Posted on

New Public Course: Agile Fundamentals

We are proud to launch Agile Fundamentals Professional Certificate, a 2-day course accredited by ICAgile.

The course is the ideal starting point for anyone who needs to understand the origin of agile methods, values and principles that underpin all of the agile methods such as Scrum, Kanban, Extreme Programming, Agile Project Management (DSDM), Lean Software Development, and SAFe. Suitable for all business functions including product development, project management, HR, marketing, enterprise architecture, operations, testers, coaches and mentors, Scrum Masters, delivery managers.

It is accredited by ICAgile, a community-driven organization of pioneers, experts, and trusted advisors. Delivered by expert instructors, participants will work in small groups to experience the new roles, iterative and incremental delivery of products, customer engagement, and planning practices with examples in Scrum, Lean, Kanban, and DSDM.

Agile Fundamentals in the ICAgile Learning Roadmap
Agile Fundamentals in the ICAgile Learning Roadmap

This course is the foundation for all of ICAgile’s tracks in their Learning Roadmap. Participants may then choose to continue their learning journey on one or more of ICAgile’s eight learning tracks: DevOps, Agile Testing, Agile Engineering, Agile Coaching, Delivery Management, Product Ownership, Enterprise Agile Coaching, and Business Agility.


Ready to get started? Contact us. We’ll respond within one business day.
Posted on

Takeaways from the latest State of Agile survey results

Agile leadership, agility, business agility, leadership coaching, executive coaching

The results of the latest State of Agile survey are in. The annual report, released on 7th May, is the 13th from the software vendor VersionOne. Over 1,300 people were surveyed, most working as Scrum Masters and internal coaches (34%), development managers (15%), and project or programme managers (11%).

Takeaway 1: We need the right culture to be successful with agile

The report says ‘organization culture issues remain the leading impediments to adopting and scaling agile’ along with ‘inadequate management support and sponsorship’ as barriers to getting the value from using agile methods. ‘Executive sponsorship’ was given as a critical ingredient for success.


“Culture eats strategy for breakfast” is the well-known saying that means all of the best business planning and execution will fail without the right culture to support you.

But wait a minute… we’ve known, for almost 20 years, the culture needed to get benefits from agile methods such as Scrum, XP, and DSDM. It’s described in the values and principles of the Manifesto for Agile Software Development. So what’s the problem?

Most coaching in organisations has focused on delivery teams, however my own research has shown that organisations realised the most benefits from agile methods when the delivery team had business representatives committed to achieving the product or service delivery goals. Strong relationships must be in place across functional areas. It is leadership’s role to ensure this happens.

Takeaway 2: Organisations are still over-reliant on Scrum alone

On the chart showing the agile methods used by the organisations of the 1,300-plus respondents, the agile project management method DSDM is nowhere to be seen. And yet, most people I meet who use agile methods are delivering projects. Pure Scrum (not combined with other methods) is used exclusively, said 54% of respondents.


One wonders what mindset and tools were adopted in place of traditional project management. Anecdotally, agile teams still are, generally, working at odds with PMO and other project governance functions.


The State of Agile survey results seem to corroborate what I’ve experienced in my work with organisations: the project controls that organisations put in place to de-risk their hefty investments in IT systems delivery are not adapting to uncertainty. They are being ignored, though the need to control and de-risk projects is still as high as ever.

I’d like to see agile evangelists working together with project governance to build a common mindset – they could use the principles and techniques of DSDM, for example, and adapt them to their own environment.

Related posts


Ready to get started? Contact us. We’ll respond within one business day.
Posted on

Leaders need a ‘learning mindset’

Put simply, a ‘learning mindset’ is the humble acceptance that you weren’t born with all of the personal attributes and skills to succeed for the rest of your life. Great leaders seek to understand themselves better, integrate new tools and skills, and listen to feedback. Stanford University psychology professor Carol Dweck calls this attitude of continuous learning a ‘growth mindset’.

Growth-mindset firms have happier employees and a more innovative, risk-taking culture. (Harvard Business Review, 2014)

In my work with leaders and teams, I’ve noticed that successful people have courage to:

  • Listen to learn. When you listen to what your customers, suppliers, and business partners say about you, blind spots become opportunities for improvement. Ask for feedback regularly.
  • Know when to call it quits. Flagging initiatives are a drain on your and your organisation’s resources. Not all great ideas continue to turn out great services
  • Use others’ ideas (and give them credit). Feeling overstretched? Trust the team to do the work. Groups outperform individuals when they feel responsible for coming up with ideas and solving problems.

Find Out More

Interested in how being a ‘Learning Leader’ helps your organisation succeed? Contact me to find out how.

References

Dweck, C. (2006) Mindset: changing the way you think to fulfil your potential. Constable & Robinson Ltd.

Dweck, C. (2014). Talent: how companies can profit from a ‘growth mindset. Harvard Business Review:, 92(11): 28-29.

Zaman, Z. (2016). Instilling a growth mindset to drive innovation. Rotman Management: 36-37.

Posted on

Resources for leaders

Some of the best resources around to help leaders and their teams develop the mindset, behaviours and skills to succeed in complex and uncertain environments.

Nimble Leadership
Harvard Business Review, July 2019 Why Organisations Don’t Learn
Harvard Business Review, November 2015

The Better You Know Yourself, The More Resilient You’ll Be

Harvard Business Review, September 2017

The Board’s New Innovation Imperative

Harvard Business Review, November-December 2017

The Failure-Tolerant Leader

Harvard Business Review, August 2002

Creating Creativity

(video)
Ian McDermott and Patricia Riddell, Applied Neuroscience, International Teaching Seminars, January 2016

Good Leaders Are Good Learners

Harvard Business Review, August 2017

How Learning and Development Are Becoming More Agile

BPS Research Digest, June 2017

How To Communicate Clearly During Organizational Change

Harvard Business Review, June 2017

How to Create An Agile Organisation

McKinsey & Company, October 2017

Posted on

Succeeding with Agile: Close the Culture Gap Between Business and IT

Becoming Agile by Laura Re Turner

In Part One of this series of my research project findings, I presented a new way to use the model McKinsey 7S to evaluate the success of agile methods in organisations. I showed that organisations are still mainly concerned with ‘processes and tools’ instead of ‘individuals and interactions’ (from the Manifesto for Agile Software Development). Organisations that failed at delivering frequent releases of high quality had an unbalanced approach to transforming their organisations, ignoring the softer aspects of culture such as leadership style and shared values.

Welcome to Part 2 of the series presenting one of the most important findings of the study: when the team understood its organisation’s business strategy, typically by having an engaged Product Owner, the team learned how to prioritise work better and deliver the right products and services.

In my work with agile teams and leaders of organisations improving their use of agile methods, the pain point that I hear again and agin is that they want more engaged Product Owners. The common complaint is ‘they don’t see the reason for a dedicated resource to be embedded in each team.’ And yet, when the agile delivery team does manage to find someone who knows the business vision for the product or service under development, and has the time and willingness to be present for the rest of the team, the benefits are obvious.

The benefits became apparent in my research study, accepted this year by Henley Business School as part of the MSc in Coaching and Behavioural Change.

One research participant described his organisation’s CIO who communicated clearly the whole organisation’s focus — safety. The team’s representative, interviewed for this study, said:

The top one for [us] is always safety. It’s pumped into everyone, you must be safe. So if we see an idea for an app that we know is not safe, that gets kicked out straight away.

As a result, the development team can move quickly and focuses its efforts on the ideas that align to the organisation’s strategic objectives. The organisation, which must remain anonymous, has won industry awards for its innovative mobile apps. By the way, the same team also reported high instances of learning from trial-and-error.

To an extent, I feel foolish writing this because it sounds like common sense, right?

And yet I hear stories all the time of organisations that have separate organisations-within-the-organisation that behave as if completely separate. An us-versus-them mindset pervades and is evident in the language used and level of empowerment given to development teams.

A team representative in another organisation in my study described how he changed people’s mindset to create a balance between the team’s independence from and accountability to business stakeholders:

What I’ve been trying to do since I got there was to break the bureaucracy and chain of commands. To get the team to be completely independent, and at the same time answerable to the business.

So what’s keeping you from closing the culture gap between business and IT, and what could you gain by mending relationships? Get in touch to find out how to develop teams and leadership behaviours to meet the challenges of the future with confidence.

Expect a higher standard of coaching for your agile product development teams. We value ‘individuals and interactions over processes and tools’ and, unlike many agile coaches, have the professional coaching skills to help you turn that vision into reality. Our services can be customised and blended to get the right mix for your organisation, backed by decades of experience of transforming organisations and supporting leaders through change.

Stay in the Loop!

Subscribe so you never miss our updates.

Posted on 2 Comments

Organisations succeeded with agile methods when they had a balanced view of change

Becoming Agile by Laura Re Turner

Many of you have heard already that my dissertation has been accepted by Henley Business School for the MSc in Coaching and Behavioural Change. I appreciate the support so many of you gave me while I was interviewing, gathering background literature, and generally talking about this project non-stop. Now that the work has been accepted and I’ve finished the programme, I can report my approach and findings from the project. This is the first in a 3-part series on my research findings for what makes organisations’ adoption of agile methods successful. An executive summary of the report findings is available on request.

I can guess at what you’re thinking now: why do we need another report on the success and failure of our initiatives to be ‘agile’? Many of our initiatives are aimed at changing role descriptions, applying a new process, or licensing new tools. If these initiatives were successful, we wouldn’t be spending thousands on change programmes only to find that we didn’t really capture the hearts and minds of people to make them a success. After years of work as a coach and trainer supporting your initiatives, I wanted to know what happened after my clients went back into their organisations with their new mindsets and skills. In other words, what else should I offer as a team coach to support your success?

McKinsey 7S
McKinsey 7S

First defined by McKinsey consultants Robert Waterman and Tom Peters in 1980, the McKinsey 7S framework defines seven aspects of an organisation that should be attended to, when attempting to change culture. The problem, they identified, was that many business leaders believed that a strong strategy, and the processess to implement it, would create the change they wanted. A balanced view of organisational change, they argued, needs to address also the people, systems, and capabilities. Moreover, understanding the organisation’s values is foundational to all of these.

In ‘Making Sense of Change Management’, Esther Cameron and Mike Green describe 7S as an approach for examining an organisation’s culture to prioritise areas for change. They provide definitions for each of the aspects:

  • Strategy – organisational goals and plan, use of resources
  • Staff – important categories of people within the organization; the mix, diversity, retention, development and maximizing of their potential
  • Structure – the organization chart, and how roles, responsibilities and accountabilities are distributed in furtherance of the strategy
  • Skills – distinctive capabilities, knowledge and experience of key people
  • Systems – processes, IT systems, HR systems, knowledge management systems
  • Style – management style and culture
  • Shared Values – guiding principles that make the organization what it is

Having analysed the topics discussed by my research participants, I identified the most commonly discussed themes into categories defined by the McKinsey 7S framework. This gave me a view of their organisation’s culture based on where they focused their discussions with me. The focus of participants overall showed a high focus on Systems and Style.

All Research Participants
Categorisation of Research Participant topics in the McKinsey 7S framework

 

Agile Manifesto
Categorisation of Agile Manifesto topics in the McKinsey 7S framework

When compared to the map of 7S aspects for the Manifesto for Agile Software Development, the recommendation is that teams should increase their focus on Strategy and Shared Values, and reduce their focus on Systems and Style, to be more effective with agile methods.

In Part 2 of this series, I will discuss the specific success factors of teams that had more balanced implementations of agile methods as compared to the average across the study.

 

Stay in the Loop!

Subscribe so you never miss our updates.

Posted on

Should Business Coaches Care About Psychology?

Full disclosure: I have received a bursary to attend the British Psychological Society’s Special Group in Coaching conference, December 7-8 in Birmingham.

When reflecting on how an awareness of psychology has helped my coaching practice, I thought about the difficult situations I’ve encountered in my coaching work, where basic knowledge of some areas of psychology has helped me manage the situations.

We know that much of coaching originates from psychology and psychotherapy, and draws on decades of research on the human experience. For me, the biggest influences from psychology have been the person-centred approach defined by Carl Rogers, Gestalt, interpersonal psychodynamics and attachment theory.

From Carl Rogers, I learned that a person’s intention for another is one of our most powerful tools. We can be excellent listeners, but if we are indifferent about whether we want our clients to grow and thrive, then any amount of clever listening won’t enable them to succeed. As one of my over-arching personal principles, I keep this in mind when I am coaching individuals and facilitating groups. Do I want to be here and why?

Interestingly this mindset has also helped me notice when a client doesn’t really want to be in the coaching session. This may sound strange, but when my intention to be present isn’t matched by my client, I notice a feeling that ‘not all is as it seems’ in the session. This is a hypothesis that needs to be tested further, and if this is starting to sound like Gestalt….

We had a day of experiencing Gestalt with coach Bridget Farrands during Stage 2 of the MSc in Coaching and Behavioural Change (Henley Business School), The day of practical exercises helped me tune in to my body’s own intelligence, and to notice my client’s state and ask my client to notice too. I learned to be attuned to what’s happening for both myself and the client in the present and to improvise my coaching intervention.

My first experience with Gestalt made coaching multi-dimensional instead of the linear and predictable ‘what is your goal, what have you tried already…’ etc. Being aware of the client in front of my eyes and my own feelings are tools that I use often. I will never forget the day I became aware of an uncomfortable physical reaction to a participant on a workshop who became unhappy in a very sudden and unexpected way about the course material. I later realised the person was mildly autistic.

Awareness of interpersonal psychodynamics and attachment theory gave me the confidence to question if people’s behaviour (say, in a meeting) is a conscious response to what we see taking place in the room with the people present, or an unconscious response to past relationships that shape present-moment behaviour.

I started delivering training courses and behavioural-change workshops in 2014 through my work with QA Training. Most of us have been on a business skills training course, and if we’re unlucky there’s someone who didn’t want to be there, whose manger forced them to attend, and who is going to let the trainer know about it. However the training participant doesn’t tell the trainer this directly of course! He becomes argumentative about the course material, transferring his dissatisfaction with his manager, onto the trainer. Attachment theory has also been useful for appreciating that people’s behaviours in the moment (towards me) are not a reaction to me per se. I have become much more tolerant to people whose behaviour seems to be disproportionate to the situation, for example I’ve experienced people becoming irate as a defence for expecting criticism from me, or bullying as a defence for having been bullied. I know a coach who becomes defensive when I state my preferred way of working, interrupting me when I speak, and I suspect that the behaviour was learned many years ago as a way to cope with a hostile home environment.

What has been the impact of psychology to you on your coaching practice? Stay in touch and write your comments below.

Hope to see you at the BPS Special Group in Coaching Psychology conference in Birmingham, UK, on 7-8 December.