#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.

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!

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.

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.

My attempt to frame a new discussion about PMOs was inspired by a client request, as well as conversations with my friend and colleague, Lyssa Adkins. The client–we’ll call him Jack–wanted to know how to run a PMO at enterprise scale in light of the changes brought by Agile. This started me on a quest to find something I felt comfortable giving Jack from the recent literature on Agile PMOs. What I turned up did not satisfy me, so I felt compelled to write my own. (By the way, you probably know Jack: he’s typical of PMO directors everywhere.)

I approached Lyssa about collaborating with me on this idea. I ended up writing it alone, but Lyssa provided very valuable feedback, the kind a good editor does: not about the grammar or punctuation or other tactical matters. Rather, Lyssa helped me find my own voice. As she reflected, what I was articulating was more related to the being of a PMO than the doing of one. She also encouraged my bluntness, telling it like it is: PMOs are generally disliked by many of the people they are supposed to serve. It does not have to be that way. Getting there does require a fundamental shift in mindset and values.

The whitepaper is entitled The Principled PMO: Creating a PMO that Matters. If you are interested, it is available here by request.

I applaud Jean for having brought the issue up and agree with her on many of her points. At the same time, I also agree with some of those saying their conflict is necessary and fruitful, notably my friend Tobias and others. For what it’s worth, I wanted to offer my take.

First, conflict is beyond inevitable, it is essential for any relationship–such as teams–especially where people are trying to achieve something together. In my practice as a team coach, the lack of conflict is a signal to me that something is wrong. Perhaps there is not enough trust, communication patterns may have become toxic, people may simply not care about each other enough to risk disagreeing, or maybe there is an abusive managerial dynamic giving rise to an environment of fear.

Healthy conflict is the sign of a mature relationship, whether within a team, between business partners, or within a marriage. So, what makes for healthy conflict and why is it so important?

Let’s first examine why it’s important. Based on extensive research conducted at the University of Washington by renowned relationship expert Dr. John Gottman, positivity in relationships is the key to long term sustainability and happiness. His observation of relationships that last over time is that the ratio of positive to negative behavioral “transactions” needs to be about 5 to 1. He describes it like a bank account, where you make deposits in positive interactions and you make withdrawals with destructive interactions.

Gottman’s research led him to document a taxonomy of the most destructive types of negative interactions. They are:

1. Criticism/Blaming
2. Defensiveness
3. Contempt
4. Stonewalling

Briefly, by Criticism Gottman does not mean giving direct feedback on someone’s behavior, but rather a form of blaming where the person’s character is impugned. For instance, a tester says in a retrospective, “development just doesn’t care about quality with all the bugs they are allowing to get to us.” Not surprisingly, such Criticism can give rise to Defensiveness. A developer in the same retrospective responds, “we can’t help it, we’re under a lot of time pressure to finish all the stories.” The manager chimes in “can’t you people figure anything out! I’m sick of having to help you deal with your kindergarten name-calling. I should probably just work on getting a whole new team. Hope your resumes are up to date.” At this point, Contempt has shown up, the most dangerous of the four toxic communication styles. Meanwhile, the team sits there as the manager rants, not reacting, pretending not to even hear him. This last style Gottman calls Stonewalling.

The interconnection of these four communication patterns is clear: Criticism often leads to Defensiveness which can lead to an increase in Criticism and, eventually, to Contempt. Lots of Contempt can result in closing down or Stonewalling.

Back to Jean’s post. I believe at least part of what she is identifying is the presence of these toxic styles within the Agile community. Certainly, a fair proportion of blog posts and email list exchanges could not be described as positive interactions, and I have not infrequently felt the parties were demonstrating contempt for each other’s opinions. The cumulative affect of this can create a culture of negativity, not positivity (remember how important that is for good relationships?).  But is this negativity only a problem for the “thin skinned”?

In Gottman’s research, there was an extensive physiological component, including blood tests and biofeedback monitoring during and after arguments. As Gottman accumulated evidence about this, particularly the toxic physical affects of enduring someone else’s contempt, he made a change in the research. Gottman concluded that so much physical and emotional harm was caused during an argument involving contempt, that he decided to stop the research whenever such arguments occurred in order to act in an ethical way.

Now, back to Tobias. When some people have a “conflict,” they really do enjoy it, while respecting and potentially even having fun with their “adversary.” If team members can come from the place of curiosity, respect, playfulness and real appreciation when they debate various team issues, suddenly it does not have a negative impact at all. In fact, if taken with the right attitude, it may lead to being able to celebrate the diversity of views and perspectives inherent in relationship.

Here’s the rub: the difference between an argument that feels contemptuous and a debate that is stimulating is in the experience of the behholder, so to speak. You can only know how the other person experiences what is happening by asking them.

I would be interested in any thoughts you all have about this topic.

Cheers!