RE: Digest Number 68

Charlie, Ron,

 

I'm not experienced with C&C managers, unless perhaps I have been one,
but I don't think so.

 

I do know this:  As a manager one of the early things I learned is to
make the assumption that every person is trying to do their best, given
the unique circumstances that surround them.  I found that if I made
this assumption for everyone, it was true in almost all cases.  What
happens when you assume that everyone is trying to do their best is that
when they are not doing well, you look for reasons why.  What is the
environment like which is causing them to do poorly?

 

Now it is my firm belief that this rule - assume that everyone is trying
to do their best - holds for managers also.  Following the rule which
has served me in good stead for many years, I assume that almost all
managers are trying to do a good job.  If they are not doing a good job,
there is something in their environment that is preventing it, it is not
their intent to do a bad job.

 

So let's examine that C&C managers you two spoke of.  First of all, I do
not assume that anyone is a C&C manager, since that is a pejorative.  I
assume that some managers might be acting in ways that others perceive
to be C&C.  Something is either wrong with the perception or they are
acting in a C&C manner.  However, if the person observing the C&C
behavior is the target of it, then they are by definition correct in
saying that they are experiencing C&C behavior on the part of their
manager.  If others make blanket statements that 'all managers' or 'most
managers' are C&C types, I tend to dismiss that statement.  

 

So now back to our hapless manager who is exhibiting behavior which
seems undesirable.  Why?  Well, perhaps the behavior is  effective,
although I doubt that in the long run it is.  Perhaps the manager
perceives the behavior as effective.  In that case, the only hope is to
show him or her that there are better ways to achieve desired results.
But it's a tough road, because they think their behavior is leading to
successful results.  Low probability of success in this case.

 

But I would like to believe that most managers exhibiting C&C behavior
know it is ineffective, but do not know any other way to behave.  The
are under tremendous pressure to get results, and they have no other
model.  These are the people who will more readily see that if they can
make work self-directing, they can move beyond the behavior they do not
really want to have.  They will probably not learn from bottom-up
movement, they need some other approach.  We need to reach these
managers, and when we do, we need to do it with respect.  

 

I would like to think that most managers of software development are
either not C&C managers or if they sometimes seem like one, they fall
into the last category.  Most managers I've met have had management
training telling them that their job is to teach and empower, so they
want to do it.  As I said, I have not met all that many true C&C types,
that is, people who were C&C and wanted to stay that way.  Quite
frankly, I don't know what to do about them.

 

I am concerned that so often in discussion groups I hear mangers
stereotyped as C&C.  I don't think such a characterization is useful,
even if it were true, which I strongly suspect it is not in most cases.

 

But, Charlie, to directly answer your question, the way to change
mangers who actually do exhibit C&C behavior is to make the simplifying
assumption that they really don't want to act that way, but they see no
other option.  Show them other options in a way they can believe.  Or
show people higher in their organization how the culture might change.
Help them be successful as they try on the new style. But don't try this
from below. 

 

My real feeling is that by characterizing 'most' managers as C&C, we are
selling them short.  I remember the days when 'most' workers were
thought to be lazy.  What changed was that Theory Z came along and it
was no longer acceptable to think of most workers as lazy.  An as it
turns out, when attitudes toward workers turned more positive, most
workers weren't lazy after all!  When it goes out of vogue to speak of
most managers as C&C, then it just may turn out that most managers are
not C&C after all.  Just changing our perceptions might have some effect
on the perceived problem.

 

Mary Poppendieck

www.poppendieck.com

952-934-7998

 

Message: 2

   Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:30:44 -0800

   From: "Charlie Poole" <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Digest Number 66

 

Mary,

 

> >Interesting... I can imagine a culture in which managers

> >performed the role of a coach, but I don't live or

> >work in one. Do you? Do others?

 

> Yes, I worked in an culture where managers were by-and-large expected
to

be teachers.  For 20 years.  We 'knew' that the people doing the work
would

make the best decisions.  We developed a lot of techniques to be sure
that

people could make their own decisions.

 

Well, I said I could imagine it, and here it is. I'm glad.

 

Of course, I was mostly thinking of a situation in a typical ( at least
in

my experience ) C&C management setting where the manager decides to use

[so-called] coaching to actually exercise even more direct control over
how

the work is done. I've seen this happen and it can be even worse than a

management that simply ignores the team.

 

> I think that managers who feel they have to tell people how to do
their

job are like that because they haven't figured out any other way to get
the

work done that needs to be done.  So we have to help them figure out how
to

make work self-directing.  That is what iteration planning, story cards,

daily meetings, etc. do - make the work self-directing.

 

I believe this is true to an extent. But are you suggesting that it's

possible to make this happen in a bottom up way? Or is it necessary to
first

change the management approach  in order to facilitate the
self-directing

team? Or do both have to change at the same time?

 

> The key is, when people show up for work, how do they know what to do?
If

their work is not self-directing, then someone else will feel the need
to

direct their work.

 

So take a situation where work is not self-directing and heavy control
is

being exercised. What's the first step toward change?

 

Charlie Poole

[email protected]

www.pooleconsulting.com

www.charliepoole.org

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

Message: 17

   Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:29:45 -0600

   From: Ron Jeffries <[email protected]>

Subject: A Concern

 

I have a concern about proceedings on this list that I would like to

raise. It is bothering me and some people seem to me to be behaving as

if it is bothering them as well. The concern is this:

 

  XP is based in a very fundamental way on balancing power between those

  with the need (whom we call Customers) and those with the ability to

  deliver the need (whom we call Programmers).

 

  This balance of power is explicit. The Customers can say what is

  wanted, and the order of the doing. The Programmers can say how long

  it will take and can decide how it will be done.

 

  XP will not work if this balance is violated. In particular, the CxO

  cannot tell the Programmers how to write the program or what their

  estimates SHALL be.

 

The basic assumption of this list seems to be that someone "in

control" has a privileged position, and can override the decisions of

those less privileged, and doesn't have to listen to the ideas and

concerns of those less privileged.

 

This assumption, I believe, is fundamentally and irrevocably in

opposition to the principles and values behind Extreme Programming. It

is not possible to go to a CxO and honestly say "You can do XP, and

you can still command everyone in any way you see fit."

 

If that's what we are trying to do here, even if we were to sell XP on

that basis, it wouldn't really be XP. To do XP, it isn't enough to say

"Do XP". A command-and-control executive MUST change his command and

control approach.

 

A command-and-control Extreme Programming would be an abomination. Yet

we seem to be trying to keep command and control in the equation in

our work here.

 

That's my concern. What say you all?

 

Ron Jeffries

www.XProgramming.com

In programming, do, or undo. There is always try.  --Yoda