back to notes

How to use Scrum violently

Jem D'jelal
Scrum & Agile Trainer/part time consultant & coach
How to use Scrum violently:
-Telling people they WILL do Scrum
-You tell people they're "invited" to try Scrum but really it's a request because you won't be happy if they don't play ball
-Ignoring everything that works for the team
-Not showing ANY curiosity of why the team works the way they do today
-Forcing burn downs or any other metrics
-Telling people they WILL attend the communities of practice
-Using transparency as a means to shame people into action
-Quoting the Scrum guide instead of listening to the needs of the team
Conclusion:
-Scrum is a game
-We invite people to play games
-We don't force people to play games
-STOP weaponising Scrum
#scrum #agile #scrummaster #agilecoach

Chance Hooper BSc, MBCS, PSM 2nd degree connection2nd
could not put it better myself!

Angelina Dyer 2nd degree connection2nd
Don’t even call it scrum just work together as a team, release often, get internal feedback as well as customer feedback, improve and re-iterate again :).

Paul Littlebury 2nd degree connection2nd
I think it's longevity is also down to it's become a common safety net. Towards Agile, but formalities remain (albeit "softer"). The fact it can be applied so appallingly badly, points to a terrible assumption that's been put out there, that "anyone can be Scrummaster".
"Quoting the Scrum guide instead of listening to the needs of the team" When I hear this, I want to howl - how many times have we had that pointless loop with a new Scrummatser. A constant loop of "yes, we know that is what should happen, but ...", until they run out of soundbites. Then we should be able to do is then ask "So how are you going to make that happen". " ..............". Is that section missing in the guide??
Scrum is effective in providing management with output/deliverables they need, to feed back to managers above them, who will only understand things, if in color-coded charts or reports. I am not saying it's right, in the slightest :) It is a game, but it's a game of pandering to those who want deadlines, predetermined scope and schedule, and regular deliverables (even if utterly disinterested in actual delivery). We often make excuse "they are the bill-payers". But it's a management game that should have died out by now. I am surprised it is still tolerated. The word "game" should not be anywhere in the work equation, because it will always have a negative effect on someone.

Guy Augusto Rodrigues 2nd degree connection2nd
Will also add to Stop vulgarizing Scrum

Chris Gilbane 2nd degree connection2nd
So, taking a "what if" game playing approach. What would you do Jem D'jelal if the team is committed to waterfall ? If they had a good argument for the reasons they used it, should an Agile coach accept that? And if they don't, how is that change made without weaponising scrum?

Niels Malotaux 2nd degree connection2nd
Of course I would accept if they have a good argument. But after a few weekly cycles they will get aware that what they thought they had to develop, isn't what they should develop. Then we're going in the right direction.

Ryan Downs 2nd degree connection2nd
Love the post. I've always brought up that terms like 'ScrumBut' are not always negative or a sign that an organization is rocky with their scrum approach.

Daniel Mezick • Following
Those of interested in inviting and Open approaches to leading change may find the Open Leadership Symposium in Berlin 19 November to be very useful and interesting.
The highest-level goal of this conference series is to spread Open patterns and practices worldwide.
If you are loitering by the exits leading out of the Agile industry, If you are looking for a path forward using a more inviting approach to change, If you want actionable guidance, If you are fed up with the tolerance of force, If you sense something is happening, If you want to find the others, This is your conference.
There are only 100 spots available. Quality, not quantity, is our goal here. We don't need or want 2000 people, or dozens of unaligned sponsors. If you support Open and inviting approaches to org-level change, if you want to change the game, we want YOU to be there.
The Open Leadership Symposium BERLIN 19 November 2019:
https://openleadershipnetwork.com/events
Scaling business agility is not simple, because real success requires real employee engagement. Yet genuine success is achievable though Invitation-Based Change™ and the use of Open patterns and practices.

Dave Smith • Following
Warning signs: "we're changing the way we do projects.
We'll do Scrum Projects instead, where the PM is now your Scrum Manager who will coordinate daily standup status meetings in which you're expected to update the team gantt chart pinned up on the Kanban board and also include new requirements as they magically appear on the board as user agility stories.
If there are any questions, talk to your Product Manager who will relay information through to the Scrum Board for discussion and approval".

Daniel Mezick • Following
Whenever it starts is the right time. I'm glad it's finally starting.
This conversation has been suppressed for over a decade. Something about the massive amount of money to be made in Push-style work.
Prominent voices do not want to be asked "where do you stand on the issue of imposing Scrum on people?"
In fact, many prominent voices are clearly *offended* when you ask them to weigh in on this question. I've received responses from "no comment" to "I'm not getting involved in any dialectic bullshit with you."
Can you see why?
See also: Decisions are very Engaging
==>https://www.invitingleadership.com/chapters/decisions/

Rup Jolly 2nd degree connection2nd
You summed up how most companies go about implementing Agile/Scrum :)

Daniel Mezick • Following
Bravo. We need hundreds upon hundreds more posts like these.
Good games have opt-in participation; crappy games do not. Worldwide, Scrum is a crappy, forced-march affair. Worldwide, Scrum is being routinely weaponized in this way.
Curiously, individual self-management (and self care) is always operative, resulting in the individuals reducing emotional investment, reducing attention, reducing engagement, "checking out" and in some cases even disassociating aka "going elsewhere" in their minds.
It's absolutely absurd to force Scrum. At every level.
"Dissociation is commonly displayed on a continuum. In mild cases, dissociation can be regarded as a coping mechanism or defense mechanisms in seeking to master, minimize or tolerate stress – including boredom or conflict."
"Dissociative disorders are sometimes triggered by trauma, but may be preceded only by stress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociation_(psychology)
I've written 3 books on the essential engagement and gaming dynamic: The Culture Game, The OpenSpace Agility Handbook, and Inviting Leadership.
Curious readers might want to take a look.

William W. Davis 2nd degree connection2nd
I agree with most everything, but I do support org leaders (and especially org owners) who say, “We’re transitioning to be agile and we’re going to use Scrum as a way to do that.” The invitation is basically an invitation to stay employed at that firm.
Don’t want to be agile? Don’t want to use Scrum? Give a good defense as to why not, but be prepared to transition not to Agile/Scrum, but to a new position at some other firm.
Most often, leadership involves effectively influencing others with personal power, but sometimes it involves commanding (yes, commanding, or directing if you will) others using positional power.

Daniel Mezick • Following
That's all OK, as long as there is also an announcement that we WILL BE INSPECTING THE RESULTS and pivoting to something else better. The Scrum experiment requires that everyone agree up front to the game goals, rules, and progress tracking mechanisms. Missing those agreements (with a reasonable fixed-length trial period being part of that,) Scrum cannot and will not work. Something about making decisions...<hint>
"Forced march to Scrum until further notice" makes.no.sense.whatsoever.

Rup Jolly 2nd degree connection2nd
Good point here! I don't think it disagrees with what Jem wrote

Dave Smith • Following
Improving the world by improving the people in it
I'd prefer org leaders that say "we need to improve things and heard much about this agile way of doing things. Would you be open to try Scrum out and letting us know the results?"
In my experience, many that dictate Scrum WILL be used are throwing a solution at a problem they don't fully understand (and haven't defined), then interfere with the process believing it needs to fit their current dysfunctions and complain when the actual undefined problem isn't solved.
But then again, they're not what you'd call "leaders".

William W. Davis 2nd degree connection2nd
I, too, would prefer to work for org leaders that approach this problem exactly the way you laid out, Dave. :)

Sandy Naidu
William W. Davis are there ways to make the agile transition or transformation smooth ? Instead of using “Command and Control” or the “Power of the Titles” ? While I understand it might be the last resort/inevitable in certain scenarios.
What are somethings that could be tried for a smoother transition or transformation path ?

William W. Davis 2nd degree connection2nd
Sandy, I think Dave’s answer above is a great way to do that. Org leaders cast the vision, and offer inspiration to those they lead to fully engage everyone in the solution space. Who doesn’t like being involved in the solution choice, rather than just being told what the solution is?

Dave Smith • Following
Improving the world by improving the people in it
Sandy, what you're talking about is change culture and appetite - it's not really an "agile" thing.
So I'll rephrase your question differently: "are there ways to make organisational change smooth?" - yes.
Firstly, people need to understand the WHY. All change should bring about a benefit, an improvement; often people charged with implementing the change aren't told why so they simply see it as more work rather than an organisational benefit that could help them - and generate more value, leading to potential pay raises.
Secondly, people need to feel invested and involved in the change: it should be communicated to them, they should be able to voice concerns and provide an input, they should be informed of when and where and training/awareness should be provided so that they're considered inclusive stakeholders in the process, and not left on the sidelines as an afterthought.
Don't just change the product, consider processes and people; think of what happens before, during and after the change - and things should run a lot smoother.
(https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/csi-were-all-flawed-dave-smith/ - about improvements and driving change)

Sandy Naidu
Dave I see “Agile” as a mindset and shift in thinking (at least to begin with at strategic level before we get tactical) in that sense I think it can be a “Agile” thing to making the cultural and organizational shift.
I believe we all want to get work done and do better and agree that sometimes we/our organizations have to be reminded the Why as we can get caught up in the How and become “prescriptive” instead of empirical, learning by doing.
From what I am hearing from you and William W. Davis is that be patient and make the “Why” clear and empower the teams and everyone who will be impacted with the changes part of making the changes ?

Dave Smith • Following
Improving the world by improving the people in it
Given that Agile talks about "Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project", view that as "those implementing the change and those affected by it should work together daily throughout the change."
Also, "The best architectures, requirements, and designs
emerge from self-organizing teams" could be reimagined as "the best solutions emerge from those given the problem then empowred to work it". Don't buy a dog and bark yourself; interest others in the challenges then trust that they can deliver.
Agile is indeed a mindset, but a lot of it derives from flexibility, leadership and focusing on results of value rather than processes and patterns: the destination is important - be prepared to re-route as new roadblocks emerge, be prepared that the destination may change mid-journey and be prepared to listen to your passengers as you go. They're the ones on this trip - you're just the driver.

Steve Wells 2nd degree connection2nd
- making them do estimates 😊

Niels Malotaux 2nd degree connection2nd
We're getting in the right direction!
The work towards the results we have to achieve is the game. Focus on how to do the work most successfully.

Tirthankar Bhaumik 2nd degree connection2nd
One from my personal experience - SM (if we can call him that) enforces that the team follows a Scrum book word for word.

Jem D'jelal 1st degree connection1st
I think many would sadly share your experience...I was once part of that problem :)

Daniel Mezick • Following
As long as they agree up front to play the game, that's OK. The problem is, we never get that agreement. AND THATS THE PROBLEM

Carl Adamson 2nd degree connection2nd
Jem, the invitation to "try" Scrum should come from an established environment of psychological safety, where people feel free to self-organise, discover, innovate and push back without fear of repercussions!

Vikram Jain 2nd degree connection2nd
And that's difficult to find such established environment. :)

Simran Randhawa 2nd degree connection2nd
May have to create it ;)

Jem D'jelal 1st degree connection1st
There is no established environment, this is for you to do as an SM - to influence the situation to the best of your ability.

Vikram Jain 2nd degree connection2nd
Yes agreed and that's what SM has to do.

Daniel Mezick • Following
If the org has a "environment of psychological safety, where people feel free to self-organise, discover, innovate and push back without fear of repercussions" then we are already there. Scrum as an option shows up when we ARE NOT YET there. When we are NOT doing well.
Get those agreements in writing. Then proceed with Scrum and it is all going to work out.
Get It In Writing:
==>Everybody knows that a primary task of the Scrum Master is to remind everyone about the Scrum rules. This is all very nice. All very neat and tidy. But how does this actually play out when there are boundary violations?
This problem plays out every single day in nearly every single Scrum implementation. Scrum is implemented; but they never agreed. BIG PROBLEM.
None of the people involved actually examined the Scrum Guide and accordingly, NONE OF THEM AGREED TO PLAY. Because not only did they NOT read the Scrum Guide, but even worse, no one asked them to AGREE to play by the rules.
In that scenario, the Scrum Master cannot (repeat) cannot be effective

Chance Hooper BSc, MBCS, PSM 2nd degree connection2nd
I think the reality is that Scrum is often tried because something else failed. Senior Management in businesses which are high functioning, hitting targets and profitable are not looking to make cultural changes or disrupt existing working practices, for fear of upsetting the goose that lays the golden eggs.
They encounter a situation which their existing practices does not resolve (or worse, actively exasperates) and the negative impact causes them to look to make changes. Hence the proliferation of imposed agile transformations - they are from reactive, not proactive circumstances...

Vikram Jain 2nd degree connection2nd
True stuff


last updated august 2019