Sometimes I sit back and think about management -- really! Yesterday I was reflecting on the hierarchy. You know, the President at the top, the Vice-Presidents, the Directors, the managers, and so on down the line. This is what we call line management, right? And we know that each one of them is responsible for something. The best analogy in Scrum is the "single wringable neck" that summarizes the Product Owner role.
But the Product Owner in Scrum is a member of a team -- the Scrum team that is self-organizing, self-improving, and collectively responsible for producing results. What if we organized the whole company that way. We could have a Departmental Scrum consisting of the Scrum Masters and Product Owners from each of the ongoing "projects" or functional groups, just like a Scrum of Scrums. And there could be -- but wouldn't have to be -- a Senior Scrum Master and a Senior Product Owner who participated in further Scrums of Scrums with broader scope.
Back in 1996, I was a member of an 8-person team charged with planning company strategy looking 10 years ahead. There was another 8-person team doing the same thing independently. (For a description of the process, see Prahalad & Hamel, Competing for the Future). We spent 9 weeks away from our normal jobs studying the world and composing a strategy. It was the best team-oriented process I have ever participated in. The reason I note it here is that when the team was asked to select a single spokesperson / leader, the team refused. We responded that we had confidence in each and every team member to represent the team (and to check back with the team if there were any questions).
What if a Department were run by a team that had that kind of confidence in each other? Imagine a group of former "managers" who are now team facilitators and/or team product owners who spend enough time together to know what's going on, and are able to deal with all of the Department business by designating a pro-tempore leader to represent the team and its interests. Even at the next level "up," even the "leader" could be a rotating role.
It goes against all the hierarchical thinking that we've been raised with, taught, and trained to accept as normal. But a business enterprise is not a military organization. And many of today's enterprises need to be Agile so that what they produce (whether product or service) is adapted to the current business environment. If we organized management as rings of teams with coaches and product owners, that would give us maximum flexibility, open up lots of lines of communication, and cross-train people in many roles.
First, of course, we have to give up some long-hallowed practices, such as the hierarchical organization chart. We'd also have to change the concept of managing from being a sense of control to one of responsibility -- and responsibility in this case means responsible for the way in which the team operates as well as what we as a team produce. This strengthens the idea of the manager as coach, and might even encourage a person in the leader/manager role to act as if the team knew more and was capable of more than the individual leader. What an idea!
____________________
John Levy consults on Agile development and is an expert witness in computer & software patent cases. He has 30 years’ experience as a technology manager at Quantum, Apple, Tandem and DEC. His book on managing technology, Get Out of the Way, is due out in 2009. Check him out at http://johnlevyconsulting.com
But the Product Owner in Scrum is a member of a team -- the Scrum team that is self-organizing, self-improving, and collectively responsible for producing results. What if we organized the whole company that way. We could have a Departmental Scrum consisting of the Scrum Masters and Product Owners from each of the ongoing "projects" or functional groups, just like a Scrum of Scrums. And there could be -- but wouldn't have to be -- a Senior Scrum Master and a Senior Product Owner who participated in further Scrums of Scrums with broader scope.
Back in 1996, I was a member of an 8-person team charged with planning company strategy looking 10 years ahead. There was another 8-person team doing the same thing independently. (For a description of the process, see Prahalad & Hamel, Competing for the Future). We spent 9 weeks away from our normal jobs studying the world and composing a strategy. It was the best team-oriented process I have ever participated in. The reason I note it here is that when the team was asked to select a single spokesperson / leader, the team refused. We responded that we had confidence in each and every team member to represent the team (and to check back with the team if there were any questions).
What if a Department were run by a team that had that kind of confidence in each other? Imagine a group of former "managers" who are now team facilitators and/or team product owners who spend enough time together to know what's going on, and are able to deal with all of the Department business by designating a pro-tempore leader to represent the team and its interests. Even at the next level "up," even the "leader" could be a rotating role.
It goes against all the hierarchical thinking that we've been raised with, taught, and trained to accept as normal. But a business enterprise is not a military organization. And many of today's enterprises need to be Agile so that what they produce (whether product or service) is adapted to the current business environment. If we organized management as rings of teams with coaches and product owners, that would give us maximum flexibility, open up lots of lines of communication, and cross-train people in many roles.
First, of course, we have to give up some long-hallowed practices, such as the hierarchical organization chart. We'd also have to change the concept of managing from being a sense of control to one of responsibility -- and responsibility in this case means responsible for the way in which the team operates as well as what we as a team produce. This strengthens the idea of the manager as coach, and might even encourage a person in the leader/manager role to act as if the team knew more and was capable of more than the individual leader. What an idea!
____________________
John Levy consults on Agile development and is an expert witness in computer & software patent cases. He has 30 years’ experience as a technology manager at Quantum, Apple, Tandem and DEC. His book on managing technology, Get Out of the Way, is due out in 2009. Check him out at http://johnlevyconsulting.com
1 comment:
I like John's thoughts on Agile and dispensing with the traditional hierarchal org designs in favor of scrum of scrum teams. The book "The Starfish and the Spider" is a similary fascinating study on the strengths and weaknesses of centralized vs decentralize organizations.
One of the most frustrating positions management can be placed into is one of responsibility without authority. If one has responsibility we can assert that you are also accountable for results. Yet without the authority to make necessary decisions (buying, hiring, firing, architecture, etc) how can one be held truly accountable for results? Is this a Catch 22?
Coaches have responsibility and authority. Consultants and Program/Project managers usually have more responsibility than authority, which takes a special type of person or team structure to be not just successful but happy in one's work. At issue is one's ability to be comfortable with a lack of control while still being a member of a productive team.
I too have been most happy when part of a team of equals (example: rowing in college or being on a strategic task force). I love the proliferation of Agile practices through the levels of Shu-Ha-Ri (ref: A. Cockburn). I am still working on understanding how Agile best applies to managers who are accountable for their team's performance.
Keep up the dialog, John. I have much to learn.
Post a Comment