Agile Coaching Values

July 27, 2015

The Virtue of Coercion

The following is a session submitted to the Agile2015 by one Timothy Turnstone. The session was not selected.

Even so: I find the session more than intriguing. I have submitted the following “Lightning Talk” about this idea of coercion. It has been accepted to the conference and I hope you can attend!

I promise you a most interesting experience as we unpack the assertions of Timothy Turnstone and his dubious-at-best “VIRTUE OF COERCION” session.

If you are going to the conference, I hope you will attend.

Here is the schedule link:

http://sched.co/3mWu

Details:

Where: Agile 2015, Washington DC

Date: WEDNESDAY, August 5

Time: 345PM

Here is the session:

Someone named Timothy Turnstone submitted this intriguing talk to the Agile2015 conference.

I am eager to comment on it in some detail.

The proposed session and related comments follow….please note the intriguing comments from Tobias Mayer, Ron Jeffries, Harrison Owen, and many others…..

The Virtue of Coercion

Presenter: Tim Turnstone

Track: Enterprise Agile

Source Link (for reference):

https://submissions.agilealliance.org/sessions/3408

Keywords:

management, leadership, Enterprise, Enterprise Agile, manage, coercion

Abstract:

There is almost no chance of Agile transformation without the imposition of Agile practices on teams. Pushing Agile practices on teams is the primary way to obtain lasting enterprise-wide Agile adoptions.

…in this session we present 4 years of data proving that employee engagement actually has nothing whatsoever to do with successfully scaling Agile. Rather, the right underlying conditions for agility have more to do with buy-in (and appropriate funding) at the C-level. We show how the crushing system dependencies found across typical enterprise IT systems actually make the imposition of Agile practices essential.

During this session we also present data that proves that “Agile-at-scale” is seldom if ever achieved without a well-planned and coercive mandate (or “push”) of specific Agile practices on teams. We present and detail the data behind seven successful “push oriented” Agile adoptions, at scale (30 teams or more in each sample, across multiple locations and time zones.)

Inside this session, we present the very strong correlation between the imposition of Agile practices on teams, and successful Agile transformation at scale. We back this up with case data. We also debunk some of the more common myths. Specifically, we systematically dismantle the well-meaning (yet dangerous, and even misleading) essay written by Martin Fowler in 2006, “The Agile Imposition.”

Information for Program Team:

Please reference the following essay from Martin Fowler for an idea of the dangeous myths we will be dismantling during this presentation: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/AgileImposition.html

Prerequisite Knowledge:

Knowledge of Agile, Agile-adoption failure patterns, and Agile coaching techniques

Learning Outcomes:

Understand the subtle differences between effectively mandating, effectively coercing and effectively pushing practices on teams.

Understand how and why the imposition of Agile practices on teams actually works at scale.

Gain access to a Agile-at-scale “framework” for helping you get great results with “Agile push” across your entire enterprise.

Presentation History:

We have developed and refined an Agile-coercion framework over the last ten years which we plan to share and distribute to all participants who attend this session.

http://martinfowler.com/bliki/AgileImposition.html

Public Comments

Wed, 2015-02-25 17:43—Tobias Mayer

Wow!

Well… this is either a brilliant tongue-in-cheek effort to take us into the land of the absurd in order to understand the opposite message as being valuable, or else it is serious, and the presenter actually believes that Agility must be mandated (and has real data to “prove” his case). Either way, I endorse this session, as no matter if absurdist or serious it has to be one that will challenge Agile group think—shake us off our our comfortable couch. Thumbs up.

Fri, 2015-02-27 12:05—Harrison Owen

Absurdity Confounded!

This is so absurd it just has to be worth while! Might just open up some space for useful learning.

Fri, 2015-02-27 14:16—Harold Shinsato

Enjoying the commentary

The session proposal sounds so serious, it’s hard to see the satire at first especially as the Virtue of Coercion seems so much like the way “Agile” is forced down people’s throats. If this is satire – I wonder if the presenter would be willing to come in dressed like Emperor Palpatine with a dark flowing cape and hood, and say things like “feel your anger”. Either way if this is serious or satire – if Harrison Owen and Tobias Mayer say yes, I feel in extraordinarily good company asking that this session be accepted.

Sat, 2015-02-28 08:15—Pablo Pernot

Hats off

Oh such a pity we do not have sessions like this one in France. Hats Off to US.

Sat, 2015-02-28 10:32—Richard Saunders

The SERF Framework actually works!

I am a manager in a large company in the USA. Lately I have been drawn to the ideas of some of the more outspoken and leading Agile coaches out there.

These ideas make lots of sense to me:

Self organization is not impeded by the presence of team-external managers. (plural)

Agile practices absolutely should be mandated.

If people don’t like it, they can always self-organize into another job.

For Agile to work, we have to learn to tolerate an organization’s established, outdated worldview and practices until it can change into an agile organization. So we do have to force it. That’s what people actually expect and want. Especially senior managers like me that sign the checks and make the whole thing go in the first place.

I used to work in human resources and now I work as a Senior Director in IT. A lot of what I learned in HR applies here. Agile obviously works when coercion is applied thoughtfully. In 2013 I was looking for a simple way to force Agile across the enterprise without a lot of discussion about what people want. And this is it. Tim Turnstone is a leading agile pioneer in this space.

I’m eager to see people learn more about the SERF (Scaled Enterprise Resources Framework). Disclosure: We have employed some (many!) of the ideas of Tim at my company. That’s how I know the name and details of his framework. Tim’s SERF framework actually works. We are getting AT LEAST 11% improvement in everything we are now measuring. You can also! Two thumbs up. We need to get the best ideas out there.

Sat, 2015-02-28 11:14—Michele McCarthy

What is obvious?

Everyone knows that I just can’t say enough about coercive techniques. It would be wise to watch this one.

Mon, 2015-03-02 17:40—Tricia Chirumbole

Let’s get real about our relationship with coercion and control!

This is a hot topic that looks like it has already started to get good! No matter where the presenter actually stands, or where you or I say or think we stand, the conversation is worth bringing to the fore! How many of us would swear up and down in public, and even quietly to ourselves, that we do not in any way endorse coercion, mandates, or the attempt to manage self-organization, but in reality we can’t let go of these practices and even believe they are necessary? Is this you? Is this me?! Let’s get real and be honest with ourselves and dive into why people still regularly lean into coercion, mandates, and the seductive desire to manage and control ourselves into a comfortable stagnation!

Tue, 2015-03-03 10:55—Martin Grimshaw

About time…

At last, someone speaking my mind. It’s time to counter all this new age namby pamby touchy feely politically correct nonsense about choice and ‘co-creation.’

Every good boss knows that the way to get things done is to tell your staff what they have to do, and threaten them if they don’t obey. After all, it’s the bosses who know best about everything in detail that all staff are doing and what they should do better. That’s why they are bosses. Let’s welcome this session with open arms and stop this ‘self-organisation’ flim-flam before its dangerous malintent causes irreparable damage.

Thu, 2015-03-05 15:04—Andrea Chiou

I am confurious!

I was both curious and confused and responding to a tweet about this session, when I mistakenly typed ‘confurious’…

It seems COMPLETELY INSANE and good that avowed members of the Open Space community are raving about this session – to say nothing of attracting the likes of Michele McCarthy of the well known ‘Core Protocols’ – where checking in, checking out, pass, decider and other protocols provide the safest system for getting to effective team products!

By all means, bring this on! I’m sure more folks will sign up for Agile2015 now – esp. in DC – where agile-by-mandate is hot business!

Fri, 2015-03-06 09:44—Daniel Mezick

An “Agile-coercion framework” ?

Is coercion Agile? Is there a certification?

Mon, 2015-03-09 16:54—john buck

serious

I do not think this session is tongue-in-cheek as one commenter speculates. We do a lot of very successful software development. We would not be so successful if we had not forced the introduction of our Agile practices. Organizational change initiatives are typically met with initial staff skepticism and resistance. We skipped all that by simply mandating. We watched carefully for any signs of passive resistance and squelched it in the few cases it appeared. Once staff grasped that they actually had more freedom with Agile, all resistance disappeared. It may seem ironic that we can push people into freedom, but it really works! Try it!

Mon, 2015-03-09 17:08—Richard Pour

Ridiculous

The proposed session is ridiculous and offensive. The soul of Agile is voluntary self-organization. I am outraged by the obvious mockery of our sacred values. I hope that the conference organizers will reject it as simply in bad taste and poor. – Richard

Thu, 2015-03-12 11:55—erik blazynski

What is this about?

Is this about getting people to do what you want them to do without them knowing that you you are getting the to do it? Sounds interesting.

Thu, 2015-03-12 13:00—erik blazynski

I have an idea for this topic

Change the name of this session to “Foie Gras Agile” Bring some feeding tubes so it can be demonstrated how to jam process and procedure down people’s throats until the human resource value bloats and can be extracted.

Sat, 2015-03-14 18:15—Ron Jeffries

But Seriously …

I am no fan of coercion. However, imagine the following scenario:

We impose some practice, say TDD. A bunch of people say “bite me” and quit. Others, being all WTF, give it a go. Some come to like it. They begin doing it more. Good results happen. People say “How are you getting those good results?” People reply “The jerks upstairs actually had a good idea with this TDD thing. They didn’t have it quite right but look how it’s working for me.” Voila, imposition worked.

Hell, if someone made me exercise 3x a week, I might come to like it. Maybe. It could happen.

I don’t know whether this is serious or not. I don’t know whether he has a solid experiment or not (I doubt it, solid experiments are hard to do.)

But if he has data we need to look it in the eye.

I recommend acceptance of this session, and some guidance from a mentor so as to present substantive material in a way that won’t cause people to shout it down before they know what is being said.

February 26, 2014

Agile Coaching Values Explained

In a previous post, we outlined 4 Agile Coaching values and 8 related and supporting principles.

Mandated practices may prevent a rapid and lasting Agile adoption, by reducing feelings of control and belonging in the very people who do the work.

Embedded coaches present 5 days a week often prevent teams from taking up their authority to lead in the creation of their own Agile practices and processes.

Here is a bit more detail on the 4 values and 8 principles, for your consideration. You are invited to consider this detail and how it might apply to your own Agile work as a coach, client, or team member.

These Agile coaching values were authored by the following professional coaches in the Greater Boston area (listed alphabetical by last name):

4 Agile Coaching Values

Creating Independence over generating billing

Coaches are often drafted into the role of “authority in chief” and with that comes the risk of substantial client dependence. Coaches value creating client independence and client self-sufficiency over all other considerations.

Championing Learning over avoiding risk

Continuous learning is destabilizing to existing culture. Questioning long-help assumptions can be risky in an organization that values stability over learning. Agile coaches value the building of a capacity of continuous learning in the orgs they serve. This includes encouraging the client to identify, expect and manage the many risks of genuine organizational learning

Building Relationships over building transactions

Agile coaching is a very lucrative profession. Coaches have creditors like everyone else. The development of relationship with the people in the client organization must take precedence over financial considerations if the coaching is to be effective and lasting.

Inviting Participation over assigning responsibility

Assigning responsibility without authority is a recipe for failure in any attempted adoption of Agile methods. Instead of a command and a prescription, the people closest to the work must play a part in designing the solution. Agile coaches encourage formally authorized leaders to avoid mandating participation in prescribed Agile practices. Agile coaches encourage leadership to invite the people who do the work to participate directly in the design and implementation of any move to Agile and Agile practices.

8 Agile Coaching Principles

We use these Principles to guide our work with clients:

Voluntary engagement of everyone involved in organizational change is an essential requirement for success.

Mandating an Agile practice is the same as mandating collaboration. This is a contradiction of terms and is also contrary to the letter and spirit of the Agile Manifesto values and principles

Coaching every single day in an organization creates a serious risk of client dependency and is to be avoided, consistent with common sense and good judgement with respect to client needs.

Dependency on the Agile coach is harmful to coach and client and is to be avoided at all costs. Occupying the Scrum Master role of Scrum for an indefinite period of time is not coaching and reduces the learning capacity of the client organization.

Organizations are responsible for their own learning. Arms-length, time-boxed working agreements between clients and coaches are essential.

Coaches and clients work best together when they agree to a time-boxed structure for executing on coaching. Teams and entire organizations take more responsibility for learning when they know the teacher is not available for an indefinite period of time.

Coaches must look for every opportunity to increase the learning of the organization as a whole, with strong intent to vacate or otherwise evolve the current coaching role as soon as possible.

Coaches and clients work best together when it is understood that the coach’s role will change and that the intent of the coach is to vacate as soon as possible. The promise of Agile is served when client organizations can routinely reach a state of self-sustaining, “freestanding” agility.

Coaching requires the willingness to identify any cultural impediments to continuous improvement, and to communicate these to the people in the organization who have the authority to address them.

Agile is Trojan horse for bringing in a substantial change in culture. Coaches have an obligation to see to it that leaders occupying roles highly authorized roles commit to using their authority to remove cultural impediments to rapid and lasting agility.

The primary task of a coach is to help improve the effective results and working lives of the people employed in the organizations they serve.

Agile practices create engagement and good results– in part by putting decision-making authority in the hands of the people who do the work. Agile coaches encourage leaders to make this happen.

The ability of an organization to respond to change is the primary measure of progress.

Agile coaches are in the business of teaching and encouraging practices that lead to adaptability and the ability to handle rapid change. Agile coaches teach entire organizations how to learn, and adapt—without the ongoing need for the presence an external authority named ‘coach’

Leaders in an organization must continuously signal positive encouragement, and create safe space for others to think and learn, if positive culture change is to be lasting and effective.

Agile coaches are obligated to teach organizational leaders how to best create an environment that is open and safe for experimentation and the learning that comes from that.

***

February 26, 2014

Agile Coaches are familiar with the patterns of naive and vulnerable client organizations that are new to Agile. In our view, Agile Coaching professionals have an obligation to help clients understand what is best for them. In the beginning this is seldom the case. The Agile coach is obligated to do the right thing. This always includes encouraging and helping the client take 100% responsibility for their own learning.

This usually means the coach must routinely and politely decline opportunities to play a larger, more authoritative role.

Being there, 5 days a week, full time, for 3 months or more can be lucrative and hard to resist. As coaching professionals, we do our best (and live up to our potential) by serving the learning of the client organization first. This includes challenging the client org to take 100% responsibility to reach a self-sustaining state of Agility, without the need for the 5-days-a-week presence of the external coach.

These Agile Coaching values and principles listed below are a good and solid basis for guiding coach-client relationships and interactions. These values and principles are listed in the familiar ‘agile manifesto‘ format.

The content- these values and principles– are optimized on the continuous, progressive and ongoing organizational learning of the coached organization.

In serving our clients, we have come to value:

Creating Independence over generating billing
Championing Learning over avoiding risk
Building Relationships over building transactions
Inviting Participation over assigning responsibility

We use these Principles to guide our work with clients:

Voluntary engagement of everyone involved in organizational change is an essential requirement for success.

Coaching every single day in an organization creates a serious risk of client dependency and is to be avoided, consistent with common sense and good judgement with respect to client needs.

Organizations are responsible for their own learning. Arms-length, time-boxed working agreements between clients and coaches are essential.

Coaches must look for every opportunity to increase the learning of the organization as a whole, with strong intent to vacate or otherwise evolve the current coaching role as soon as possible.

Coaching requires the willingness to identify any cultural impediments to continuous improvement, and to communicate these to the people in the organization who have the authority to address them.

The primary task of a coach is to help improve the effective results and working lives of the people employed in the organizations they serve.

The ability of an organization to respond to change is the primary measure of progress.

Leaders in an organization must continuously signal positive encouragement, and create safe space for others to think and learn, if positive culture change is to be lasting and effective.

***

These Agile coaching values were authored by the following professional coaches in the Greater Boston area (listed alphabetical by last name):

Pat Arcady, Freestanding Agility (www.freestandingagility.com)

Dan LeFebvre, Freestanding Agility (www.freestandingagility.com)

Daniel Mezick, New Technology Solutions Inc (www.DanielMezick.com)

Frank Saucier, Freestanding Agility (www.freestandingagility.com)

April 26, 2013

Perfect Agile Coaching

Imagine if it was possible to for an organization to reach a state of self-sustaining, freestanding agility after just 5 coaching days.

Just FIVE.

What might that mean for the spread of agility throughout the world?

I met Chris Rufer, Paul Green and Doug Kirkpatrick last May when I presented a session on Gaming Happiness At Work at the Self-Management Symposium. One of the things I learned was that MORNINGSTARCO uses this concept of stepping-stones. Here are the steps:

For a given task or job, define perfection. For example, at MORNINGSTARCO, for maintaining machinery that processes tomatoes, “perfect” is defined as a maintenance cost of ZERO for processing an INFINITE volume of material.
Next, figure out your current performance numbers. For example, for machinery that processes tomatoes, the current score might be “one dollar of maintenance expense, on average, for every 10 tons of product processing.”
Now define a stepping-stone goal, in the direction of perfection: How about trying to get the maintenance cost down to 92 cents per 10 tons of processing, instead of 1 dollar? 89 cents maybe? That’s a stepping stone. 89 cents. Its a small, achievable goal, in the direction of improvement…in the direction of perfection.

In golf, “perfect” is eighteen hole-in-ones. That’s it. “18” is the perfect golf score. Now, no one can actually achieve that. This actually does not matter. What does matter is that the ideal– the perfect— is very clear.

Every golf pro is thinking about 18 as the ideal– as perfection. And they make small moves to get closer and closer. Thinking about perfection when aiming to improve is a very interesting idea. This idea from MORNINGSTARCO got me thinking about Agile coaching and perfection.

Perfection in Agile Coaching

What constitutes perfection in Agile coaching? How do we apply the MORNINGSTARCO stepping-stone concept to the execution of Agile coaching?

I think it has to do with client organizations reaching a state of self-sustaining, freestanding agility via the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM coaching engagement. What is that minimum exactly? Can a coach help get an org to a state of self-sustaining, freestanding agility with 30 days of coaching? 20 days? 10 days?

How about FIVE days?

I am actively seeking and working with clients who want to explore this idea with me. We are working from the premise that “perfect” is no more than FIVE TOTAL DAYS of coaching to reach a goal of org-wide self-sustaining Agility.

Is this definition of perfect even remotely possible to reach? We are finding out.

Currently, we in the Agile community consider it normal for a coach to set up camp at an organization and “embed” or “integrate” there for months on end. Sometimes even years. This makes absolutely no sense to me given the lack of genuine and lasting results these client organizations are actually getting.

So instead, I am working with clients, and doing many small experiments, in service to the idea of absolutely minimizing the number of coaching days required. To do this, radical new techniques have to be identified, developed and completely tested out. The old ways of doing things that are getting poor results have to be thrown out in favor of a all-new and radical approaches that can help get us there.

Current techniques are obviously deficient, because coaches are setting up camp, for YEARS in some cases, supposedly enabling an ‘Agile transformation’. These ‘Agile transformations’ are obviously NOT HAPPENING. Meanwhile, no one is sounding an alarm. Companies seem willing. Money is changing hands. Everyone is happy.

The problem of course is that there is no progress. In some of these organizations, dozens of coaches are working for years with results that are dubious at best. Something obviously has to change here.

Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. That’s what Frank Zappa once said. We need to embody this idea. We need to throw out old assumptions, define perfection for the task of Agile coaching, and define and then achieve stepping stones in the direction of perfect. That’s exactly what I am doing with some of my clients in Boston and it is super-interesting to try out some of these new and radical ideas.

I plan to report the results to you, over the summer, as events unfold.

March 4, 2013

Agile Coaching and Sports

Question: why do sport teams employ coaches past training camp? Aren’t the athletes professionals capable of their own learning?

This is a question I received recently when I explained that ’embedded” or “integrated” coaching (where a Agile coach is present 5 days a week for 3 months or more) is probably a very bad idea. For those of you new to the idea that embedded or “integrated” coaching might not exactly be good for team-learning, take a look at these links:

Embedded Agile Coaching Defined

Agile Coaching Values

So, why do sport teams employ coaches past training camp?

Aren’t the athletes professionals capable of their own learning?

In my view it is absurd to compare the role of say, a Division1 basketball coach, to an Agile coach. The roles have little if any overlap. For example, is an Agile coach duly authorized to define various team rules, like a pro sports coach is? Is it ever OK for an Agile coach to yell at a team member like a college basketball coach might yell?

It is hard to imagine a scenario where that would be healthy in any Agile coaching context. The role of Agile coach has far less authority than a sports coach. This is self-evident.

Or is it? “Embedded” or “integrated” coaching, where the Agile coach is present every single day, positions the coach as “the authority”.

Is this healthy or even useful?

Is embedding a Agile coach full-time …in an organization ….simply trading one kind of authority-related dysfunction for another?

Agile Coaching Five Days a Week, FULLTIME for Three months or More: In Service to What?

Agile Coaches are familiar with the patterns of naive and vulnerable client organizations that are new to Agile. In my view, Agile Coaching pros have an obligation to help clients understand what is best for them. This always includes helping the client take 100% responsibility for their own learning. This usually means the coach must refuse opportunities to play a larger role.

Being there, 5 days a week, full time, for 3 months or more can be lucrative and hard to resist. As coaching professionals, we do our best (and live up to our potential) by serving the learning of the client organization. This includes challenging the client org to take 100% responsibility to reach a self-sustaining state of Agility, without the need for an external coach.

Stating that pro and college coaches play a big role after training camp and that therefore, Agile coaches can do the same is at best misguided. At issue is authority. In sports, the coach is authorized to substantially define the team by defining and enforcing rules. (Example: Examine the book Wooden On Leadership .)

After some basic training, is it EVER right for an Agile coach to define team rules? No. Teams must define their own rules– and culture. Agile coaches have far less authority than pro or D1 sports coaches, many of whom can choose to rule autocratically. Would you want your Agile coach acting that way? I hope not!

Coaches that overstay and “embed” or “integrate” into team life (usually as the ongoing Scrum Master) are in a position to reduce team learning. This happens when the team does not learn to answer it’s own questions, does not try enough experiments, and does not engage in enough risky learning.

The following table enumerates some key differences between two roles: pro sports coach, and Agile coach. As you can see, it is an apples-to-oranges compare:

Coach & Team Characteristic:	Sports Teams	IT Teams	Notes
Coach has authority to define rules and therefore define the culture	X		The best sports team coaches DEFINE the culture of the team. See Wooden On Leadership for details
Coach has total authority to reward and sanction behavior	X
Coach has broad influence over who has membership on the team, and who plays	X
Coach typically defines basic team rules and enforces them	X
Coach specifies the practices and has ultimate authority on how practice and practices are selected and executed	X
Coach is typically compensated in part based on team performance	X		Agile coaches get paid not matter what. IN sports, if your team underperforms, you are GONE
As a norm, Team defines their own intentional culture based on shared values which may be explained and suggested by coach		X	It’s absurd to imagine any Agile coach defining and then enforcing a team’s cultural norms
As a norm, Team works from principles typically suggested by coach, that support & express underlying values		X
As a norm, Team has opportunity to change practices periodically based on retrospection		X	Self-governing teams define who they practice and how they execute. This is at best extremely rare in pro & college sports.
Team can mature to the point of no longer needing a coach; a “watcher” or Facilitator or Scrum Master can announce what is happening and stop short of issuing guidance like a coach		X
Team’s goal is results as measured by specific progress (wins, frequent delivery etc	X	X

As we can see, in terms of authority, the pro sports coach has near-absolute authority to do the work of defining the rules and influence overall team culture.

In authority terms, these two jobs are not comparable, even though they both use the term ‘coach’ in the job description.

Who Is Ultimately Responsible for the Team’s Learning ?

Teams are. Teams are responsible for learning continuously. No one can do it for them.

Software teams must take 100% responsibility for the culture design of their own team, and for their own team learning. That’s hard to do when an Agile-authority figure, installed by management, is present 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, functioning as an authority figure, telling the team at every turn what it “should” do. Particularly when the ‘coach’ takes up the Scrum Master role for more than a few weeks, the presence of a fulltime coach crowds the team and discourages team initiative and engagement.

Sports coaches and Agile coaches similar? Yes. But- when an Agile coaches take up too much authority, the results are predictable: reduced team learning, reduced engagement, greatly reduced self-organization, and suboptimal productivity. For this reason, Agile coaches must look for every opportunity to increase the learning of the organization as a whole, with strong intent to vacate or otherwise evolve the current coaching role as soon as possible. It’s hard to do that when present 5 days a week, for 12 or more weeks while also often occupying the pivotal Scrum Master role.

A far better pattern is to teach a new Scrum Master, one who is internal to the coached organization, and for the external Agile coach to be present on a part-time basis. This places responsibility for learning and improvement on the coached organization itself, which is where it belongs. This is a healthy pattern that encourages healthy and authentic Agile adoptions.

January 8, 2013

Agile Coaching: Core Values & Supporting Principles

The idea of hammering out a set of guiding Values and Principles for Agile Coaches is an idea whose time has come. Increasing reports of problems in Agile Coaching are tarnishing our profession and diluting our effectiveness as change agents. This is a very serious problem.

A set of community-built, open-source Values and Principles is one solution we can all act on today. Rather than looking to institutions to lead us, or assigning blame, we can choose instead to look to ourselves and do something about it, right now. Click. Done.

I invite you to come and play with this idea. The aim of the group is to hammer out an opt-in set of Agile Coaching Values and Principles for Agile Coaches, with intent to improve the working lives of Agile Coaches and Agile Coaching Clients throughout the world.

Please come and play!

Click here to JOIN the Agile Coaching Values discussion group on Google+

Will you please also forward this invitation to other agile coaches and agile coaching clients that might be interested in this conversation?

Thank you!

Intrigued? Here is more detail:

Agile Coaches are familiar with the patterns of naive and vulnerable client organizations that are new to Agile. In my view, Agile Coaching pros have an obligation to help clients understand what is best for them. This always includes helping the client take 100% responsibility for their own learning. This usually means the coach must refuse opportunities to play a larger role.

Being there, 5 days a week, full time, for 3 months or more can be lucrative and hard to resist. As coaching professionals, we do our best (and live up to our potential) by serving the learning of the client organization. This includes challenging the client org to take 100% responsibility to reach a self-sustaining state of Agility, without the need for an external coach.

These Agile Coaching values and principles listed below are a good and solid basis for guiding coach-client relationships and interactions. These values and principles are listed in the familiar ‘agile manifesto‘ format.