Posts Tagged ‘communication’

Is it safe?

Coping and Communicating, Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Apr 06 2009

In any book on , , or effective , you’ll encounter the concept of safety.

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 .

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 and .

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?

Remembering differently…

Coping and Communicating, Musings | Posted by Doc
Mar 29 2009

…doesn’t imply anything about right or wrong.

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?”

A model for understanding retrospective impact (from Patrick Kua)

Agile & Lean, Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Mar 25 2009

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 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 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, , training, and agile methodology. Go, read his whole post, and join the discussion of his model.

Who is You?

Coping and Communicating, Musings | Posted by Doc
Mar 24 2009

When I was in my teens, my brother David (two years older) was beginning college. He came home from school one day and said that he’d learned one lesson that he really liked: when I’m talking about myself, I should say “I” not “you”.

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 , 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. ;)

Looking…

Agile & Lean, Coping and Communicating, Musings | Posted by Doc
Mar 21 2009

Okay, so my last post about retrospectives brought up a lot of interesting stuff, much of it from comments. In fact, it stimulated more comments than any other post I’ve done.

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 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 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 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.

Looking forward

Coping and Communicating, Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Mar 17 2009

Read the rest of this entry »

Facilitation Antipattern: Implication

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Mar 16 2009

implicationMotto: I say what I mean.
Belief: When I pick my words carefully, others assume something else, but that’s not my doing. If you read something else into it, that’s your problem.
: Frequently plays with double entendre and suggestive phrases, leaving it to others to take meaning from them.Frequently falls back on “I didn’t say that.”
Characteristics: Articulate, clever, amusing and amused, reluctant to commit


Implication is a tricky animal. If I say “That’s very interesting,” there are many ways to take it: it interests me, it implies more than you said, sarcastically saying the opposite,…

Frequently, Implication is used to get an idea or a point across without taking for what I want to say. It’s a somewhat cowardly approach, in that I always leave myself an escape clause, and rarely say what I really mean. It’s like the Qualifier, in that I don’t commit to what I really mean.

[ Related pattern: Articulate ]

Facilitation Pattern: Articulate

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Mar 13 2009

I started thinking about the patterns and antipatterns in relation to each other, and will be working to fill in the balance. Not all patterns have clearly related antipatterns, and vice versa. We’ll see how it goes from here.


articulateMotto: Being clear is essential.
Belief: It’s not just important to say what I think and believe, it’s important to say it as clearly and unambiguously as possible.
: Chooses words with care, takes time to think before speaking, and is known as an unusually effective communicator.
Characteristics: Articulate, thoughtful, careful, patient


There is a wide spectrum of understandability in what people say, from “I have no idea what she just said” to “I know exactly what she meant and understood her perfectly.” At the latter end is the Articulate.

The Articulate is careful with words, believing that they have significance beyond just the words themselves. You will rarely hear an Articulate say “that’s stupid,” because stupid means lacking intelligence, and refers to the speaker, not the words spoken. An Articulate is more likely to say “that seems to me not to have been well thought out.”

Articulate facilitators are particularly good at clarifying misunderstanding and guiding participants toward effective . They choose their words with care, thinking not only about what the words mean to them, but what the words might be taken to mean by others.

Articulate participants are capable of getting their ideas across easily, and frequently are turned to by others when the group is struggling to reach group or consensus.

[ Related antipatterns: Orator, Implication ]

Building a Band of Merry Men

Leadership Lessons from Robin Hood | Posted by Doc
Mar 10 2009
[This is the first in a series of stories I wrote about , using the context of Robin Hood to tell them. While these stories are available on my "main" website, I know that many of my readers are only reading my blog. So I'm reproducing them here.]

We all know the stories of “Robin Hood and His Band of Merry Men.” What we tend to forget is that they weren’t really all that merry when it all started.

Picture the time and place – 12th Century England, when the Saxons – the English – were under the rule of the Normans – the French-speaking descendants of the Vikings. People were largely dirty, hungry, and ill-clothed. When it was cold, they were probably cold. When it was rainy, they probably got wet.

Merry? I don’t think so!

And this is where Robin Hood comes in. His band was no doubt made up of a group of men who couldn’t quite fit in elsewhere, or were outlaws or outcasts or just too poor to live anywhere but in the forest.

Robin was a revolutionary and a patriot. He believed in his king and his country, and wanted to set things right. And he set out to do it with the ill-washed, ill-fed, unhappy, cold and wet denizens of the forest. There’s a challenge for you!

I imagine the situation something like this…


Robin is strolling through the forest, one dreary day. He comes upon a strangely cheerful fellow sitting and playing on his lute. “Good day to you, sirrah!” says Robin. He’s got plans, after all, and is generally friendly to folks in his forest.

“And a fine, if somewhat dreary, day to you as well,” responds the fellow.

“What brings you out into the forest, friend?” asks Robin.

“Let me tell you my story,” says the fellow. “I’ve been happily working as a performing minstrel in yon town for some time now. But with our noble King Richard abroad, things have been changing steadily for the worse.

“Recently, I had sought to gather a small performing troupe, as I’ve found from time to time that I can get groups of folks to work together. Alas, the minions of Prince John and his lackey the Sheriff told me that I must pay a ‘license fee’ in order to gather such a group and perform.

“Upon due thought, I decided that a life in the forest, playing for the wild animals and the random passers-by, was preferable to staying any longer in the town.”

Robin, having been exposed to his fair share of human nature, is a bit skeptical about the real reasons for the fellow’s departure. But having no reason to argue, he lets it lie. Robin asks “And may I know your name, friend?”

To which the fellow responds “Alan a Dale, Bard and Minstrel! And you, sirrah?”

Robin hesitates briefly, as he is already making quite a name for himself in the forest. But he decides to take the risk and shares his name.

“Art truly the Robin Hood?” asks Alan a Dale.

“Indeed, I am he,” responds Robin.


As unimportant as this conversation might seem, it was a critical time for Robin, and meeting Alan a Dale was destined to be a pivotal event for Robin. After all, Robin was in many ways a visionary, and while he had a picture in his head of what he wanted to do to set things in England to rights, that’s very different from having a plan and making that plan into reality.

As they got to know each other, Robin discovered that in spite of seeming to be flighty and uncaring, Alan a Dale was really quite the pragmatic. When it came to finding wood for a fire, Alan seemed to know where to look. When it came to knowing how to prepare food, Alan seemed to have those skills as well. But most important, Alan had the knack and the skill of moving and organizing people.

Although Robin was no slouch in these matters, he knew very early on that he would need skilled lieutenants if he was to succeed. And so Alan a Dale quickly became Robin’s lieutenant.

Now while skills at organizing people weren’t all that important when Robin and Alan first met, they soon began recruiting other unfortunates they found in the forest. Having been forced out of their homes and driven to largely unhappy, solitary lives, these men and women were not really anyone’s definition of the perfect choice for building a tight-knit band of revolutionaries.

  • Some of them were highly independent, but not all.
  • Some of them were highly intelligent, but not all.
  • Some of them had special skills, but not all.
  • Some of them had experience working well with others, but not all.
  • Some of them had experience leading others, but not many.
  • And when they first met, none of them had Robin’s vision of the future.

Robin was lucky – he had an able lieutenant to help him.

They began by explaining the mission – helping to unite an English (Saxon) England in preparation for the return of Richard the Lionhearted; promoting peace as much as possible, but using violence where necessary; helping the poor and disenfranchised to survive.

And they shared the vision – a united, peaceful England where people could live and work without fear of death or starvation.

Alan, as Robin’s first lieutenant, and being a minstrel, set about creating some songs and rhymes that told of Robin’s vision and his mission. And he spent his time teaching those songs and rhymes to their growing band. Many times, the members of the band would wander through towns near and far singing, whistling, and rhyming, spreading the message as far as they could.

But Alan was just one man, and he was largely a man of peace. Robin needed at least one more lieutenant who could also teach members of his band to fight and make weapons and heal each other and so on.

And just when this need was becoming a worry for Robin, he met “Little John”. We all know, of course, that John was a towering bear of a man, both fierce and gentle. John was also a master of the quarterstaff, and no slouch with a bow. Of course, John was nowhere near Robin’s skill with the bow, but who was? And most of the members of their growing band had no experience at all.

In fact, while Robin’s skill with a bow was legendary, it was his role as visionary and leader that was most important to the cause, not his ability to shoot his bow. After all, it’s far easier to teach someone physical skills with a bow than to teach someone how to develop and share a vision or how to be a leader of people.

And as time went on and as the band grew, Robin saw a change. Alan a Dale had not only made songs and rhymes to spread around the country, but he had also made songs and rhymes just for the band. And as Robin watched, over the weeks and months that the band grew, he saw that these beaten, desperate, hopeless, cold, wet, and hungry people began to have a positive outlook.

Robin was thrilled, of course. He figured that happy fighters would be more effective fighters. And fighters who believed in the cause would be even more effective. But he was still a bit surprised at the change.

In Robin’s mind, here’s all he’d done:

  • Walk through the forest, recruiting people who looked like they could either use the help his band could offer or who could contribute to the cause;
  • Explain his vision and his mission, mostly to his lieutenants;
  • Lead groups of band members on various missions and projects, sometimes to battle, sometimes for things as simple as gathering food; and
  • Spend time with the members of his band, when they had a few minutes to relax.

Robin had done nothing special, in his own mind. He’d really counted on Alan a Dale and Little John to do most of the organizing and such. He stayed focused on the big picture – England!

So how did this group of lost souls start becoming a band of merry men?

What was it about Robin, Alan, and John that changed them and their outlook?

Robin had the vision and defined the mission. And Robin was out there, leading and participating in the activities of the band.

Alan spread the vision and the mission to the band and to the world at large. And Alan was with them, singing and rhyming and fighting and hunting – doing whatever needed to be done.

And John taught them how to do what they needed to do to accomplish their mission. And then he did it with them.

Of course, it’s never quite that simple. are not that clear cut and results rarely that obvious.

But somehow, in the middle of dark times and miserable circumstances, Robin and Alan and John formed the Merry Men!

Leadership is not a solitary exercise, but rather requires the collaboration of those being led.

Continued with \”The Tale of Little John\” >

Crucial Conversations and Agile

Agile & Lean, Coping and Communicating, Events | Posted by Doc
Mar 06 2009

I’ve proposed a session for Agile2009 on applying the ideas and techniques from Crucial Conversations to teams. If you’re interested, and you’re registered on the site or feel like registering, you can read it here.

The first thing that surprised me was the comments from folks that made it clear that they were not familiar with the book or the work. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. Not everyone can have read everything that I find to be important.

Still, I’d suggest that anyone who has not read Crucial Conversations or Crucial Confrontations, and is working on/with/around any , and particularly an agile , should read one or the other (or both) immediately.

So there is my bias, right out there – these books are transformational and essential.

Second was the question “How does this apply to agile teams, specifically?”

That’s like saying “How does that computer keyboard apply to agile teams, specifically?”

Does a tool that works have to be specific to agile to be included in the conference? I’m a bit stumped by that. While I feel that these works do apply very specifically to agile teams, I’m still stumped. People will be talking about programming tools and process approaches and teaching games, any of which could be applied anywhere. So why is this different?

is one of the most critical skills someone on an Agile team can have. Knowing how to say “I felt upset” or “You made a commitment, but didn’t fulfill that commitment” is essential. And really, most people I know don’t know how to talk about this stuff. Without it, I believe that teams will fail. Without these skills, team members bottle up their upsets and frustrations – even happiness, sometimes – and they fester and then the team’s ability to work together breaks.

I’m hoping that this session gets accepted, because I really want to deliver it.  Really.