A “classic” organisation basically has three archetypes:
- Decision Makers
- Information Providers
These archetypes are pretty much self explanatory, and the operational model that they create should be familiar to most readers.
Doers perform the actual work; the work they do is directed by the Decision Makers. This is typically the “core” of the business. Often somewhat outside of this dynamic is a third archetype, the Information Provider. Their actions are also directed by “The Decisions Makers” and their work product is then directly consumed by the Decision Makers, with a view towards making better decisions.
Basically, in true traditional style, everything flows in and out of the decision making function, and decision making is kept deliberately separate from execution.
What happens when you Introduce Agile into this mix?
If you introduce an “Agile Bod” into this organisational dynamic, the system attempts to constrain it to one of the existing organisational archetypes.1 Where you end up depends on which archetype you most closely resemble.
ScrumMaster Shaped People
ScrumMaster shaped people are most often placed into the doer category, either in the form of “Process Police” or “Team Leader” or even “Project Manager”2
Agile Coaches / Consultants
For the Agile Coach role however, the only obvious choice is to make them Information Providers3
Thus the line between “training” and “coaching” becomes more an issue of delivery method than ontology.
What’s the problem then?
This mismatch fundamentally causes three problems:
- Bad ScrumMasters
- Unintended Power Battles
- Wasted Potential
Even if you don’t know much about “Agile” you have probably at least heard the phrase “The ScrumMaster is a Servant Leader” or similar.
The problem is that the existing organisational archetypes don’t really allow for Servant Leaders4 – they allow for leaders as Decision Makers and Doers as Servants. Pick one.
Unintended Power Battles
So where does this leave the Agile Coach?
Agile Coaches are typically brought into organisations that are just starting out with Agile, or have tried and screwed it up somewhat.
One of the leading causes for Agile Screw Ups is of course the “not realising that this is a paradigm shift not a tweak” part.
And this is where it so often goes wrong; consultants are asked Waterfall Paradigm Questions that have Agile Paradigm answers.5
And worse, from the consultant’s perspective, the client is either not asking the right questions or focussing on the important things (at least wrt adopting Agility).
Since the consultant feels tasked (and at least partially responsible) for the client’s successful adoption of Agility, they react to this perceived lack of “correct focus” by offering increasingly impassioned unsolicited advice – which in the classic archetype model begins to look like they’re making decisions; and decisions only come from the people in charge; and consultants, if they are anything, are most definitely not in charge.
And thus you end up with an unintended power battle, the perception of a threat, where none was originally intended. Leaving behind it defensive, affronted management and a bewildered consultant who thought they were just trying to help. After all, they were just trying to save you from yourself…
So let’s assume lastly that for whatever reason no power battles ensue. We are still wasting potential here. Because the fact remains that (if Agility is the objective) the client probably is asking at least suboptimal questions and potentially directing their focus towards immaterial areas.
So instead of building a world class Agile capability, instead what you get is lots of people who are really good at Planning Poker™.
There is basically no dynamic apart from hiring on the coach as a manager (and thus letting them make decisions) whereby the organisation can benefit from anywhere close to their full expertise.
Rounding the corners
So the upshot of all this is that in order to really adopt agile, your organisation needs to be able to support and recognise at least two additional archetypes:
The enabler archetype is an oversight role which focuses on supporting rather than directing.
Without it, Servant Leadership, and thus ScrumMastery becomes nothing more than empty rhetoric6 or passive aggression.7
With it however, you open the doors for an entirely new category of management; which includes genuine ScrumMastery.
Advising on Agility
So the final “Enabling Archetype” is The Advisor. And allowing Advisors to exist and thrive in your organisation8 is Step One in terms of accelerating Agility (or the adoption of any other paradigm shift for that matter).
To borrow a term that the 1980’s rendered somewhat cringeworthy; it allows for true synergy between client and consultant.
It allows for a consultant / client dynamic where the consultant is allowed to take information in, then synthesise it with their deep domain knowledge and then spit out useful advice. Genuine contextually relevant advice. Not Best Practice. Not what the last client did. But rather what you should probably do.
It allows consultants to offer strategic, structural and operational suggestions clearly and concisely, without fear of reprisal, not hidden under one thousand layers of politics and double speak (lest the advice be mistaken for decisions and thus be perceived as a shameless grab for power)
In this way your organisation can safely and quickly navigate a paradigm shift; using Advisors as living bridges instead of seeing consultants as nothing more than expensive walking dictionaries.
- And if it can’t it will just spit you out. ↩
- I don’t place Project Managers fully into the category of “Decision Makers” here as they are typically tasked with overseeing that a decision is executed correctly not with making the original decision itself. ↩
- We all know that Agile Coach as “doer” is ridiculous ;) ↩
- Or more accurately Servant as Leader, as was the original phrasing that re-introduced the concept in the late 20th Century. This is clearly an even worse deviation from the norm. Many people read that statement as “And the Meek Shall inherit the Earth. Right Now” with the immediate follow-up thought of “Screw That”. ↩
- Or as Alistair Cockburn puts it, “You’ve just asked me a Shu level question that requires a Ri level answer.” ↩
- There is probably a 4th Universal Organisational Archetype – “Ballast” or “Window Dressing” – into which ScrumMaster and Agile Coaches can also be put. “We don’t really know what function these people have, we suspect none, but you’re expected to have them anyway”. This is however a slightly separate problem, because here, Agile is assumed to have no effect beyond the desirable qualities of adopting the brand. ↩
- I will forever be reminded of an Open Space session where a “ScrumMaster” proclaimed that they once tried letting their team self organise, but when they checked up on them “They were doing it wrong”. ↩
- And recognising that Agile Coaches should probably fall into this category. ↩