preload
Poor Past Performance, Future Pain Pull systems - A metaphor
May 26

I was reading through the principles page on the Agile Manifesto site today and I realised that I’ve never really been very good at one of the items.

The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.

I’ve managed a lot of teams, and for the most part, I’ve been deemed pretty successful. My management style was always to try to blend in with the team, to be one of them, to get people to move forwards by setting an example or by encouraging them. I never introduce or describe anyone as working for me, I always say I’m working with them or we’re on the same team. Of course, there are management activities that need to be performed (reviews, promotions, demotions, bonus awards etc), and I’m happy doing those things. I’ve never felt that knowing people, or treating them as the equals (which, of course, they are) hampered me in any way. The more closely you work with someone, the more of the real them you see. You get a better idea of their potential, their skills, their interests, ways in which they could contribute more to the organisation.

I’m actually lying when I say I’ve never introduced anyone who worked for me as a subordinate. My friend and mentor, Gerry Martin, who was instrumental in my decision to return to college and retrain in software, eventually came to work for me. Every time I got to introduce him as my minion, I got a kick out of it. But, hey, if you can’t poke fun at your best-friend, who can you poke fun at. (Sorry Gerry, you know I love you.)

My attempt at egalitarian leadership didn’t always work out as I intended. One of the things I didn’t consider, is that because I could ignore differences in organisational authority, it didn’t mean that others felt the same. This led to one incident where I upset someone through an ill-considered joke that left them feeling angry, impotent and embarrassed.

I feel that, for the most part, the people on my teams were given authority and autonomy, everyone was given the opportunity to contribute as much as they wanted or were able to. There was opportunity for decision making, direction setting, personal contribution, group collaboration and individual growth. But, were my teams self-organising? Not really. I was always there trying to guide people in the direction I felt we should be moving. Not by edict, decree or demand, but by persuasion, example and leadership. But, in the end, however gently the boss tries to guide you, you’re still aware that he’s the boss and his opinion carries more weight than merit alone. It wasn’t a democracy or a meritocracy: even if everyone disagreed with me silently or publicly, it wouldn’t have led to my replacement.

Is this a problem? Perhaps. I’m not sure what the alternative is. I firmly believe, that leadership is vital to the success of any organisation. By leadership, I don’t just mean “somebody has to be in charge”, I mean that someone has to accept responsibility and authority in equal measure and then use that authority judiciously, sparingly and only for the good of the organisation and all of its stakeholders.

Is a truly self-organising team possible in a commercial organisation?

5 Responses to “Missing the mark on an agile principle”

  1. Alan Francis Says:

    I suspect a large part of it working out, of it being “deemed pretty successful” is that if free organisation had been an option, you’d have emerged as the leader anyway. In essence, if the team had disagreed with you, it may not have led to your replacement, but it would have led to failing.

    So, in essence, I think you can say it was mostly indistinguishable from being self-organising. If it looks like duck…

  2. Sue Massey Says:

    Great post. I will read your posts frequently. Added you to the RSS reader.

  3. Siddharta Says:

    I dont think self organising means no leader.

    Put a bunch of people together and some sort of structure will automatically come into being, and someone will end up in a leadership position - formal or informal.

    Sometimes it ends up with a somewhat meritocratic structure, sometimes you have a ‘leader’ who tries to dominate the group, sometimes you have a leader that everyone respects and are happy enough to follow.

    Self organisation just means that everyone is involved in the process and that they feel that they have some ownership in the way the team does things. Whether there is an actual leader or not, it doesn’t matter.

  4. rob Says:

    Hey Alan, Siddharta,

    I guess my concern was that being an externally imposed leader was detrimental to the team and the project. I’ll relax and mull it over some more.

    Thanks guys,

    R.

  5. Alan Francis Says:

    I can only speak to the team I was on with you and I don’t think the external imposition made any real difference to our respect (or lack thereof) for you :-)

Leave a Reply