exists because 4,000 people have collectively decided not to quit their jobs.

If you want a bad system to go away you should stop helping harmless abstract things such as systems, rules, and procedures to be turned into a horrible reality. Only people have that power.

Stop blaming the system.

Blame yourself.

 

The Meaning of Models

I was asked to read a few articles for a dialog seminar with my friends at KnowIt in Göteborg.

The first one described the nine team roles of Belbin. It says some people behave like Shapers, or Resource Investigators, or Implementors, or Specialists, etc… I recognized myself in all of them, depending on the context. I sometimes have been a Monitor Evaluator and a Complete Finisher, but I can also be a Teamworker or a Co-ordinator. And on the terrible train ride to Göteborg yesterday I felt more like a Plant. Are these categories of behaviors supposed to mean anything for me? I can’t decide.

The next document described the five dysfunctions of a team. It depicts a hierarchical model of organizational behaviors. At the bottom it all starts with Trust, followed by Conflict. On the way to the top we find Commitment and Accountability, ultimately culminating in Results. But I could agree to any order of these. Why does trust come before results? I trust people more after they deliver results. And why does accountability depend on commitment? I feel more committed when others have shown accountability. Am I living in an upside-down world? I don’t know.

There were several other documents with boxes and arrows, definitions and categories, quadrants and matrices, circles and pyramids, and they didn’t mean much to me.

I’m a bit tired of such models, I noticed.

I’ve probably seen too many.

But then I read Valve’s Handbook for New Employees. I liked this document much better! It had stories, illustrations, and metaphors. And humor! For me it made much more sense than any amount of boxes and arrows. The handbook perfectly illustrates what kinds of behaviors the people at Valve need from their employees, without putting them in boxes. It explains how trust and results go hand in hand. And no pyramids anywhere!

And the handbook was created by the people themselves.

I could see that it means a lot to them.

 

It's Not About Women, It's About Networks

In the European Commission there has been talk of pushing companies in Europe to use quota for women in order to increase the number of women in top management positions.

What a stupid idea!

Of course, I didn’t expect anything better from an institute stifled by top-down bureaucracy. (I know what I’m talking about. I’m only one handshake away from them.) But what kind of thinking can we expect from a “team” of 26 people, 6 of whom are called “vice-presidents”.

What’s next, I wonder?

More quotas?

Will they suggest quotas for colored people in board rooms? Quotas for gays and lesbians? Quotas for Muslims and Hindus? Why not demand that every organization is managed by a statistically random group of people, properly representing the generic population?

Why does the EU not suggest quota for male teachers at kindergartens? Or quota for free-market thinkers at cultural institutes? Or quota for fashionistas in healthcare? If government thinks diversity is a concern, why not start with organizations heavily subsidized by government?

Top managers are usually linear thinkers, not systems thinkers. Actually, the system (in this case the European Commission) breeds managers with linear thinking. And that’s the reason why there are so few women in board rooms. Because our masculine side does the linear thinking (or “boxes”). Our feminine side can better cope with the non-linear thinking (or “wires”).

Networks, not Hierarchies

Hierarchical systems stimulate “masculine” attributes, such as authority, aggressiveness, competition, and discipline. But many “feminine” traits, such as sensitivity, sociality, cohesion, nurturing, are more effective in networks than in hierarchies.

Incentivizing organizations to push women upward in the hierarchy is a perfect example of “doing the wrong thing righter” (Russell Ackoff, a systems thinker). The more sensible thing would be to incentivize organizations to break down the hierarchy and embrace the network, so that our feminine sides become as least as important as our masculine sides, and the boxes get entangled by the wires.

There is only one quota I could agree with: there should be a target for the number of systems thinkers among European Commissioners, and other top managers. It should be at least 50%.

(photo: Rock Cohen)

 

Many Simple Models over One Complicated Model

I see it again and again.

When they have invested time and energy in a model (tool, framework, method), people have a tendency to make their models more and more complicated. “Let’s add another dimension.” “Let’s deepen the domains.” “Let’s add some columns or swim lanes.” “Let’s draw an extra diagram.”

But complexity thinkers know better. They understand you need different approaches for different contexts. It is better to apply different models to different problems.

Each systems approach is useful for certain purposes and in particular types of problem situation. A diversity of approaches, therefore, heralds not a crisis but increased competence in a variety of problem contexts.

- Michael C. Jackson, Systems Thinking

This means it makes more sense to use multiple simple models instead of one complicated model. Having a toolkit of methods and frameworks, which each fail in their own way, is a smarter approach than relying on one method or framework to deal with all situations.

Complexity itself is anti-methodology. It is against "one size fits all."

- Tom Petzinger, Interaction of Complexity and Management

Of course, it’s very human to hold on to the model you had already invested in. In behavioral economics it’s called the endowment effect. We value more what we already have, because we own it. It’s irrational, but natural. And especially those who have created their own method or framework, will usually cling on to it like Bashar Hafez al-Assad to his presidential chair.

The more work you put into something, the more ownership you begin to feel for it.

- Daniel Ariely, Predictably Irrational

It makes sense to realize that holding on to your favorite method or framework is predictably irrational. The sensible thing to do is to invest in multiple models, and multiple approaches.

Don’t extend your diagram to accommodate an extra dimension. Just erase it, and start from scratch.

(image: House Democrats' Health Plan)

 

Deferred Terminology

Oh, how we love discussions about terminology…

Is my course about management or leadership?

Are the problems we discuss complex or complicated?

Do the teams need coaches or mentors?

Should they have responsibility or accountability?

Are we being agile or lean?

The discussions about terminology go on and on. Yes, I’ve been guilty about this too. I love a good fight about a few letters, every now and then. :-)

But does it matter?

After more than a decade we should know that we can make good progress in our work despite uncertainty, fuzzy boundaries, diverse opinions, and minimal definitions.

We can go on forever trying to find the “right” specifications for our most cherished words. But maybe we should stop splitting hairs over terminology and go and produce something.

Ah! But if we produce things... should we then aim for output or outcome?

The Bishops of Oih versus the Knights of Nih

In a land far, far away, hard working people are trying to Do Work and Live Well. And in their attempt to do work, and live well, in an easy and effective way, the people are advised by pious bishops and valiant knights.

The Bishops of Oih

The bishops tell people there is One Incredible Hero who has found out how to do work and live well. They say they this hero wrote an official scripture with a unique method that will solve all problems. If only people believe in it hard enough.

They say most problems in the world are simply the result of people deviating from the wise words of the One Incredible Hero. People should stick to the method, they say. If people don’t practice the one and only method for doing work and living well, they’re not true believers, the bishops say. When people stubbornly do things their own way, and they get into problems… Well… Then it’s just their own fault, isn’t it?

The Knights of Nih

The knights have a different story. The knights tell people they should not believe in things that are Not Imagined Here. The knights believe people should stay true to themselves, because they are unique, and always do things their own way.

They say most problems in the world are the result of people unthinkingly following the latest new hero. People should innovate and invent new solutions, they say. If people don’t do things their own way, they’re slaves, not believers, the knights say. When people stubbornly apply methods, and they get into problems… Well… Then it’s their own fault, isn’t it?

The Oracle of Iii

In this land, far far away, there is also an oracle who has a different view. She predicts only the people who Inform, Implement & Invent will successfully do work and live well.

She says she actually doesn’t care what people do. But in her mind’s eye she sees that some people inform themselves about what the bishops and the knights are saying. These people usually implement the bishops’ advice, except when it makes no sense. And they sometimes invent their own ways, as the knights suggest, except where this wouldn’t be smart.

These people are the most successful at doing work and living well. Because, the oracle says, it is not the most pious believers who will survive. And neither do valiant innovators have the best chance to succeed.

The ones to thrive are those best able to copy ideas and reinvent themselves.

The Cynefin Agile Lean Mixup

I was pleasantly surprised to hear that several thinkers, practitioners, and researchers have teamed up to “further the application of complexity science in software development as well as in the larger organization”. The inaugural CALM Alpha event is scheduled to take place this week, in the UK.

However, I am wondering about the real purpose of the event, because the announcements by some of the five “faculty members” have been a bit confusing (for me at least)…

According to Dave Snowden and Karl Scotland the name CALM stands for “Cynefin, Agile, Lean Mashup”. But Simon Bennett says it stands for “Complexity, Agile, Lean Mashup”. Dave explained this inconsistency away by saying “you can replace Cynefin with Complexity if you want”.

But I disagree.

We cannot just replace carrots with vegetables, and we cannot replace Scrum with Agile. We also cannot simply replace the Cynefin framework with complexity science. (And anyone who tries to replace Dutchmen with humans would be causing serious problems.)

Complexity Thinkers

When you ask community members of complexity science “who are the most inspiring complexity thinkers for organizations?” you get many different names, such as Stacey, Goldstein, Hazy, Uhl-Bien, Lissack, and Boisot.

For my Complexity Thinking presentation I took inspiration from many sources, including Ackoff, Jackson, Lewin, Meadows, Seddon, Ashby, Maguire, and Snowden.

And in the Agile and Lean communities some people have familiarized themselves with the works of Eoyang, Argyris, Stacey, and of course Snowden. (I’ve even seen a reference or two to some novice called Appelo.)

Needless to say, there seem to be as many models and theories as there are systems thinkers and complexity thinkers.

I like that, because…

Complexity itself is anti-methodology.
It is against “one-size fits all.”

- Tom Petzinger, The Interaction of Complexity and Management

That’s why I struggle with the communication about the CALM event.

Is Complexity All About Cynefin, Really?

The announcement of the CALM Alpha event says, “The faculty will present our current understanding and experiences of the relationship between Agile and Lean practice, and Complexity.”

Yes, that would be great!

But…

Why is it called a “faculty”?

And why are they going to “present” things?

It didn’t escape my attention that almost all faculty members have tight relationships with the Cynefin framework. Joseph Pelrine suggested a reading list of scientific papers, and almost all of them are about Cynefin-related stuff. And Karl Scotland wrote the event is about “how do we apply complexity science, and in particular the Cynefin framework, to Agile and Lean development.”

The Cynefin brand is being passed around as if it is a synonym for complexity science. It isn’t. Just like Scrum is not a synonym for Agile. And Kanban is not a synonym for Lean.

Note, I don’t claim there’s anything wrong with Cynefin. On the contrary! I also never complain about Scrum. I think it’s great. And Kanban too. But I do object when people tell me I should do Scrum (or Kanban) when I want to be Agile (or Lean). Likewise, I object when people tell me Cynefin is the default model when we want to apply complexity thinking.

Because if they do, either they don’t get it themselves, or I suspect they’re trying to sell me a tool. And I have a policy of only purchasing tools from likeable businesses with crazy logos.

So, Will It Be Cynefin or Complexity?

When Steve Denning and I organized the Stoos Gathering (together with others) we did not call it the “Radical Management Gathering” or the “Management 3.0 Gathering”. I can be stupid, but not that stupid. It would have made it very hard for us to convince other thinkers and practitioners with diverse opinions and management models to join us.

That’s why I am wondering about the real purpose of CALM Alpha.

If the five faculty members are really trying to create a community of complexity thinkers, I expect Cynefin to get as much (well-deserved) attention as the many other ideas, models and frameworks that complexity thinkers have come up with in the last few decades. I expect the works of Stacey, Goldstein, Argyris, and many others to be discussed. And I will try to join and give this community my warm support.

However, if the faculty is trying to create a community of Cynefin practitioners, then this is also great! It could be similar to the Scrum Gatherings, where people discuss the single model and its many applications. In that case I will not join. Just like I’ll never join the Scrum Alliance. Because, as an aspiring complexity thinker, I believe I shouldn’t commit to just one model. I like my options open.

Speaking of options, Chris Matts said…

I hope it is a “pull” based event based on learning rather than a “push” based event where the faculty teach us what they think we need to know.

So, what will it be?

The Complexity Agile Lean Mashup? Or the Cynefin Agile Lean Mashup?

If the faculty doesn’t choose, I hope the CALM participants will.

Sorry I won’t be there. I’ll be in China, fluttering around like a magpie.

p.s. I trust people interpret this post for what I mean it to be: constructive feedback to clarify the purpose and communication of what might be a very interesting new community.

Unprofessional Behavior

Jeffrey Wammes is a Dutch gymnast who was not selected for the Olympic Games. His (former) coach said on TV that Jeffrey did not behave like a professional. Jeffrey, not surprisingly, doesn’t agree. He considers himself a professional, because he has done all that is reasonably required, including training, certification, and intensive practice. Nevertheless, his own coach said he was not a professional…

Some people behave like professionals, sometimes even without official titles or certificates. Some of my suppliers and business partners come to mind. And my spouse. And my housekeeper. And plenty of Agile practitioners. Let’s call them Type 1 professionals.

Other people just say they are professionals, because they have official titles and certificates. Because an authority, at some point in time, judged them to be professionals. But their actual behaviors sometimes indicate otherwise. Let’s call them Type 2 professionals.

Some people say they are professionals and they behave as such. Awesome! I wish everyone was that straightforward. Let’s call them Type 3 professionals.

Behaving Like a Professional

The attributes of a person can tell me things such as gender, age, education, nationality, shoe size, etc. These are simple observable facts. But the attributes of a person tell me nothing about professionalism. Simply having a profession (for example, getting paid to be a gymnast) does not mean that a person is a professional (being a “professional” gymnast). Well, at least not for me.

I know the dictionary allows for multiple interpretations of the word “professional”, either requiring behaviors (Type 1), or requiring status (Type 2), or both (Type 3). I dislike Type 2 because I think status should be earned, which requires showing the right attitude. One does not need to be a mental gymnast to understand that status alone is not very helpful.

For me, what counts is how people actually behave (Types 1 and 3). So, you have a title or certificate? Great! Let’s talk. You may be one step ahead of others. But I will ultimately judge you for what you really do. Not for what you claim to be.

Last week on Twitter I summarized that opinion as follows:

Nobody _is_ a professional. But any person can choose to behave like one.

I tweeted it 20 seconds after the idea emerged in my head. It is how I use Twitter sometimes: as an outlet for my brain barf. Anyone is free to read it, ignore it, or question it.

Making Sense of Nonsense

Dave Snowden decided to do the latter. I received a reply from Dave saying, “It was a nice soundbite, but it doesn't stand up to even a superficial examination.”

At first Dave did not care to explain why the tweet “didn’t stand up”. It is a kind of feedback he has employed several times with me and others. He just says the “language is wrong”, or there is “superficial understanding”, without bothering to supply a useful explanation. (It is hard to learn to become a professional, when all you hear is, “It’s not good enough”.) After I pointed out the unprofessional nature of the criticism, Dave said he would publish a reply on his blog, which he did some days ago.

Dave Snowden’s post says people are professionals because of their training, certification, and practice (Type 3). He writes:

It’s good if people choose to behave in a professional manner, but they need to be one first.

And he warns as follows:

Behaving like a professional smacks of a superficial con trick, pretending to be something without putting in the effort to acquire the necessary skills and experience.

I believe the key ingredient here is practice. Without the right behaviors (which is about regular practice) a person cannot be considered a professional. Anyone who has just received a driver’s license is not a “professional” driver. Insurance companies know this. Car rental agencies too.

It took me four years to earn my certificate as a software engineer. But when I finished I was definitely not a “professional” software engineer, even though the dictionary would have allowed me to use that qualification (Type 2). It took me years of practice to learn the right behaviors (Type 3). And I know some Agilists who did not study software engineering, but behave like professionals in every possible way (Type 1).

For example, I don’t consider software engineers who don’t understand and practice TDD to be professionals. No matter how many university degrees they have.

Dave Snowden’s comment that people can “pretend to be a professional without putting in effort to acquire experience” (Type 2) makes perfect sense, but not as a reply to my tweet! It is exactly this required effort that I see as part of the right behaviors. We mean almost the same thing! So what, exactly, is Dave disagreeing with?

Of course, my tweet-sized soundbite contained a logical error. How can you behave like a professional when professionals don’t really exist? Well, duh! The irony of the tweet itself was the reason why I sent it in the first place. It was probably also the reason why it was retweeted a few dozen times. Apparently, some people actually “got it”. Playing with language is required practice for any aspiring professional author…

Unprofessional Feedback

From various earlier encounters I noticed Dave Snowden doesn’t disagree so much with my messages (though he finds them superficial). What he usually disagrees with is my approach to disseminating ideas, referring to it as “a magpie stealing shiny objects”, “heavy on marketing, light on theory”, “lack of thinking” and “being a sensitive little flower”.

It is a style of feedback I would not associate with a professional researcher. You are a professional when you behave like one.

Oh, and it is not true that I’m “sensitive to criticism”. (You can check this with my reviewers.) However, I am sensitive to feedback that is badly delivered. Such as, “You don’t understand,” without any meaningful explanation. I judge this to be unprofessional criticism.

Naturally, I am voicing my own opinions here. I suggest you make up your own mind by following Dave on Twitter and reading his blog. It’s well worth it, if your brain, like mine, is athletic enough to read around the language.

You're Not a Complexity Thinker When...

You’re not a complexity thinker when… you claim your interpretation of complexity is correct, while others’ are wrong. Because, among scientists, there is no consensus about complexity.

You’re not a complexity thinker when… you predict someone else’s approach to generating change will be wrong, because complexity theory denies predictions based on earlier events.

You’re not a complexity thinker when… you complain your model is misunderstood or misrepresented by many people because the point of your model should be to enable sense-making.

You’re not a complexity thinker when… you only promote your own model, and always attack other people’s models. Because complexity science is against one-size-fits-all.

You’re not a complexity thinker when… you avoid working with people who disagree with you. Because complexity absorption entails creating options and risk-hedging strategies.

You’re not a complexity thinker when… you take your own thinking too seriously.

Systems Thinking in a Bar

People assume that systems exist, but they are nothing more than abstractions in our minds. They exist because we think.

What would happen when there was a gathering of a dozen systems thinkers in a bar? I’m sure they would have discussions about interesting questions, such as:

• What exactly is the bar?
• Are the people here part of the bar?
• Is the beer part of the bar?
• If we drink the beer, is it still part of the bar?
• What if my beer and I go outside, are we then part of the bar?
• Is the bar a system?
• What is the purpose of the bar?

At this point the systems thinkers will probably get into a bar fight, and at some point Peter Senge might be ejected through the window.

Systems in Our Mind

We have these discussions and disagreements about systems because people assume that systems actually exist.

By formulating a research aim to uncover the fundamental characteristics of systems of various kinds, we were making the unquestioned assumption that the world contained such systems.

– Peter Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice

But it turns out that the universe actually does not contain systems. The universe couldn’t care less about systems. What we call “systems” are nothing more than figments of our imagination… abstractions in our minds.

There are no separate systems. The world is a continuum. Where to draw a boundary around a system depends on the purpose of the discussion - the questions we want to ask.

– Donella H. Meadows, Thinking in Systems

If we want to decide whether or not something must be treated as a system, we first need to consider what part of the world we want to look at, and what questions we want to answer.

A system is a way of looking at the world.

– Gerald M. Weinberg, Introduction to General Systems Thinking

The Purpose of Systems Thinking

Therefore, to answer the important question, “Is the beer I’m drinking a part of the bar?” we must decide what the purpose is of our question. Are we discussing the history of the bar? Its profitability? Its culture? Or its impact on the sewer? This is relevant in order to decide if your beer is still part of the bar when you’re drinking it.

Systems only exist because we think about them.

By the way, I think this could make it very easy to solve the Euro crisis. We just have to convince 400 million people to stop thinking about it.

Are you interested in systems? Why not check out the Top 15 systems thinking books!

(This text is part of the Complexity Thinking presentation you can find on SlideShare.)