Interesting Steve Denning Article on Forbes
12 views
Skip to first unread message
Dave Rooney
Jun 26, 2012, 8:51:13 AM6/26/12
to the-23rd-of-...@googlegroups.com
Hi folks,
Have a read of this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/06/22/why-our-leaders-are-always-failing-us/
It really resonates with me... we're the insurrectionists, and the
institutionalists with a vested interest in the status quo have taken
over the Agile world.
BTW, I highly recommend Steve's work. If he writes it, you should
probably read it. Of course, that could be because I tend to agree with
all that he says! :)
Dave...
Have a read of this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/06/22/why-our-leaders-are-always-failing-us/
It really resonates with me... we're the insurrectionists, and the
institutionalists with a vested interest in the status quo have taken
over the Agile world.
BTW, I highly recommend Steve's work. If he writes it, you should
probably read it. Of course, that could be because I tend to agree with
all that he says! :)
Dave...
Michael Montcalm
Jun 26, 2012, 10:16:02 AM6/26/12
to the-23rd-of-...@googlegroups.com
I took a while reading this, trying to figure out what we should do with the information. Sorry if it seems a bit rambling.
We want to prevent our message from being watered down like current Agile/Scrum/etc. are. It also appears as though large corporations/institutions are the least likely to be able to implement the changes necessary to remain flexible, and are most likely to dilute the message with bureaucratic processes.
It sounds as though, in order to keep our message intact, we need to steer clear of trying to implement it within these behemoths.
The article also shows why so many people jumped onto the Agile coaching bandwagon; these monoliths have the money to entice those that are only after a quick buck. For every coach or instructor that had the Agile message intact and really wanted to help the institute change, there were many more that were teaching half truths and partial lessons.
So this leaves me with a major question. Can we prevent the message we're trying to promote from entering these institutions and being subverted? If so, how do we do it?
~Mike
Dave Rooney
Jun 26, 2012, 10:30:35 AM6/26/12
to the-23rd-of-...@googlegroups.com
Hey Mike,
On 12-06-26 10:16 AM, Michael Montcalm wrote:
> I took a while reading this, trying to figure out what we should do
> with the information. Sorry if it seems a bit rambling.
Yep, it isn't a quick read. ;)
> We want to prevent our message from being watered down like current
> Agile/Scrum/etc. are. It also appears as though large
> corporations/institutions are the least likely to be able to implement
> the changes necessary to remain flexible, and are most likely to
> dilute the message with bureaucratic processes.
Yes.
> It sounds as though, in order to keep our message intact, we need to
> steer clear of trying to implement it within these behemoths.
Been there, done that, ain't goin' back.
> The article also shows why so many people jumped onto the Agile
> coaching bandwagon; these monoliths have the money to entice those
> that are only after a quick buck. For every coach or instructor that
> had the Agile message intact and really wanted to help the institute
> change, there were many more that were teaching half truths and
> partial lessons.
To be fair, I don't think there are very many true 'charlatans' in the
coaching arena. I believe that people mean well, but have indeed seized
upon a business opportunity without the background required to actually
pull it off. I can certainly say that ~10 years ago I saw that business
opportunity myself, but was looking at it from the software development
angle. In the ensuing decade I've expanded my horizons into product
management, sociology, psychology, etc. as I realized the need to do
so. I could have been a helluva lot better coach 10 years ago if I had
known that stuff then.
While I don't think it's wrong to recognize and act upon a business
opportunity, I have a big problem with people becoming enslaved to the
status quo of their own creation. I keep returning to XP's focus on
technical practices, but I have no problem saying that those alone will
not help you build a successful product. They won't help you deal with
a dysfunctional group of people working together. They won't help a
'functional' team within an ossified, hierarchical organization. Other
'stuff' needs to be added in those cases. Ask some folks what that
'stuff' should be and you get 'impediments'.
> So this leaves me with a major question. Can we prevent the message
> we're trying to promote from entering these institutions and being
> subverted? If so, how do we do it?
We can't prevent it, and shouldn't. However, by simply promoting the
great ideas we see regardless of any brand with which they're
associated, the buzzword-consuming 20th century managers will ignore
us. For them, we have Zomblatt: http://zomblatt.org/ :):):)
Dave...
>
> ~Mike
> --
>
>
>
On 12-06-26 10:16 AM, Michael Montcalm wrote:
> I took a while reading this, trying to figure out what we should do
> with the information. Sorry if it seems a bit rambling.
> We want to prevent our message from being watered down like current
> Agile/Scrum/etc. are. It also appears as though large
> corporations/institutions are the least likely to be able to implement
> the changes necessary to remain flexible, and are most likely to
> dilute the message with bureaucratic processes.
> It sounds as though, in order to keep our message intact, we need to
> steer clear of trying to implement it within these behemoths.
> The article also shows why so many people jumped onto the Agile
> coaching bandwagon; these monoliths have the money to entice those
> that are only after a quick buck. For every coach or instructor that
> had the Agile message intact and really wanted to help the institute
> change, there were many more that were teaching half truths and
> partial lessons.
coaching arena. I believe that people mean well, but have indeed seized
upon a business opportunity without the background required to actually
pull it off. I can certainly say that ~10 years ago I saw that business
opportunity myself, but was looking at it from the software development
angle. In the ensuing decade I've expanded my horizons into product
management, sociology, psychology, etc. as I realized the need to do
so. I could have been a helluva lot better coach 10 years ago if I had
known that stuff then.
While I don't think it's wrong to recognize and act upon a business
opportunity, I have a big problem with people becoming enslaved to the
status quo of their own creation. I keep returning to XP's focus on
technical practices, but I have no problem saying that those alone will
not help you build a successful product. They won't help you deal with
a dysfunctional group of people working together. They won't help a
'functional' team within an ossified, hierarchical organization. Other
'stuff' needs to be added in those cases. Ask some folks what that
'stuff' should be and you get 'impediments'.
> So this leaves me with a major question. Can we prevent the message
> we're trying to promote from entering these institutions and being
> subverted? If so, how do we do it?
great ideas we see regardless of any brand with which they're
associated, the buzzword-consuming 20th century managers will ignore
us. For them, we have Zomblatt: http://zomblatt.org/ :):):)
Dave...
>
> ~Mike
> --
>
>
>
Michael Montcalm
Jun 26, 2012, 10:42:10 AM6/26/12
to the-23rd-of-...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for the Zomblatt link, it got a couple of good chuckles.
I guess my wording was a bit harsh. I didn't mean to call anyone a charlatan. I've been sitting at my keyboard for a few minutes trying to think of a better/more accurate way of wording it, and can't quite get it to form.
Dave Rooney
Jun 26, 2012, 3:01:16 PM6/26/12
to the-23rd-of-...@googlegroups.com
Hey Mike,
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:42:10 AM UTC-4, Michael Montcalm wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:42:10 AM UTC-4, Michael Montcalm wrote:
Thanks for the Zomblatt link, it got a couple of good chuckles.I guess my wording was a bit harsh. I didn't mean to call anyone a charlatan. I've been sitting at my keyboard for a few minutes trying to think of a better/more accurate way of wording it, and can't quite get it to form.
Heh... you didn't call them charlatans, *I* did. :)
Dave...
Tracee Personal
Jun 26, 2012, 7:50:16 PM6/26/12
to the-23rd-of-...@googlegroups.com, the-23rd-of-...@googlegroups.com
Hey guys,
I am just catching up on personal emails. I don't usually view then until after hours, in case you are wondering why you didn't see my response. I need to catch up on my reading tonight and then I'll chime in :)
Best regards,
Tracee
--
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages