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...

Definition of Done - An example

Done? To call a story 'Done-Done' we should refer to two things: the acceptance criteria for each story the team’s Definition of Done The DoD is defined by the team and should be updated whenever it seems appropriate e.g if there's a big change in the team or the work; or the team simply sees the need for a change. If you have project based teams, it's something to agree before timebox 1 kicks off. If you're more product based and continuously working through an ever growing backlog, slot it into a timebox kick-off, a retro (if that's where it was discussed) or just grab 10 minutes after the daily stand-up. An Example: Here's a basic example created by a team I was working with: ---------------------------------------------------------- A. Dev done ---- Code review done ---- Unit Tests written and passing ---- Integration tests written and passing B. Test complete ---- Manual Testing complete – Acceptance Met ---- Automation Tests written and ...

Empowerment?

The reason I titled this post with a question mark is that I believe empowerment to be a very misused term. Here's the Cambridge dictionary definition: Of course, you know this already. Yet for some, "to empower" has become synonymous with "to abrogate responsibility" Or in other words, passing the buck to your team: 'boss we need help dealing with team x' 'you're empowered to deal with that' This is just crappy leadership. Of course , you have to empower people so you're not a blocker. Of course , you have to give people additional responsibility to help them develop beyond their current role. But when you 'empower ' someone, you retain the accountability overall.  It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card to blame them if things don't go as planned or to turn around months later and say 'well you can't complain.  I empowered you to do it and you failed' No.  If you're my bos...