Posts Tagged ‘roles’

Multiple roles

Agile & Lean | Posted by Doc
Jun 07 2009

When we talk about the roles on an agile team, we’re generally pretty clear about what we mean. Not perfectly clear, of course, but pretty clear.

So imagine my surprise when I get to a client that has one person filling the roles of Product Owner, Business Analyst, and QA. In fact, this organization does not do formal QA nor have a QA role.

Oh my!

Add into the mix the fact that this individual is on multiple projects in these roles, and it could be a recipe for disaster.

Fortunately, he’s excited about agile, is really absorbing the ideas quickly, and is willing to put in the effort to make it all happen.

As we’re moving forward, he’s learning. It was really interesting to hear him say the other day “If I had understood this better when we started, I would have written these stories differently.”

To which I replied “Then write them differently now!”

It’s fascinating to see things changing rapidly, and to see the team absorbing the lessons and moving forward quickly.

One aspect of this is in Mingle. We’re using Mingle, in case that wasn’t clear. The Project Manager, who is very junior, excels at process and organization. So she’s taking to Mingle very quickly (notice how I resisted the urge to use some trite metaphor?). Between one day and the next, I noticed all sorts of new cards, new views, and a reorganization of the cards into releases.

Still, back to the PM/BA/QA guy, I see this as one of the biggest risks for the project. We’ve been working hard on getting them to understand what “done” means for a card, and he is a bottleneck and single point of failure.

I can’t wait to see how this story unfolds!

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts

Looking forward

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

Read the rest of this entry »

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts

Taken to extremes

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 28 2009

Any pattern is a good thing, until taken to extremes.

Consider Curious George. Curious George, asking questions and exploring possibilities, helps to stimulate conversation and bring out useful information.

Curious George taken to extremes,  however, becomes an obstacle. His persistent and insistent questioning can become a new antipattern, the Inquisitor. The Inquisitor doesn’t ask questions for the purpose of moving the group’s goals forward. The Inquisitor nails her victim, drilling down, and tenaciously, even insistenlty, digging and digging until the victim gives up in sheer exhaustion. The Inquisitor takes the “five whys” to the point of absurdity, like a four-year-old who – when told that the sky is blue – asks “why” until you want to run screaming.

Even neutrality can be taken too far. While I’ve made it clear that I believe that one of the key attributes of a facilitator is neutrality, nonetheless, there are times when a facilitator must take a position and a stand, when it comes to the good of the group and the process. Failure to take a stand and take action at those times becomes a new antipattern, Wishy-Washy.

I’m convinced that most positive patterns, taken to extremes, can become antipatterns.

Is it possible to go the other way? Are the attributes that define antipattern behaviors capable of being beneficial patterns, when applied in more limited doses?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts

Facilitation Antipattern: Infantile

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 26 2009

infantileMotto: I want you to pay attention to me right now right now right NOW!
: Everyone else is supposed to pay attention, and do and say what I want them to, and I will behave however I want until they do because that’s the way it works.
: Takes things personally, and makes things personal, while behaving in attention-grabbing, discussion-dominating ways.
Characteristics: Childish, selfish, self-focused, loud, intrusive, dominant, manipulative


I thought about calling this one “Tantrum” or “Baby”. They all describe the same thing, regardless.

“Why aren’t you listening to me?” followed by attention-grabbing, self-destructive behavior. The equivalent of rolling around on the floor, screaming and kicking.

We’ve all met an Infantile. Somehow, no matter what the topic, if you don’t listen to them – and, of course, agree with them – somehow things turn personal and emotional. They make it clear that your failure to listen (the way they want you to listen), and your failure to understand (that is, agree), expresses your disrespect for, and even hostility toward them.

Infantiles have never learned proper socialization. They don’t share well, and they’re not usually interested in dialogue. Their focus is on what they want when they want it, or else.  The “or else” is not usually targeted at a single individual. Rather it’s aimed at getting everyone to pay attention to them, and then to give in to their demands because dealing with their behavior is too annoying/painful.

Of course, once they get their way, Infantiles can be most charming and pleasant.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts

Facilitation Pattern: Convergence

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 24 2009

Faces of Pune-90In what is arguably one of the best-known and classic works on facilitation, Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making, Sam Kaner talks about the complementary processes that occur in decision-making: divergent thinking and convergent thinking.  Here’s what he says:

“At times the individual members of a group need to express their own points of view. At other times, the same people want to narrow their differences and aim the discussion toward closure. These two sets of processes will be referred to as ‘divergent thinking’ and ‘convergent thinking.’”

Accepting Kaner’s words and work, we would consider this to be a natural occurrence in groups, but only when there is a skilled facilitator or leader present to ensure that divergence turns into convergence. And it is clear that it is essential that divergent thinking make that shift into convergent thinking in order for the group to reach some kind of decision.
convergence

A leader will emerge

This reminds me of something I learned in my Master’s Degree work years ago. My professor was Joe Luft, co-creator of the Johari window with Harry Ingham (get it? Joe-Harry => Johari). The Johari window is a model of relationships and communications that has been widely accepted. During a class on group dynamics, Joe made a statement that has stuck with me for thirty years: in any group, regardless of who is nominally in charge, a leader will emerge. That is, while there may be someone there in the group who is given the title or responsibility to be the “leader,” inevitably someone (and it may be that same person), will emerge to guide, direct, lead the group.

Leading or allowing someone else to lead

As a facilitator, you may be expected to be the “leader” and turn divergence into convergence. Or you may be expected to recognize when a member of the group steps up (overtly or simply through behavior) to demonstrate effective leadership, guiding the group from divergence to convergence. This ability to recognize that members of the group are stepping into key roles is an essential skill for a facilitator.

It is not always the facilitator’s responsibility/job to do everything. Sometimes it is the job of the facilitator to sit back and let the group go forward on its own.

So it is with convergence. There comes a point when, as a facilitator – or even as a member of the group – that you recognize that the turn must be made. If it is not happening on its own, then it is up to you to take some action. That action is not standing up and saying “Okay – enough divergent thinking, get on with the convergent thinking!” Rather, you are expected to have the skills to help and guide the group toward convergence.

Tactics that come to mind include:

  • “I see that there is some disagreement here. Let’s see what we can do to find some commonality.”
  • Sometimes, I suggest that two advocates of opposing views each take on the other’s position and argue it.

Rather than having me try to explain it all to you, I’ll suggest that you read Kaner’s work. There are lots of good diagrams, along with the words. ;)

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts

Faciliation Antipattern: Prima Donna

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 23 2009

Motto: The world revolves around me. Right now.
: Well, really, whatever I do is correct. Because I did it. And you should pay attention to me.
: Insists on discussing whatever is important to him. Pouts, sulks, and acts put upon when the group does not do or discuss what he wants.
Characteristics: Petty, spiteful, selfish, demanding, irritable, sometimes arrogant


While it’s starting to feel like these antipatterns are all similar, each has some distinguishing characteristics.  The Prima Donna, for instance, might be the most arrogant of them. He feels that he is special, as a virtue of being smarter or more knowledgeable or just because.

The Prima Donna, like a number of the others, dominates the discussion based on what’s most interesting to him. Unlike the Evil Genius, the Prima Donna is not conscious or deliberate about it. He believes that this is what is due him – admiration, freedom to dominate the conversation, and freedom to be petulant if he doesn’t get his way.

The Prima Donna is also unlike the Orator, who actually takes pride in what he believes is his eloquence.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts

Facilitation Antipattern: Orator

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 21 2009

oratorMotto: I’m worth listening to.
: I know that people love to hear what I have to say because I’m so articulate and I have such a way with words.
: Dominates the conversation by talking. And talking. And talking. Not malicious, just unable to hear anyone besides herself.
Characteristics: Relentless, verbose, determined.


The Orator likes to hear the sound of her own voice. While she believes that she has a lot of value to contribute, it frequently seems as though her focus is on what she has to say, rather than whether it’s interesting or valuable to you.

The Orator’s self-focus is not malicious. She isn’t trying to dominate or manipulate. She just has a lot to say, and frequently will use ten words where one will do.

The Orator is very pleased with what she has to say and the sound of her own voice, seems to be able to talk endlessly without taking a breath, and rarely leaves an opening for someone else to speak until she’s good and ready.

The damage to the team is similar to many of the other antipatterns, regardless of whether the Orator is the facilitator or a member of the meeting. Her dominance of the proceedings through relentless takeover of the floor causes others to resign their passion, and become reluctant to even try to say something.

Exercises that force a democratic process, like the Circle of Questions or Starfish, are best for dealing with an Orator in the meeting.

If you are the facilitator and you are an Orator, well,…

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts

Facilitation Antipattern: Dominator

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 15 2009

dominatorMotto: It’s all about me!
Belief: I have a lot to say, it’s important, and so I’m justified in taking the time and attention to say it.
Behavior: Turns the discussion to whatever is important to him.  Talks loudly, forcing his way into any discussion, and then turning it again.
Characteristics: Loud, forceful, relentless, determined, sincere, focused.


The Dominator dominates. Obvious, eh?

What’s not so obvious is that Dominators are not always egocentric or glory loving or outgoing. Frequently, Dominators have learned that the only way that they can get people to hear what they have to say, and to make their points, is by steamrolling everyone else. Outside of meetings/discussions, they may be timid or quiet. but get them into a meeting, and they will just take over.

Okay – there are also Dominators who do it because they do love to be the center of everyone’s attention. For these Dominators – the ones you probably thought of first – it’s not so much which point they make as that they make a point by overwhelming everyone else’s defenses. Their joy comes from the act and experience of being dominant.

Dominators have found that if they speak more loudly than everyone else, everyone else will be quiet and listen to them.

Dominators have found that by the force of their presence (similar to the Gladiator) they can achieve their goals.  But distinct from the Gladiator, the Dominator doesn’t want us to fight back. The Dominator achieves victory by shutting everyone else down.

The Dominator is happy when we say “Okay – whatever you say” as a sign of capitulation.  They’re happiest when we say “Oh, you’re SO right!” as a sign of recognition of their rightness, along with capitulation.

To deal with a Dominator, you have to break their pattern. This is hard, because they’re relentless.

Techniques that either involve the group without discussion (Starfish, Timeline) or that enforce a structure that gives everyone equal time and attention (Circle of Questions, The Margolis Wheel).

Note that Robert Chambers, in Participatory Workshops: A Sourcebook of 21 Sets of Ideas and Activities, has an exercise he calls Dominator (pages 168-9), which he describes thus: “A lively activity to heighten awareness of verbal and non-verbal dominant and submissive behaviour and of the effects of physical position on relationships.”

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts

Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 12 2009

hoarderMotto: The more I have, the more important I am.
Belief: Controlling information gives me power and makes me important.
Behavior: Doles out information in little bits, controlling the flow. Waits to be asked before sharing.
Characteristics: Quiet, selfish, frightened, insecure, terse


The Hoarder is all about control of information. She believes that it’s all that gives her an edge, makes her important, in a world that seems hostile and highly competitive. She rarely shares without being directly asked, because it’s only her control of information that maintains her sense of position and power.

This is not to say that Hoarders are actually powerful. Their power – such as it is – is illusory and mostly perceived only by the Hoarder. Others frequently see the Hoarder as obstructionist, frustrating, and self-serving.

Since Hoarders are naturally insecure and suffering from self-image issues, dealing with them requires putting aside your emotional reactions and biases toward this kind of behavior, and encouraging them through recognition and appreciation.

As with most of the antipatterns, the people who exhibit Hoarder tendencies can be either moderate or pathological.  That is, some do it out of habit, rather than a psychological need to be in control. These folks will probably respond readily when either encouraged or when having it privately explained to them. Note that I said “explained to them” not “confronted”. Confrontation implies attack and hostility, at least to some degree, and those are rarely useful.

The pathological, however, as with most of the antipatterns, are outside the scope of your ability or responsibility as a facilitator or coworker or friend to deal with. Please be careful in these circumstances. It’s not your job to deal with pathologies – issues that are deep and tightly held.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts

Facilitation Pattern: Co-Worker

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 10 2009

coworkerMotto: Succeeding together is better than failing individually.
Belief: Two heads – or three or four – are better than one, and the group is more important than the individual.
Behavior: Frequently takes on facilitative roles/activities, looks for ways to cooperate and collaborate with others.
Characteristics: Patient, team-focused, non-combative, conciliatory


The Co-Worker* believes that the best results are achieved by cooperation, collaboration, and putting the group/team above the individual.

What I like about the Co-Worker is that they are very much like a facilitator. They believe in teamwork, collaboration, cooperation, dialogue… There’s nothing quite so good as having a Co-Worker or two in a meeting to make the facilitator’s life that much easier.

You’ll recognize the Co-Worker as the person who seems to always step in and say “I can see both of your points of view. How can we bring this to some kind of compromise or conclusion?”

Co-Workers rarely seek their own aggrandizement – they work for the group, and will put in as much effort as it takes to see the group succeed. They will frequently take on action items at the end of the meeting, and will seek others to work with in most cases.


* I was going to call this one Collaborator – as in one who labors with others – but was afraid that too many people would take the negative definition of that word – like traitor. English does have its challenges.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts

Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.6.1, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.