Skip to main content

Agile Armchair Generals

If you're an Agile practitioner of any sort you will understand what I mean by Armchair Generals (if not, it may be an idea to check if you are one..).

Apropos of nothing an email arrives that questions the management of your project in terms of whether it is properly 'Agile'.

Feedback is, of course, a great tool.  But it must always be understood within the context of the person providing it.

So when the email lands questioning the type of contingency you've built into your project or the depth of analysis performed on your requirements set, ask yourself:

1. Has the questioner spotted something you and the team have missed? It happens.  That's why independent reviews can be helpful.
2. Has the questioner misunderstood something about your project?  If so, maybe your communications weren't quite clear enough or they've missed something - it happens, we're all busy.

If the questioner has understood the topic correctly and is simply disagreeing with you:

1. They may know something recent that you've not heard about yet.
2. They may be very experienced and are anticipating something you haven't.

Or alternatively, they could be regurgitating their very limited knowledge in an effort to appear knowledgeable.

This is where we find the Armchair General.

Usually this person has completed an Agile PM qualification of some sort and had at least a decent flick through the associated manual.  In their minds (despite often never having delivered a project themselves) this qualifies them to tell experienced Project Managers how best to work.

As so often, language is the give-away.  Armchair Generals tend to come out with phrases like:

"But the book says..."
or
"But that's not how we usually do it."
or
"But Agile says..."

They also disintegrate when challenged with:

"So what's the disadvantage of doing X over Y?"
or
"What's the rationale for doing it your way?"

You are unlikely to get a satisfactory answer but it's more constructive than either caving to their pressure or starting an argument (especially as they're likely to be senior to you).

It's not personal, so don't react as if it is.  Challenge appropriately and see if you can educate them a little on the realities of the front-line.

And ultimately, if they steamroller you, keep an audit trail of the exchange!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Continuous (Self) Improvement

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” - Leo Tolstoy Introduction: Most people talk a great game about continuous improvement.  And as a group, most of us truly agree with and see the benefits of, the concept as applied to our projects and teams. Sprint Retrospectives, Post Implementation Reviews, 5S, DMAIC, PDSA (not the dog people) and so on. But... Do you practice it personally ?  I don't mean training courses, formal development plans and all the other bureaucracy that people step through stoically every year in a bid to get a pay rise.  I'm referring to the small (but meaningful) improvements we can make every day. Or to work in an Agile principle: "At regular intervals, the team (of one in this case) reflects on how  to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts  its behavior accordingly." Step 1: Feedback (aka input to the CI process): Of course, all improvements need to be identified i...

Agile Bert joins the world of blog.

My far more technical compadre and fellow Agile Yorkshire attendee 'Agile Bert' (aka John) has joined the blogging world. Will he become a prolific blogger? Will he become a (thought) leader amongst men? Why is he called Bert? That last one actually has an answer: here

The case for Project Management in Agile?

OK, I know how most of the Agile community feels about Project Managers: Process over People Meetings Documentation Urrgh... But however you name the role (Agile Delivery, Scrum Master, Project Manager) and whoever does it  - someone needs to help the team to: Plan Track Deliver Communicate Being a group of incredibly talented engineers does not give a team the right to ignore 3.5 of these. All too often, engineers want to dive in to designing and building great software, but see planning as a hassle, tracking as a waste of time (or an abuse of their rights), communication as an alien concept and delivery (the fun bit) as something that will be done when it's done. It may be popular to talk about being a 'self-organising team' and railing against any form of 'order' being imposed.  But why is that order being imposed?  Maybe it's to deal with the chaos that your s-o-t has failed to deal with so far. As organisations scale and the senior leadership gets further a...