One of the things I struggle with as a coach is convincing companies of the necessity for coaching. Part of this I guess is the self-interest involved. Mainly however, it lies in my seeming inability to articulate why training on its own is not enough.
So let me offer an analogy: imagine someone wanted you to teach them to play chess and win at it. To do this they want to know (and as a result, for you to teach them) what the best move is for every situation.
Now clearly, this is a ridiculous request.
Instead what you do, is first teach them the rules. And then teach them (usually by playing a few games) how to recognise good moves; moves which advance their position strategically. In other words, once they understand the rules, you teach them the principles of good chess.
How much more complex is software development, this "co-operative game"? It requires complex interacting agents to exchange information to produce an unknown (perhaps even unknowable) outcome?
How much more difficult would it be to identify (in advance no less) what all the possible moves are and figure out which one is the "best" one? And to do this without knowing what the complex environment and nature of the team and its constituent members are?
All we’re trying to do in the initial training for teams is establish the rules: e.g. stand ups are for the team, the Product Owner collaborates with the team to establish the priority of work etc. etc. Everyone needs a basic understanding of the framework, so they can play the game.
The problem is that in communicating this essential requirement, companies fixate on the training as an end in itself, rather than the beginning of a learning process. And my personal weakness is that I find it difficult to communicate the importance of values as the key factor in an Agile transformation, particularly in a sales meeting.
So I guess in the spirit of "inspect and adapt", next time I’ll try out my analogical argument.
Powered by Qumana
