Every organization has its own culture and its own internal jargon, including trigger words that can lead to friction if we’re not careful how we say things. A case in point.
A few weeks ago I facilitated a couple of short training courses with the title, “Advanced Lean Development: A Feature-Centric Approach.”
When a training company approached me to do this, I was intrigued by the title because I offer a workshop on process improvement based on Lean thinking, described here: https://neopragma.com. The course title they presented sounded like a perfect match.
In the event, the first cohort was very dissatisfied. Their expectations were different from those that had been set in the scoping call. I pivoted two or three times, asking them what they wanted or needed, and they tried to guide me toward the content and level of detail they were expecting. They ended up getting some value from the course, but not enough, in my opinion.
We had a scoping call with the end client in which a manager explained what they were looking for in the course. He was enthusiastic and willing to answer any and all questions, but by the end of the call I was still not quite sure what he was looking for. I think the training company representatives were also not clear about it. Nevertheless, we adjusted the course outline accordingly, and the client seemed happy with it.
I was willing to adjust the course even to the extent of discarding the original content entirely. I have sufficient general background in software engineering, agile and lean methods, consulting, and technical coaching to do so.
Their company had paid for my time and they could have asked for just about anything from me. But without clarity about what they wanted to focus on, I felt I was stumbling in the dark, and they never would say what they wanted. They barely spoke. I think they were required to take the class and they didn’t really want to be there.
The second cohort started the same, but after pivoting a couple of times and still missing the mark, we paused to discuss expectations and goals. We zeroed in on what they really wanted about halfway through the class. From that point on, things went smoothly. But still, the client canceled the third cohort.
Initially thinking they wanted something related to Lean feature delivery, I asked them to walk me through their delivery process step by step. Numerous small opportunities for improvement surfaced which could have been addressed nicely using Lean principles in a non-disruptive way. There was nothing unusual; you’ve probably seen similar situations in hundreds of companies. Their current process isn’t really bad, but like anything else it could be improved. So, this was very do-able. I was pleased.
They were horrified. It turns out their work environment is profoundly toxic. They must – or feel as if they must – always describe themselves as experts in Lean, the evidence of their own processes notwithstanding. It is not safe for them to admit they need any training or improvement whatsoever. It is not safe for them to admit there’s anything at all that they don’t already know.
To get a handle on their training needs, I asked them what problem we were trying to solve. They were uncommunicative. Eventually, someone ventured, “We don’t have any problems!” Others then spoke up to reinforce the message that they have no problems at all. Everything is good. It turned out they are terrified of the word, “problem.” It is not safe for them to say that word.
What the second cohort really wanted was advice on writing SAFe “feature documents,” not actual features. They break down Epics into Features and Features into Backlog Items. There’s nothing Lean about the way they work. They are anything but “advanced.” So, the title of the course was pretty misleading. Their reluctance to say words like “problem,” “improvement,” “learning,” or “help” made it challenging to understand what they wanted.
When it came to writing clear feature documents, I was surprised that some of them needed basic English skills refreshed – sentence structure, parts of speech, active voice. This was far from our original expectations for the course. I also teach English as a second language and I was able to address the topic. Ultimately the second group got more value than the first, and we finished on a positive note.
They explained management wanted everything to be consistent across all the teams, so they wanted a single template for feature documents. I suggested that consistency is important at a certain level in the organization, so that various initiatives and activities can be coordinated, but once we get down to the level of product lines or release trains or individual teams, full consistency in document formats and so forth isn’t necessarily helpful, since each of these groups will be working on different things and they may work in different ways. They hated that.
I have a lot of sympathy for them. They’re operating under significant stress. They can’t say so, of course, but it’s almost palpable, even over a remote connection.
The experience was a reminder for me that we have to be sensitive to the warning signs of a toxic environment and make an explicit decision whether to get involved. If we do choose to get involved, we must take due care about how we interact. In a toxic environment, a single word out of place can cause harm.