RE: Digest Number 68

Mary,

Great post - I espedcially love the first line.

I've had some good results working one-on-one with managers who exhibited
C&C behavior by doing just what you suggest: showing them that the behavior
was both unnecessary and counter-productive. So I know this works, provided
you are in a position that allows you to use the approach.

However, I was really posing the question in the context of what appears to
be an underlying premise of this forum: that such managers won't change and
that we need to adapt to suit their style. I may be wrong, but that's the
overall impression I receive from the so-called "business" side here.

I'll add that I'm not talking about adapting to the manner of speech,
terminology and other social conventions - that's normal. What I'm refering
to is the notion that we should make our process work in a C&C world.

Now you've said that you don't believe there is much C&C around any longer.
If that's the case, then we don't need to worry about the question. But
that's not the impression of many people. My own take is that C&C is much
more prevalent in IT organizations than anywhere else in Corporate America.
This may be because IT managers often come from a technical background and
either can't let go or aren't trained to do so. It may be because the
mission given to central IT organizations is sometimes described in such a
way that a C&C approach is unavoidable. Or again, I just may be wrong.

As you point out, people who perceive they are on the receiving end of C&C
behavior are by definition correct. If that's the case, and if it's regular
and continued, then I believe something in the management organization is
fostering or at least enabling that behavior.

Charlie Poole
[email protected]
www.pooleconsulting.com
www.charliepoole.org




The context in which I posed the question, however, is that this

forum seems to be based on the premise that such managers _don't_

really need to change, but that XP should be adapted to suit

their style... I could be wrong, but that's the impression I have.

Figuring out a way to have them a

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Mary Poppendieck [mailto:mary-HbiO4H7KobzuT2QgWa/[email protected]]
  Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 6:57 PM
  To: [email protected]
  Subject: RE: [XC] 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








  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  extremecustomering-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org



  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.