Here’s an excellent video that explains it clearly.

In traditional/waterfall, it’s all too likely that we are being dishonest, either through commission or omission: about being on time; about how much is left to do; about when we’ll be done; about the quality of our work. The whole system seems to encourage, or at least support, this kind of dishonesty.

Let me be clear: I am not condemning waterfall wholesale, nor those who practice waterfall. I am examining the cultural biases generated by this approach, and the effects they have on the people.

A phrase I use frequently in Agile:

Based on what we know today, if nothing changes,…

Think about a burn-up chart or burn-down chart. It is immediate. It is based on what we know today, and the forecast/projection only holds true if nothing changes. All the information is clear, it’s right out there for anyone to see, and it’s honest.

When will the project be done? Based on what we know today, if nothing changes…

Because we allow for changes in scope and capacity (velocity), all we know for sure is based on what we’ve accomplished to date, and the current status.

How much is left to do? Based on what we know today, if nothing changes…

As above, the scope might change. If the scope doesn’t change, then we can look at a burn-up chart and tell, with some accuracy, how much is left to do between now and when the progress line touches the scope line.

It goes on and on. The charts are on the wall (including the card wall itself) or in some readily accessible and visible virtual location (like in Mingle).

When I do training, I always make sure that people learn this: “Based on what we know today, if nothing changes…”

It’s honest, based on history, experience, and evidence, and it’s all there for anyone to see.

• 7% of meaning is in the words that are spoken.
• 38% of meaning is paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).
• 55% of meaning is in facial expression.

Or maybe some variation? Maybe you’ve even repeated it, telling others that 93% of all communication is non-verbal.

First, let’s put this in its proper context. This misinformation is based on research done by Professor Albert Mehrabian in the last twenty years. Here’s an excellent clarification on BusinessBalls.com.

Here is the key part:

• 7% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in the words that are spoken.
• 38% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).
• 55% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in facial expression.

Note the inclusion of “pertaining to feelings and attitudes” in each of these. Simplified, this says “93% of all communication about feelings and attitudes is non-verbal.”

Also, please note that body language is not included at all!

Here’s a further clarification from Mehrabian himself, from that article on BusinessBalls.com:

Mehrabian did not intend the statistic to be used or applied freely to all communications and meaning.

Mehrabian provides this useful explanatory note (from his own website www.kaaj.com/psych, retrieved 29 May 2009):

“…Inconsistent communications – the relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages: My findings on this topic have received considerable attention in the literature and in the popular media. ‘Silent Messages’ [Mehrabian's key book] contains a detailed discussion of my findings on inconsistent messages of feelings and attitudes (and the relative importance of words vs. nonverbal cues) on pages 75 to 80.

Total Liking = 7% Verbal Liking + 38% Vocal Liking + 55% Facial Liking

Please note that this and other equations regarding relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages were derived from experiments dealing with communications of feelings and attitudes (i.e., like-dislike). Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable. Also see references 286 and 305 in Silent Messages – these are the original sources of my findings…”

(Albert Mehrabian, source www.kaaj.com/psych, retrieved 29 May 2009)

This clarification, that this research was specifically and only about communications about feelings or attitudes, kills a common misconception. It’s not that 93% of all communication is non-verbal, or even that 93% of communications is about feelings and attitudes. Rather, this was a very focused study that addressed communication about feelings and attitudes.

This doesn’t rule out the importance of non-verbal communication, either in voice, presentation, facial expression, or body language. It just eliminates the so-called authoritative reference.

All of that academic-y stuff being out of the way now, we all know that there are also loads of research about body language. And we also know, and research supports, that a significant amount of communication is conducted non-verbally. As such, I think it’s important that each of us who has interaction with others (hmm – that would be pretty much all of us), and particularly those of us for whom interaction is our professional focus, should have some knowledge of body language and facial expression.

Whether you do presentations or training, coaching or leading, understanding what’s being communicated in ways other than in words is a critical skill. When I’m doing training or delivering a talk, one of the constants is that I’m looking at each member of my audience/class/group. At least those I can see: sometimes a group is so large that you can’t really see everyone. As I’m looking at each of them, not only am I making eye contact (a separate topic), but I’m also examining their facial expressions and body language.

• Are they looking bored? Hostile?
• Are they looking confused?
• Are they looking like they have something to say?
• Are they looking away? Or working on their computer/phone/iPad/whatever?

Each of these is a cue to me that something is going on. Note that in none of these cases is there any verbal communication. So the non-verbal communication, intended or otherwise, is actually 100% of the communication. And I can use that communication, assuming that I recognize it and understand it, to guide my actions and words.

For instance, if I look around and I see a number of people looking sleepy (usually after lunch ), I may choose to stop what I’m saying and doing, and have the group do an activity.

If I see people looking confused, I may ask if there are questions, or take a few moments to explain a challenging topic in simpler terms.

Regardless of the specific cues, what’s important is knowing that they exist and how to understand them, so that I can use them to inform my choices and be more effective at my communication.

And, lest I leave out an important part, it’s equally important for me to be aware of my own non-verbal communications. But that’s a topic for another day.

As Michael thought back over the past few days and weeks and months and years, he realized that this situation had been developing slowly but steadily. It scared him to think that the tortoise of discontent and frustration was going to win this race.

Michael loved Joan. He had loved her almost from the first time they met, over twenty-five years before. Of course, they were babies then, and didn’t have babies of their own. And they had all the time in the world. And they both knew how things were supposed to work and that they were going to make them work that way.

Times had sure changed! Michael remembered a time when he and Joan would smile and kiss each other good night every night. They had made a pact, early on, to never go to sleep angry. In the morning, they’d start their day with a hug and… Well, that was then. These days, there seemed to be far too many nights that one or the other went to sleep upset, and far too many mornings begun with a grunted greeting. Michael felt close to despair on some days, longing for the relationship they had once had.

Michael could feel Joan. He knew she was awake, and knew that she was avoiding talking to him. He didn’t know what was bothering her, and was frustrated that she wouldn’t talk to him and wouldn’t let him help. That’s what we do for each other, he thought, isn’t it? Help? But Joan seemed to have shut him out. He didn’t understand, and the whole thing was making him both scared and frustrated. And sometimes angry.

Michael tried not to let it turn into anger, but it just kept building up. He’d never yelled at Joan, nor hit her, nor abused her in any way. He just wanted to figure out what was going on. But nothing he tried worked.

Michael knew he was missing something. He’d try to help when Joan was upset about something, and not only didn’t he seem to be able to help, he seemed to make things worse. Like the time that Joan was all upset about that broken chair. “Just call the credit card company,” he’d said. She looked at him like he was crazy and left the room. That one had taken days to calm down. He still didn’t understand it.

And there was the time that Joan was gone visiting her folks, and he cleaned and reorganized the kitchen cabinets. He was so proud of how logical and clever the arrangement was – pots near the stove, glasses near to hand, cooking utensils arranged near the stove and oven! He thought, all the time he was doing it, how excited and pleased Joan would be when she saw what he’d done.

Then she came home. He was excited, and showed her what he’d done, and explained how logical and efficient it all was. She just stood there with tears running down her cheeks. Why? What was wrong? Why hadn’t she loved it? Didn’t she know that he’d done it for her?

Michael had just about given up. Yes, he still loved Joan. And he thought that she still loved him. But they just didn’t seem to be able to communicate. If he tried to tell her that he disagreed with her, she’d attack him, telling him that he wasn’t perfect and that she was doing her best and somehow she always ended up crying. And she was always making him feel like she didn’t need or want his help.

On this particular Monday, they had a date to visit Grannie. Grannie was not actually related to either of them. They’d both known her most of their adult lives, having met Grannie when they were first dating. She seemed ancient then, and that was twenty-five years ago! If they thought about it, they could remember her real name, but they’d been calling her “Grannie” for so long, well, that was who she was.

Both Michael and Joan were looking forward to seeing Grannie. As difficult as things were for them these days, they particularly enjoyed the time they spent with Grannie. She had such a lovely outlook on life – generally everything was simple and Grannie just listened and seemed to enjoy their company. She mostly didn’t put up with any “nonsense”, and had a habit of exposing the simple truths at the heart of things. Sometimes that could be hard for Michael and Joan, since Grannie didn’t allow them to hide things behind “polite lies” to protect their own feelings.

But on this night, both Michael and Joan were feeling both anticipation and fear. Each knew that Grannie would see through their public faces to what was in their hearts, and they were afraid of hearing her say it out loud. And yet, there was something in each of them that hoped…

Michael and Joan are in love. Everyone that knows them has always known this. But their family and friends saw their difficulties. Being cautious of interfering in someone else’s relationship, and being careful of their own relationships with Michael and Joan, most of their family and friends had been treading carefully. And now?

Now everyone notices that Joan and Michael are acting like they’re in love, again. And when someone asks Joan what’s going on, Joan just says “He likes me!”

And when someone asks Michael what’s going on, he says “She likes me!”

And they smile at each other.

I wrote this around 2002 or 2003. I hadn’t read it for a long time, and just reread it today. I’m reminded that these lessons apply to far more than the marital relationship. It’s valuable to remember that our feelings are our own.

I will say that I loved the movie, and plan to see it again.

It raised some interesting feelings and thoughts for me, which tie into a talk I gave at St. Edwards University Career Symposium on Friday.

I should mention that when I was growing up in New York, I applied to and auditioned for the High School of the Performing Arts, on which the movies have been based.  I didn’t make it.  I didn’t have the talent or skill necessary. Watching the movie led me to wonder what would happened had I gotten in.

There are some great messages in the movie. Jennie’s monologue about success toward the end is a wonderful piece of writing.

What it brought up for me was that many of the things that helped to determine the direction of my life and career have been pretty random.

I moved to San Francisco after college, because that’s where my two best friends settled after driving across the country.  I met my wife, started graduate school, got a crummy job, fell into the computer industry, moved to Silicon Valley, had children, started my martial arts studies, had a heart attack, changed my view of life and the world… and all because my friends ended up in San Francisco.

Professionally, I left that first job at Control Data and went to my first startup in Silicon Valley.  That led me to other startups, my own company, my move to Austin, and ultimately my job at ThoughtWorks.  None of these things could have happened without the others preceding them, and yet it all seems so random.

So here’s the thought for my readers: are there ANY decisions you’ve made in your life that have NOT helped to determine the path of your life? Whether big ones like which school you attend or who you date or marry, or little ones like whether to go to the movies this afternoon.

After all, going to the movies today may shift my perspective on something else, which will influence a decision I’ll make, which will lead me…  well, you get the idea.

Every interaction I have with someone else has the potential to change their life or mine or both. While this is an awful responsibility, it’s also an awesome opportunity.  It shouldn’t freeze me. It SHOULD lead me to think about the things I say and do and how I say and do them.

I had an interesting small example of this when I was at Agile2009.  Walking to dinner with a group of people, most of whom I’d never met either physically or vitrually, I began introducing myself.  There were these two fellows from Finland.  As I introduced myself to the second, he said “Doc?  Doc LIST?”

Who knows what impact things I’ve said have had on him, or could have on him.  The fact that he knew who I am was pretty stunning. Thank goodness he seemed happy to meet me.

Remember my name.
Fame.

I’m gonna live forever
I’m gonna learn how to fly
High

I feel it coming together
People will see me and cry
Fame

I swear I heard a bell go off in my head!

I’ve always said “Everything counts.”  And also “if I’m present, whether I’m active or passive, I have an effect on what happens.”

And then this fictitious characters says “Everything has consequences.” and it all comes together for me.

Everything you do, or don’t do, has consequences.

“Right, Doc. Like if I give my wife a gift, it has consequences?”

Yup. And sometimes unexpected ones. Maybe the gift is too expensive, or not expensive enough.  Maybe you thought she’d love it, but she sees it in a way you’d never think of.  Or maybe she just loves it, and feels warmer towards you for a while.

“Okay. How about if I do nothing?”

There’s no such thing as “nothing.” Being inactive is not nothing. Being silent or withdrawn is most definitely not “nothing.”

As always, since It’s All About Me, whatever you do or don’t do, I will interpret according to my context, my view of the world at that moment. And that’s my reality.

So “nothing” might be angry or hostile or sad or frustrated or… And, as they tell us in Crucial Conversations, I will then proceed to tell myself a story about how you feel, what it means, and how it affects me.  All as a result of you saying and doing… nothing.

I’m not suggesting that you either stop doing anything, or that you do something all the time.

I’m saying that it pays to be aware that Everything has consequences.

“I had a really rotten day.” “I’m sorry.”

And then there are times that it’s just not the appropriate thing to say.

Mary and Bill were riding down in the elevator, on their way out to the store. They were chatting as usual, talking about this and that.

The elevator reached the ground floor. When the door opened, there was another couple standing right in front of the door, effectively blocking the way.

As Bill and Mary started to exit the elevator, Mary turned sideways to edge out, and said “I’m sorry.”

Bill’s inclination had been to say “excuse me” until Mary spoke up, and then he was stumped into silence.

What did Mary have to be sorry about? There was no fault, and nothing to be sympathetic to. Rather, the people standing in front of the elevator should have said “I’m sorry” or at least “excuse me” and moved aside.

So why would Mary say “I’m sorry”?

My thought is that Mary has self-image issues. She behaves as though she somehow believes that other people are worth more than she is or more important than she is. I could be wrong, but I’ve seen this kind of behavior enough times to have a clue.

While I believe strongly in treating people with respect, I don’t believe in behaving with automatic subservience or submission.

You’ve gotta earn those, and you’d better have a BIG hammer!

Joan’s phone starting ringing insistently. Joan thought for a moment, since she was watching her favorite reality TV show, and that was her time to just disconnect. In spite of her preferences, Joan decided to answer the phone.

“Joan?” She heard her friend Nancy’s voice, and her heart skipped a beat. Nancy was sobbing. “Nancy? What’s wrong honey?”

“They fired me, Joan! They fired me!”

“Joanie…” sobbing “…they said that I just wasn’t living up to their expectations.”

“Oh, Nancy…”

Now let’s talk about Joan’s possible reactions…

Each of us has a different reaction, and each of us offers a different response based on that reaction*. For the moment, I want to talk about three types of reaction and response: sympathy, empathy, and identification.

Reaction: Sympathy

Response: “Oh, Nancy… that’s terrible. You must feel miserable.  I can only imagine how that feels. Would you like to come over and talk?”

Reaction: Empathy

Response: “Oh, Nancy… I feel terrible. I can’t believe it! I’ll come over and let’s talk about what we can do.” Joan cries.

Reaction: Identification

Response: “Oh, Nancy. Those bastards! After all you’ve done for them, and how hard you’ve worked. You gave your all to that company, and this is how they treat you? I’m devastated.”

Nancy cries.

Joan cries.

Up to this point, sympathy, empathy, and identification sound a lot alike. In all three versions, Joan has an emotional reaction that leads to a behavior – her response. In each case, her response is subtly different. Note that in the following discussion, I am not making a judgment about better versus worse, or good versus bad… I’m working on achieving understanding and recognizing that each type of reaction and response deserves and requires a different response from me.

In being sympathetic, Joan’s response is separate. Joan is clear that what is happening to Nancy is about Nancy, not about Joan. While Joan may feel sad or angry, it is on behalf of her friend. From Nancy’s perspective, there is a little bit of distance between them. Joan’s feelings are moderate.

In being empathetic, Joan’s response is collective. Joan feels what she believes Joan feels, including the pain, indignation, and so forth. For Joan, what is happening is also happening to her, emotionally. From Nancy’s perspective, it’s like a resonation, which may increase the level of her feelings. To a certain extent, Joan’s reaction becomes an extension of Nancy’s reaction. Joan’s feelings are intense, although she recognizes that they are about Nancy.

In identifying with Nancy, Joan takes on Nancy’s feelings and reactions. Joan’s response is intense and personal, as though she were the one who had been fired. Nancy may be taken aback by the intensity of Joan’s reaction, as Joan takes on some of Nancy’s emotional response. Joan behaves as if she were the one who had been fired, and will react to others as if she were the victim as much as Nancy.

To see how this works, let’s add Joan’s husband Mark to the story…

“Joan? What’s going on?”

Sympathy

“It’s Nancy. She got fired today. I feel so bad for her. She’s so upset.”

“That sucks. What’s she going to do?”

“I don’t know yet. I may have to spend some time with her.  I hope that’s okay with you.”

Empathy

“It’s Nancy. She got fired today. I’ve got to go over there to be with her right now!” Sobbing

“That sucks. What’s she going to do?”

“I don’t know yet, but I just know how horrible she feels and that I have to go be with her. It’s so painful! Doesn’t this upset you?”

Identification

“It’s Nancy. She got fired today. I’ve got to go over there to be with her right now!” Sobbing

“That sucks. What’s she going to do?”

“They treated her like dirt! How can you be so calm?  Don’t you care? They were unfair and cruel. I don’t know what we’re going to do, but we’re going to do something to show them!”

Note that Joan’s response to Mark escalates from Sympathy to Empathy to Identification. In the latter, Joan feels that what has happened to Nancy has happened to her, and thus she expects the same kind of reaction from Mark that she’d expect if she had been fired.

This post is long enough.  Now I’m going to go off and think about the differences in responses to each of the three.

Sympathy

• an inclination to support or be loyal to or to agree with an opinion; “his sympathies were always with the underdog”; “I knew I could count on his …
• sharing the feelings of others (especially feelings of sorrow or anguish)
• a relation of affinity or harmony between people; whatever affects one correspondingly affects the other; “the two of them were in close sympathy”
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sympathy

Empathy

• understanding and entering into another’s feelings
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathy

Identification

• the attribution to yourself (consciously or unconsciously) of the characteristics of another person (or group of persons)
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• a process by which one ascribes to oneself the qualities or characteristics of another person.
• A person’s association with or assumption of the qualities, characteristics, or views of another person or group.

  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/identification

*Reaction vs. Response

For the purposes of this discussion, I’m defining “reaction” as the emotional or physical effect that occurs without thinking, and “response” as the chosen action or thought that occurs after the reaction. That is, if I put my hand in a fire, pulling my hand out is a reaction – I don’t think about it – while swearing about it is a response.

Motto

It’s about the subtleties. You know – it’s about the little things. It’s about the stuff that’s not so obvious – the subtleties… the things that others hear in what you say whether you were aware of it or not…

Repetitors are usually articulate. They are able to express themselves. In the positive way, without the unneeded repetitions, a Repetitor would be an Articulate. By repeating themselves, without checking to see whether the listener is understanding, the Repetitor turns a Pattern into an Antipattern.

Dealing with a Repetitor is as simple as a variant on the Facilitation Four-Step: Interrupt, Ask, Redirect, Commit.

Interrupt

“Excuse me, Frank.”

Ask

“Do you mind…”

Redirect

“…if I check in with the others for a moment?”

Commit

“We’ll get right back to what you were saying.”

Action (yes, a 5th step )

“Sue, just so we’re clear, can you tell us what Frank’s point was?”

In this way, I validate that others have heard Frank, check to make sure that they’ve understood Frank, and break the pattern of repetition.

What’s just as frightening, is that many of us think we can change others. Not initiate change, not encourage change, but effect change in others.

We can’t.

Oh, sure – people in my life may change because of things I say or do.

But they don’t change because of me. They change because they choose to change.

The most I can do is offer my thoughts, through my spoken or written words, and demonstrate through my behavior, and at the same time offer them the opportunity to change.

Think about some of the books you’ve read that led you to make changes in your life. Did the author change you? Or did you embrace and internalize what the author wrote and make changes in yourself?

Now think about this in the context of work. If I can’t change someone, or make them change, then how do I effect the change that I believe is important? And, especially, how do I effect that change in someone who is not emotionally attached to me nor a student or apprentice of mine?

I don’t! I speak and share and show. If I do it well, then maybe they’ll choose to change. And maybe they won’t.

If this doesn’t make sense to you, read the Serenity Prayer, and think about it.

…grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

I think about safety a lot, because I think so many of us take it for granted, or think it’s safe when it’s not, or have different understandings of safe.

Here’s an example:

Marge: I think we should go to Flerbit’s for dinner.

Frank: That’s a dumb idea! We just went to Flerbit’s last week. Let’s go to Smagger’s instead.

Marge: Whatever you like, Frank.

Frank thinks it’s safe, because he feels comfortable and free to speak his mind.  And, after all, it must be safe because Marge agreed with  him, didn’t she?

Marge feels like there’s just no point in speaking at all, because Frank always points out her shortcomings, makes her feel stupid, and always gets his own way.

Does Marge feel safe?

Let’s try another example:

Dunstan: I just finished writing the tests for the code we’re working on. They all passed.

Ben: Of course they did. You always forget to deal with <situation>.

Dunstan: I don’t forget about it, I just ignore it because you always change the code.

Ben: Oh, so it’s my fault?

Dunstan: Well, if you wouldn’t say it’s done before it’s done…

Does either of these guys really feel safe?

Let’s get back to the definition of safe.  Here’s my definition:

A safe situation is one in which all parties have confidence that they can express themselves and share their ideas and opinions without being attacked, assaulted, insulted, belittled, or otherwise mistreated just for speaking up.

A safe situation is one in which I can make a mistake, misstatement, or incorrect assumption, and still have people treat me with respect.

A safe situation is one in which I can share, have a dialogue, and feel like a whole, valuable human being at the end.

A safe situation allows for criticism, challenge, discussion, different ideas, exchanges of views, and allows all parties equal chance to hear and be heard.

Yes, all of that.

Let’s look at Frank and Marge. Marge made a suggestion. Frank belittled her by referring to it as dumb. Frank would tell you that he didn’t call Marge dumb, he called Marge’s suggestion dumb. Frank doesn’t seem to grasp that Marge has an attachment to her ideas, and that calling her idea dumb is tantamount to calling her dumb. Frank probably doesn’t understand that being abrupt and judging can lead his listener to feel hurt or angry.

Now for Ben and Dunstan.

Both of these guys treat the other with disrespect.  They get into an attack/counterattack mode.  Ben talks to Dunstan disrespectfully, so Dunstan counterattacks. Why? Because it comes naturally. If I am caught up in how you make me feel, then if I feel bad I also feel justified in giving as good as I got. If I’m focused on the contention, then I’m not focused how well we’re communicating, and I’m less likely to share/contribute/participate.

Let’s look at alternate versions of these exchanges:

Marge: I think we should go to Flerbit’s for dinner.

Frank: I like Flerbit’s too, and we just went to Flerbit’s last week. Let’s go to Smagger’s instead.

Marge: Okay – that’s a good idea. I’m up for that, Frank.

Small changes make big differences. Staying away from judging, emotionally loaded words like “dumb” allows the exchange to be positive and friendly instead of hostile and frustrating.

Dunstan: I just finished writing the tests for the code we’re working on. They all passed.

Ben: That’s great, Dunstan. How about <situation>? I know we’ve chatted about it.

Dunstan: I’ve had to rework the tests a couple of times in the past. I’d rather wait until you tell me that it’s really done. Is that okay?

Ben: Ah. Hmm. Yes, I think that’s reasonable. So maybe next time you could tell me “all of the tests, except the ones for <situation>, have passed”? That way I’ll know and we won’t have any misunderstanding. Would that work?

Dunstan: Good idea. Sorry I didn’t say it that way this time.

It’s amazing what you can accomplish when you behave with mutual respect, engage in dialogue as opposed to attack and counterattack, and commit to mutual goals and understanding.

Here are three questions for you:

1. What’s your definition of safe for yourself?
2. What does it take for you to feel safe?
3. What do you do to make it safe for others?

How many times have you gotten into the ping-pong game of “Who remembers it right?”

“I know I remember it right because…”

“But I know I remember it right because…”

Unless you have a time machine, and can go back together and record whatever event you’re talking about, it becomes a pointless discussion.

What is really important?  That is, what am I trying to prove beyond that I remember something right?

Not to forget that there’s the solitaire version of the game.  It goes like this:

“I was on my way to work on Tuesday… no, wait, it was Wednesday… no, Tuesday… maybe it was Monday…”

Why do we care? Why is it important that – in telling my story – I get the day of the week right?

Perhaps because I fear that (a) you will catch me in an incorrect statement and, therefore, (b) that will generally downgrade my credibility, and (c) I will have less value in the world.

Am I really being tested and measured and evaluated all the time?

Well, to a certain extent, yes I am.

Okay – and does it matter?

Ah! Hmm… No, I don’t think it does.

Well, sure, it matters that people I live with and work with and deal with believe that I’m an honest person.

But in most cases, these trivialities only get in the way. When I tell you my heart attack story, do you care whether I had my heart attack on a Sunday or a Monday or a Tuesday? Nope. And yet I’m likely to get caught up in getting it right, because I believe that in our culture getting it right is highly valued.

I believe that worrying about getting the minutiae right frequently gets in the way of communicating the larger, more important stuff.

Granted that if I get most of the details wrong, my listener may deprecate everything else I have to say.

So let’s get back to the original question.

I think that when you get into an argument/disagreement about who remembers what correctly, you should ask yourself “what’s really important here?”

Steven List asks the question, Are Retrospectives an Anti-pattern? Of course, retrospectives are a topic close to my heart so I naturally wanted to share my view of them. The conversation apparently started on the Kanban Development mailing list and Steven’s post already captures some great discussion. I won’t repeat it here, but I find the dialogue echoing the same sentiments about other agile practices and whether or not they’re useful. For me, it’s too extremist and not particularly helpful. They make it sound like you need to choose from two positions: Either you run retrospectives, or you don’t.

I think the more interesting question is, “When are retrospectives most useful?” To help explain my thoughts, I’ve put together the following: A Model for understanding Retrospective Impact (click on it for a slightly bigger view).

via thekua.com@work » A model for understanding retrospective impact.

This is very connected to my earlier post, and well worth reading and commenting on.  Patrick has done some excellent work (hence his inclusion in my blogroll) on retrospectives, team building, training, and agile methodology. Go, read his whole post, and join the discussion of his model.

You know what I mean, don’t you?

Someone asks a question, and I say “Well, you know, when you do [whatever] you feel [some way] and then you [do something].” How come if I’m talking about me I keep saying “you”?

This ties back to IAAM, of course.

If I say “I”, then I’m taking ownership of the good and the bad. Whereas if I say “you” I’m sharing it with – well – everyone. And if everyone says this or does this or feels this way, then it must be okay, right?

You know – when you admit how you feel, and maybe you’re not altogether proud of feeling that way, then if you make it seem as if it’s a common way to feel then you feel better, right?

Oh, wait.  Look at what I just did.  Let’s see how it sounds if I say…

You know – when I admit how I feel, and maybe I’m not altogether proud of feeling that way, then if I make it seem as if it’s a common way to feel then I feel better, right?

Does it feel different to you, too? The first one distances the whole issue from me, and allows me to feel safer. The second one makes it very personal, and I feel vulnerable and exposed.

Ooooooooo.

Have you noticed this about yourself or those around you? That when you/they are talking about yourself/themselves, you realize that you/they always say it as if it’s not really about them?

Yeah, that’s the safe way.

If it’s you, maybe you should think about taking ownership of your stuff, and saying “I” instead of “you”. Then, when you’re communicating with your team, your family, or your friends, they will be dealing with the real you, not the generalized-safe-it’s-not-just-me version of you.

And then send a nice thank you note to my brother David in Melbourne.

I thought I’d take some time to revisit the issue of looking backward, looking around, and looking forward.

I’m not going to deal directly with retrospectives, but rather look at the question of how we go forward.

One of my favorite comments comes from Scott Bellware:

…when what we’re actually doing is “interventions” but calling them “retrospectives”, it’s time to call much more into question than retrospectives colloquially allow.

So what I interpret Scott to be saying is this: look around, and as you see something that needs addressing, address it now with all of your skills. If I wait until later, then I have done myself and my team a disservice.  If my interpretation is correct, then I agree.

Earlier, another Scott – Scott Andersen (“The Other Doc”) – said:

So, can looking back ever take you forward?

My gut says that motion backwards will always end up stalling a meeting rather than keeping the flow.

I’m not sure how he got “motion backwards” from “looking back.” What I can’t figure out is how to go forwards without at least (a) knowing where I am now and (b) how to distinguish forwards from backwards. I mean, forwards just means I’m looking towards my front – I could be going in circles, or just marching off a cliff, or effectively going backward by continuing to loop around until I get back to where I was.

Without backwards, there is no forwards.

So my premise is that I have to have consciousness of where I’ve been and where I am to know how to go forward.

Patrick Kua says it quite nicely:

I think there is still value in looking backwards. Part of implementing change requires people to see a problem that needs solving. Without looking backwards, it’s hard to understand what impact the problem has, how people view it, and often, what the root causes were.

More importantly doing this as a group is sometimes an essential part to gain a shared understanding of the problem and consequences. Without this, conversations break down into four different solutions as everyone perceives the problem differently.

The only problem I have with this is the word “problem.” Going forward (whether in a retrospective or otherwise) is not always or solely about problems. If we take “going forward” to mean “evolving, getting better, getting more efficient, or otherwise changing for what we mean by ‘the better’”, and replace Patrick’s “a problem that needs solving” with “a status quo/situation that could be better,” then I agree.

It’s Patrick’s second paragraph that makes the point for me – achieving a shared understanding, a shared pool of meaning – that is essential. And where does that shared understanding come from? Common history, which comes from either looking backward together, or from looking around together over time and having achieved a common understanding of what we see.

Any discussion of looking forward or moving forward, regardless of context, cannot be complete without distinguishing then from now from future.

Her challenge is this: some software has been developed, and the users are extremely unhappy. I know this was done by an agile team, so I wondered how they’d gotten to this point.

I asked what seemed the most obvious question: “Was there a product owner representing the users?” While the answer was yes, it seems that this “product owner” hadn’t spoken with the users, and therefore the team hadn’t engaged with them. No user experience or interaction design, as far as I could find out. No input from the users on what they need from the software, how they’ll use it, or what it means to them day to day.

My colleague’s question was “I’ve been asked to facilitate a meeting that includes the users, the product owner, the Director, a user experience expert, and one or two others. How do we make this work so it’s not just a bitch session?”

Good question.  Before I get to what I suggested, let me share another incident that also came up today.

A different colleague called me to ask about a similar situation. Well, similar in that there’s a group of people who are being negative. And similar in that my colleague wants to figure out how to bring these people together and generate some positive action and attitude.

He wanted my suggestions.

The short answer to both of them has three parts: figure out where we are, look forward, and give them a sense of ownership.

Sound too easy?  Too trite?  Too mushytouchyfeely?

Maybe it does, but it’s not.

In the book Agile Retrospectives, Diana Larsen and Esther Derby have organized the activities that they offer for agile team retrospectives according to type of goal. One of the types of goals is data gathering. From my perspective, data gathering is the backward-looking activity that allows a team to look forward. While I’m a forward-looking kind of guy, I firmly believe that sometimes you have to know where you are to know how to go from here.

Yes, I said “know where you are,” not “know where you’ve been.”

Where I am may be unhappy, dissatisfied, frustrated, elated, anxious, anticipatory, angry, concerned, confused,… Whatever it is, I like to get it out on the table, give it a name, and stare it straight in the eye.

After all, if my goal is for things to get better, I have to know better than what.

Now that I know where we are, I can ask the BIG question: how do we make it better? It doesn’t matter if it’s software, teamwork, family, ergonomics, or pretty much anything else. What does matter is the “we!” How do WE make it better?

That little word is so important. My approach in these situations is to figure out where we are (issues, challenges, frustrations, whatever), look at what might be done to improve the situation, and then share the ownership.

I find too many people who believe that they have to take ownership of making things better for others – their staff, their team, their family. Unfortunately, starting from the best of intentions, they end up disempowering the people they’re trying to help.

Whereas if I ask “How are you/we going to make this better?” I put the opportunity, commitment, passion, and responsibility where it belongs – with the people who have the largest investment in seeing the situation change.

And, at the same time, make it a challenge. Not “tell me what to do to fix it” but “tell me what you’re going to do to fix it, and where you need my help.”

Look around, look forward, and give them the opportunity.

Simple, right?