Recently, I was excited to learn a new word that captured a quality with which I could immediately identify - "Profluence".
Definition of profluence - 1 a copious or smooth flowing
Newton's Second Law also applies to mental inertia. You do more easily the things that you are already doing.
A peril of introspection for me is that sometimes I think of something that resonates powerfully. It excites me usually because it’s the feeling of something clicking, some abstract piece of understanding that I’ve managed to boil down to a concise, memorable and still useful way of integrating it into my thoughts. It’s wonderful when that happens and I immediately want to share this little gem that I’ve unearthed.
So, what’s the peril? How could that be bad?
The peril is a common one - I am not my user. The beautiful and succinct thing that I’ve made may include, or exclude context that is necessary for someone else to see the value in it. If the mental hook for remembering this gem is hinged on a conversation that the other people didn’t have, or a works better because it includes a reference to a book or movie that was important to me (“A Jedi cares not for these things”) then it will likely fall flat for others that don’t share that context.
How to manage it? Consider your readers/users. Unthinkingly relying on assumptions about what they know, want or need is the road to failure. Knowingly using context is vital to success because it lets you take short-cuts in your explanation and if you use examples that are relevant and real then they’ll believe you understand their context and thus your gem will more likely be relevant and practical.
The catch is that the only way to avoid being unthinking is strive to be constantly questioning. You'll always fall short but if you're regularly and routinely asking yourself "Yes, but how do I know this about my users", then you'll be more likely to ask it at the right time, or at least before it's too late. So if you need to avoid assuming you already know what your users needs then you need to include that question in all the places that it should be, and you need to get good at discerning it. The answer is cheap and immediate if you have evidence of your recent validation at hand because you're using it.
[ Note: I would thank Michael “GeePaw” Hill for many of the things he has written but notably right here for putting words to something that I was feeling. Something he wrote inspired me to include this:
Against the backdrop of current events this kind of writing is not important. It’s not even the most important thing that I could have written. It was the thing that was next in my mind to write. Don’t let it distract or detract from the other more important issues, speeches, and writing happening now.
Please take care of yourself and others, stay intolerant of injustice, stay angry with broken faith, and work on equality, when you can, how you can
Black lives matter. ]
Originally published Jul 14 · 7 min read
I enjoy road trips because there is an explicit expectation of flexibility. If we see something along the way that we want to stop at — we can and will. If we had planned out the itinerary and followed it rigidly we would have had to ignore the value we discovered along the way. We wouldn’t have visited the Transportation Museum that we discovered was directly downstairs from the Jello Museum (“Did you come here for the Jello Museum or the Transportation Museum?”), and definitely would never have stopped at Marvin’s Marvelous Mechanical Museum.
We can manage the complexity of multiple constraints, including negotiating individual trade-offs and arriving at our final destination by having a shared vision, knowing the rigid constraints, having a shared decision making process and trust.
In order to properly understand the big picture, everyone should fear becoming mentally clouded and obsessed with one small section of truth.
― Xunzi (c.312 BC — c.230 BC, Chinese Confucian philosopher)
Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.”
― William Goldman, William Goldman: Four Screenplays
Me: “A badly run Daily Scrum can be an agonizing thing for everyone involved. One run well can be a powerfully enabling event for a development team. If you follow the Scrum Guide it should be a place where we guarantee that at least once a day the whole Development Team collaborates together on what they must do to achieve their Sprint Goal. X: “I hate Scrum because the Daily Scrum is a soul-killing status meeting”
X: But in my organization managers keep co-opting the Daily Scrum and turning it into a status meeting. What can I do to stop that?
Me: Depending on your role in the organization you may need to take a variety of stances — Teacher, Mentor, Facilitator or Coach. First, try to empathize with them and find out why they are interested in status at all — what are they doing with that information? Educate them on the roles within Scrum and ideally how to get the information they need from the relevant Scrum event. Show the impact their choices are having….
Recently Vesna (@V_Source) asked me to talk about one of my findings from a recent course. One of my ‘lessons learned’ from the course was a humbling reminder of the importance of “Meeting people where they are”, shaped through the lens of someone working with a Scrum Team. This was only one of the things that I took away, but it was one that I found myself able to apply immediately, so it was top of mind, and hence got Tweeted.
In the Professional Agile Leadership (PAL-E) course there is an exercise that makes you arrange a collection of behaviours into a grid. The rows are essentially ascending of maturity and the columns are the roles within a Scrum team and its environment. (http://roneringa.com/leading-scrum-teams-to-maturity/)
Like anything with or about people, there is some grey areas, some overlapping thoughts and behaviours, but the process of deciding if I agree with the proposed grid forced me to refine my thinking. I had to define my own unarticulated thoughts in order to know if I agreed.
Which influenced my answers in many of following exercises. I found myself being more conditional in my assessments. “If the team were at Level 1, then you might want to do…but if they were instead at Level 3, you might want to examine…”.
I know teams mature over time, and what that looks like, but it was enjoyable to be able to bring a more nuanced assessment to bear, and consider in a moment of meta-consideration why I might choose a course of action where I previously might have just done it without thinking.
I’ve long known that I can’t jump straight to the parts of Scrum that excite me when I’m working with a team. I remember trying to convey the cool parts of feedback loops and empirical systems to teams and individuals and it being very ineffective.
I realized then that I needed to tailor my language and concepts to the audience because they didn’t know the vocabulary and often felt they had no reason to invest the time to learn. My success went up dramatically if I could gain and use the awareness of their interests and overall knowledge level.
The impact of the time spent considering the very casual way that I’d previously been thinking about ‘maturity level’ was that I could imagine better nuanced delivery, with greater success.
The other interesting part of the exercise was Ron’s “Weakest Link”
The success of an entire team is determined by its least mature role. A Scrum team will only show the expected results on each level when all the roles are at least on the same level of maturity.
As an Agile Leader it is your responsibility to facilitate the growth of each role in a team in order to make the whole team grow.
Again, interesting in how it modulated the ways that I might consider in working with a team. But I’ll leave those thoughts for another day.