Category Archives: Leadership

  • -
high performance agile teams and sports

What The Warriors Taught Me About High Performance Agile Teams

Category:Agile Adoption,Agile Productivity,Leadership,Uncategorized Tags : 

What is one of the most amazing teams you’ve been a part of? And what made that experience stand out?

Growing up as a kid, my father used to take me to basketball games in the Oakland Coliseum to watch the Golden State Warriors play. Back then, the Warriors were good. That was before they were mediocre, and before they were good again. It was one of my fondest early memories of teamwork on display.

Regardless of where your heart lies, it is hard to argue, the Golden State Warriors are one of the most dominant teams in sports today.

So what makes a team great? What’s that “secret sauce” that sets them apart from others? If you’re curious, read on.

High performance Agile teams exhibit teamwork

More and more today, organizations are incorporating team-based structures as the standard for getting work done.

Science shows the significant benefits of organizing as teams, including the improved ability to solve highly-complex problems, better morale, productivity, higher quality and ROI. However, the reality is that many so-called teams are really operating as groups.

So what is the difference between a group and a team?

A group is a collection of individuals who share individual goals, but the ownership of goals resides on each individual.

A Toastmaster’s club, for example, is a group. Each person has an individual goal of advancing their own public speaking skills and they join the organization as means to support their ends.

A group might be a Community of Practice, where individuals come together to share resources for the benefit of learning. Each individual is responsible for growing their professional skills.

In a sports analogy, this might equate to a group of talented players who are assembled but generally are more focused on their individual stats. They optimize for more time with the ball in hopes of landing a big contract with the next high paying team in the future.

Conversely, a team is a group of people who own, and are collectively responsible for achieving a goal.

As such, the outcome falls squarely on the team, as opposed to the individual. The game is won or lost for the team. In many cases with high performing teams, there is a willingness to trade individual heroics for the betterment of the overall goal.

In basketball, we might refer to the collective goal as winning a championship. In team behavior, we see things like assists. That is a stat that represents passes to other team members resulting in a basket.

In Scrum, we have the concept of a sprint goal. The sprint goal is an increment of useful product functionality that is planned out by the team. It results in something valuable that is delivered to the customer in four weeks or less.

And so teams are looked at as collectively contributing to a worthy goal which is often too difficult to be accomplished by an individual alone.

In the best case scenario, groups may create a mutually beneficial structure to achieve their individual goals but teams will often fail to produce strong results if they operate as a group.

In a team, the model breaks down when:

  1. There is a lack of urgency or compelling vision behind the team goal
  2. The team goal is not clear or well understood by the team
  3. There is disproportionate incentivization on individual contributions vs. team contributions. Conflicts of interest arise and the team will fail to collaborate sufficiently to meet their goals.
  4. There is a lack of trust or safety.

While this may seem straightforward, it is not uncommon to see group dynamics play out in organizational teams and cross-departmentally. The culture of “Business vs. Technology”, or “Us versus them” is generally an indicative symptom of the problem.

image of team of fighter jets showing high performance agile teams developing their capability

High performance Agile teams focus on developing their capability over achieving specific results

High performance Agile teams see themselves as a capability to be developed. They favor this paradigm over short term result seeking. And they invest their time and energy accordingly.

If you had the option of picking one of the following, which would you choose?

  1. Creating a playbook that can solve a specific problem
  2. Creating a playbook that allows you to create any number of playbooks

In number one, we are more focused on planning for and winning individual games with the key individuals and their roles.

In number two, we are more focused on instilling a mindset and developing the capabilities of the team so that they are better positioned to handle anything that comes their way.

It is not uncommon for the Warriors to play younger, less experienced players, even in higher stake game situations. They are willing to risk losing a single game because they know that they are developing and deepening their bench. The hope is that by developing the capability of the team, it will create more favorable circumstances for winning in the long run.

By internalizing and embodying the values and principles, or the “being” side of Agile, teams are in effect taking on the “playbook of playbooks” model. Moreover, teams that understand the line of thinking, or the “why” behind the Agile practices will produce far greater outcomes. However, internalizing the agile mindset takes time, energy and practice and teams can benefit from the help of an agile coach.

High performance Agile teams show humility

Make no mistake, the Golden State Warriors have a certain swagger about them. Are they confident? Yes. Are they proud? Most definitely. But they put humility on display, especially when it comes to highlighting their teammates’ contributions.

When you look at the players during the press conferences and in half time interviews, you often hear players deflecting questions about their individual contributions to those of their peers or their teams.

Here is one example (paraphrasing):

Interviewer: Steph, you did a great job scoring to close the gap at the end of the second half to win the game. What was going on in your mind to do that?

Stephen Curry: ‘Actually, I thought we could have done better offensively overall. Our defense really shined there. Green was able to convert most of the opponents shots into rebounds and pass the ball around to create the right opportunities to allow me to take those shots’.

High performance Agile teams exhibit a strong internal mindset

There are points during the game where the team looks like the deck is stacked against them. For the Warriors, it’s not uncommon to see them going into second half with a deficit of 10 points or more before coming back. Everything seems to be going badly and fear sets in.

In that moment, it is easy for anyone to lose presence, to give way to the downward pull of defeat. Where it would be game over for most teams, the Warriors somehow draw from a reserve of internal strength and recover.

The Warriors return to a place of poise and presence. They don’t let setbacks get the best of them. Yes, the team has a collection of skilled and capable people. And they do show a high degree of emotion and intensity at times. But what we are looking at here is how they choose to act in the face of adversity. What we are talking about is a strong mental attitude.

However, this is not just about shared attitudes. With a firm team structure in place, many fear-based behavioral risks are dispelled. This largely has to do with the sense of shared responsibility and psychological safety that true teamwork facilitates.

Tony Robbins talks about the importance of not assuming the victim mindset. When a team member is down, team members pull each other up. They have developed the ability to quickly reset and recover despite whatever challenges are being thrown in their direction.

The Scrum values

Some of the highest performing Scrum teams I’ve worked with exhibit a strong mindset by embodying the following values:

  • Courage – they draw on the collective strength of the team to overcome obstacles and challenges that would not otherwise be possible by any one individual
  • Commitment – they commit to doing everything possible to achieve their goals, supporting one another as necessary
  • Focus – they are clear on what it is they must do, they keep each other present, and focus on doing few things at a time
  • Respect – they treat everyone as an important part of the team regardless of experience or background, they aim to build leadership at all levels of the team. In fact, there are no titles within a development team in Scrum. Everyone is a “team member”.
  • Openness – they are not afraid to say the things that must be said, they show vulnerability and acknowledge their mistakes openly, they make their work highly visible, they are clear on their roles and will also step outside of their role as necessary to meet the goal of the team

High Performance Agile teams share leadership

Servant leadership is a philosophy whereby the main goal of the leader is to serve the people who work for them. This is in contrast to the traditional leadership model where leaders primarily serve those above. It might feel more akin to being under the wing of a life coach than a benevolent patriarch or matriarch. Some additional characteristics of this type of leader include vision, encouragement, empathy, influence (selling vs telling). Since they are always seeking to grow and improve themselves, servant leaders are generally higher on the Emotional Quotient. That is, they are highly present, are active listeners, and they are keenly aware of their own internal states and how it plays out in social relationships.

Among the very best teams, leadership is a shared practice. In fact, while watching the Warriors play for the first time, it might be hard to tell who is exactly in charge in any given moment. Steve Kerr, the Warriors’ head coach, established a strong leadership foundation. It allowed him to take a long leave of absence in order to recover from painful complications related to back surgery. The team sustained in the playoffs and went on to win the championship that year.

Some of the most effective Scrum teams that I have been a part of exhibit behaviors where someone steps in as a leader, then yields, and another steps in and takes their place.

In the book “Mastering Leadership”, Anderson describes the creative leader type as a developer of people. What we are talking about here is taking responsibility for helping others to grow and self actualize, both on a personal and professional level.

Steve Kerr is a fine example of a servant leader. As a former player himself, he has over eight championship rings. Yet he acts with poise, respect and humility toward others including opponent teams.

He shares a compelling vision for success, but gives the team room to make their own decisions which often comes with mistakes and failures. He models patience, trust and wisdom through his actions.

One of the twelve principles behind the Agile manifesto is to “build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done”. Two of the four modern Agile principles simply state, “Make people awesome” and “Make safety a prerequisite”.

This relates to creating the environment where people are given training and latitude do the their jobs. It also means ensuring that team members feel completely safe to speak up and make mistakes without fear of retribution, and an environment where they are encouraged to share learnings and take those lessons forward.

In today’s volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world, it is critical that we strive to bring out the very best in our teams.


  • -
Transformation of caterpillar to butterfly. Agile synonym.

How to Lead an Organizational Transformation for Lasting Change

Category:Leadership,Organizational Transformation,Uncategorized Tags : 

Implementing an Agile Transformation is No Simple Feat

Creating deep, lasting organizational change is hard. 

One of the biggest reasons behind a successful organizational tranformation is the quality of leadership that is behind the implementation. Without strong Leadership in place, a company is unlikely to make cultural change stick.

The Reason Agile Transformations Fail

Most transformation efforts seek to instill a creative culture – the kind that attracts the very best talent, drives innovation and ignites speed to market. Leaders aim to promote and foster this in their organization. Yet often the same leaders have not fully honed their own internal capabilities and those of their people in order to enact and sustain the change. And so you get a lot of activity that fails to result in a deep, lasting change. And leadership does not see itself as the reason it failed.

Have you ever experienced the “flavor of the month”?

In order for cultural change to stick, leaders must be willing to look inward. Management training and on-the-field practice does not equal the real world day-to-day. Like gravity, without the proper internal operating system in place, Leaders will fall back to their modus operandi, or Reactive Level of Leadership.

As a Lean-Agile coach for Fortune 100+ organizations, I recognize that am limited in my ability to effectively help other leaders rise to a higher level of performance than I am currently capable of internally. Correspondingly, it is important that Leaders take the initiative to work on their own development and the development of their people. The Leadership Circle Model defines this process as:

1) Uncovering the creative and reactive leadership areas

2) Developing creative leadership areas

3) Reducing reactive leadership areas

Broadly, there are five stages of leadership that are relevant to the degree that an organization achieves transformational success; The Egocentric, the Reactive, the Creative, the Integral, and the Unitive. Here I will be covering the first three.

The Egocentric Leadership Level

“Do not tolerate brilliant jerks. The cost to teamwork is too high.” – Reed Hastings, CEO Netflix

At this level, it’s all about Numero Uno (me). About 5% of adults operate here. The emphasis is on loyalty to self. This type of leadership is normal in adolescent development. But in adulthood, it’s considered pathological and it’s extremely destructive to an organization’s health. From a Leadership and culture standpoint, this must be addressed.

The Reactive Leadership Level

This is about loyalty to the organization. There is a strong congruence between a Leader’s competency and their sense of identity. For example, if I am good at fixing problems, then a Problem Fixer is who I am as a person. I may be the Intellect, the Architect or the Orchestrator. That’s me. I’ve seen good talent leave the building because the ways of working changed, like the incorporation of a new programming language into the company’s technology stack as a DevOps and Continuous Delivery enabler. Here, the “Java Expert” identity was put squarely at risk, and they felt compelled to act accordingly.

These Leaders typically care deeply about their people and manage like well-intending matriarchs or patriarchs. It’s all about competency. It’s mechanistic. Input is typically taken from below and decision making is made at the top. At this level, there are lots of risks and liabilities as it relates to leading and sustaining a transformational change. The vast majority of leaders in organizations operate here.

The Creative Leadership Level

The Creative level emphasizes development of self and others. The leader is no longer the sole decision maker. They instead act as facilitators and as developers of people. They are responsible for the vision, and in helping others to see how it converts into reality. At this stage, sharing power is not seen as letting go of control, but rather as acquiring power by way of sharing it.

As I transitioned in my career from a Scrum Master supporting a couple of teams to Coaching a program with over a dozen teams, it was important to recognize that in order to scale successfully, shifting my mindset from being a problem solving leader to a developer of others, was integral. I could not be everywhere. The economics simply no longer made sense.

In fact, the degree to which I was able to equip others as Leaders became my own top success criteria. For example, if I found that in a given week I had an increased volume of people swarming my desk, I knew something was up. I would step back and ask myself, is the intent clear enough? Do people have the information readily available to them make high quality decisions and act? What needs happen to enable them to do their job effectively?

This doesn’t just mean supporting formal Leadership roles like management and product but also the “knowledge workers” who are closest to the work itself.

Thought Exercise:

Clock yourself at five minutes to write answers to the following questions:

  • What is the primary cause of failed transformations?
  • Which levels of leadership do you see yourself mostly operating in (egocentric, reactive, creative)?
  • What are your top two strengths? Where do you go when you’re in a crisis?
  • Executive Scenario: Our customers are a priority. We need to deliver this by quarter, we can fix things that are broken in q1 next year. What type of Leadership level does this suggest?
  • “We’re agile, we have scrum teams, we do daily stand ups, we have sprint planning.” What could be missing?
  • “We have scrum teams, we do daily standups, we focus on impediments, we care about our people and our customers, we monitor our quality, we are often willing to take short term business trade-offs to make sure our technical debt is kept down.” Is this an Agile team?
  • In what ways will transitioning to the next area of Leadership benefit those around you and your business success?

References

Mastering Leadership – Robert J. Anderson, William A. Adams The Leadership Circle

Original Article