THE AGILE MANIFESTO: REFLECTIONS ON PRINCIPLE 6

During training and coaching engagements, I often inquire about individual perceptions into the principles of the #agilemanifesto. Understanding the 12 principles and their intent and impacts can set individuals, teams, and teams of teams on the right path toward a successful #transformation into #agile or #SAFe. Misunderstanding, misinterpreting, or not internalizing the principles can adversely affect transformational outcomes.

When we discuss Principle #6, “The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation”, the most common understanding is in line with the likely intent of verbally communicating in person. Most often there is not much disagreement there, but it often evolves into a debate as to whether it is the most effective means, or simply an outdated concept.

Responses vary. Face-to-face, emailing, phone and virtual discussions can all be effective means to communicate. Some argue that speaking to someone in person is faster, allows for clarification, etc., while others believe emailing might be better for those with less confidence, those trying to convey a huge amount of information, or those concerned about CYA. I get both sides of this argument but must highlight that not everyone seems to understand what efficient and effective truly mean.

Efficiency is defined as achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense. Effective, on the other hand, is being successful in producing a desired or intended result. So, one can deduce from these definitions, along with the principle’s intent, that to be the most efficient and effective method of conveying information we must communicate in a way that is fully understood by all parties in the least amount of time possible. While email is effective, typing and sending a response is most often more time consuming than verbalizing it, and efficient email responses require all parties to be organized and responsive; we all know that is not always the case. So, email, while it provides a means for those who prefer to stay hidden to do so, was likely not the intent of those seventeen independently minded software practitioners in 2001.

As for the chosen solution, Merriam-Webster defines face-to-face communication as “within each other’s sight or presence”. While actual presence may have been the original expectation, my gut is telling me the spirit of this #agilemanifesto principle is verbal communication.

Virtual meetings have been around since the 1970’s, but the 2020s are when we were all thrown into using them, without notice, almost exclusively for one-on-one and group interactions with our peers, subordinates, and leadership. There is no mention of virtual meetings in the agile manifesto’s values or principles, but in spirit we can and have broadened our understanding of face-to-face to include virtual conversations. While there may be no more efficient and effective means to communicate between people than in-person face-to-face conversations, in our current times, with or without COVID, due to widely disbursed teams, virtual meetings are the next best thing. While this principle will arguably stand the test of time as written, we should assume a broader definition of face-to-face to include all virtual settings.

Communication is always most effective firsthand, but does that always mean its most efficient? No.

Unfortunately, when you are dealing with development teams creating amazing, valuable things, every interruption causes a delay in productivity. So, to overcome this, we must look to build in roles within the team to protect them from outside influence. Scrum Masters are provided, for among other things, to minimize distractions from productive value delivery. Product Owners are often emplaced to provide the voice of the customer (requirements, acceptance criteria, definitions of done) and to answer any questions the development team may have regarding any current work in process, scope changes, and priorities of work. Both roles should live and breathe this principle.

While some may argue that it is more effective for the developer to interact directly with those in the know, doing so requires task switching, reducing their productivity an average of 20%. Each time developers must leave their workstation to hunt down an answer, are interrupted by a manager or PM to complete “a quick task,” or are consulted by others outside the team on other work, they are task switching – that is, stopping what they are doing, shifting their mind toward something else, and then back to the original task. This is wasteful and inefficient.

In my experience, teams are far more successful in delivering on their commitments when you have strong experienced #ScrumMasters and #ProductOwners in place doing much of the communication for the team. While some may argue that face-to-face means cutting out the middleman, they likely have not done enough analysis on the effect to an individual or teams’ velocity. Removing these “middlemen” such as the Scrum Master and Product Owner on teams is a recipe for inefficiency. Instead, mature teams will look to increase their communicative efficiencies through continuous and relentless improvement of their processes, tools, and policies, not by elimination or overextension of valuable personnel.

A final note on efficiencies. Some companies have a culture of middlemen that increase their lead times and limits their ability to get things done. These are middlemen that, while often necessary to run the business, could be eliminated from the decision tree of productive delivery. Communication and transparency requirements intact, we should look to de-centralize as much decision making down to the lowest level as appropriate and allow our teams to self-organize and self-manage using this principle. Consider how inefficient a centralized culture would be using email as their primary communication. Ouch.

How often have you been in a conversation only to walk away and forget one of the primary outcomes? How often have you later realized that each person in the conversation did not actually have the same understanding of what was being agreed upon, or worse, even discussed?  If you recall, effective communication is being successful in producing a desired or intended result. If everyone is on a different page was the communication effective? Not likely. Is this the fault of the participants or the medium in which they use to communicate? It could be both. To have effective communication we must be able to ask clarifying questions, repeat our understanding back to others in the conversation, and go away with similar understandings of the outcomes and decisions made.

We have all experienced written language in the form of texts, IM’s, or emails that were completely misinterpreted by another party. You can write, review, and rewrite an email repeatedly, believing there is no way it could be misinterpreted only to find out that someone took something personally, read something wrong, or the misplaced comma completely changed your message in their eyes; there are reasons emoticons have taken over our phones and emails. We try to portray our emotions in a way that the receiving party does not misinterpret and spiral out of control. For this and reasons mentioned previously and to follow, electronic communication in every form is a less effective means to communicate.

To the extent of effective communication being face-to-face, the above points highlight the need to manage it carefully. When we remove electronic forms from the equation though, we can then control at least a portion of that interpretive error. We must then learn to listen well – most people do not – and repeat things as we understand them. This will help us all communicate more effectively as we continue to convey our messages, ask clarifying questions, and communicate more effectively.

In my experience, this principle encourages verbal #communication, whether in-person (best), through video chat (2nd best), or speaking to them via phone call (3rd best), and can serve to remind everyone of opportunities to grow and improve relationships with other people.

Luckily, in traditional office settings, gathering colleagues for a meeting can be relatively easy. However, as the number of people working remotely continues to climb, face-to-face communication is becoming more challenging and verbal more important than ever.

Verbal communication helps teams effectively communicate simple and complex information, read non-verbal cues, and improve human relationships. Ideally, your verbal communication happens in person, but even with remote teams, there are steps you can take to improve team communication.

Create a SAFe space in all your ceremonies. Provide an environment where everyone feels they can be open and honest, not scorned for their opinion, and applaud each other for contributions and participation. Discourage email as a primary source of communication, instead electing to use it as a secondary, follow-up, confirmation of a verbal understanding.

Confront excuses of discomfort speaking in front of people, or certain individuals. Encourage everyone to get out of their shells, be vocal and honest, and grow their communication skills. It will help them in their life and throughout their career. Verbal communication does not necessarily come easy for some people and must be practiced. If there are personality conflicts, isn’t it better to deal with them directly instead of sweeping them under the rug by communicating via email or not at all?

Challenge your colleagues. Ask everyone during the daily stand up to provide their verbal updates and impediments. Challenge those who rarely speak to provide input into key issues, risks, impediments, and efforts. Develop team policies that require all team members to speak up and contribute during the different ceremonies, providing the added benefit of multiple perspectives and concerns.

There are so many things an Agile Team can do to help each other grow in their verbal communication.

While leadership do not often fall into the introverted, silent category, it can happen. Whenever possible do what you can to speak with these people as these are commonly important conversations. Oftentimes, they may be in the habit of emailing as their primary means of communication, but this should be avoided. Instead, attempt to engage them into and during ceremonies, as appropriate, and follow up, as necessary.

Turn your camera on.

Using video conferencing keeps everyone accountable to staying focused on the conversation at hand. With audio, you can get a better sense of stress and sarcasm, but with video, you are also able to read body language and see whether you have your colleague’s attention.

Mute Yourself. 

Background noise can be very distracting to everyone in the meeting. Not only does it impede effective communication, but it can also be a privacy concern for those who unknowingly forgot to do so. Practice good virtual etiquette and be aware of your settings. Remember we want everyone to speak up and share their insights but be sure to mute yourself once your point is made.

Pause for Effect. 

Too often we forget to let others speak. It seems some people feel that they are paid by the word or by how much time they can consume in a meeting. Instead, consider pausing more often and allowing others to provide input. Breathe occasionally and allow the meeting to become more effective. Consider allowing others a moment to respond after each key point you may be making. Remember, in a virtual environment, participants may also need to come off mute, so provide them a few seconds to do so. When sharing a slide deck, consider asking if there are any questions before advancing each slide, as a best practice.

Avoid Side Conversations

Side conversations may or may not be relevant to the meeting. In either case the individuals could miss key information that cause challenges later or leads to wasted time repeating themselves. To avoid this, consider using a parking lot for everyone to add comments that they would like to return to later, and/or consider using in-meeting chat to relay key points of consideration that can be shared with everyone. Individuals should also consider taking notes, as necessary, if there are key points that need further discussion or clarity with another or outside participant.

While there is no real solution to irrelevant side conversations, outside of simple respect for the speaker, we can do our part to ensure participants time is not being wasted by only inviting those necessary for the subject at hand.

Minimize Email 

Email may be one of the worst forms of communication, as it reinforces the practice of throwing something over the wall and incurring the #lean waste of waiting for a reply. I understand that there are some introverted people that are more comfortable sending an IM or email to someone than communicating verbally, however, we should look for ways to include them in the conversations more directly.

If there is a lot of data to discuss – as has been asserted by some as an exception to this principle – why would you want to send it via email for someone to review? These artifacts are often complex and difficult to explain through written email or other electronic means. A better option is a centralized repository where data can be reviewed, edited, and version controlled. Whenever possible, it is preferable and more efficient to discuss artifacts collectively than to ask individuals to review them in a silo.

Lastly, have you ever noticed how bad some people are at managing their email? I have witnessed individuals with well over 1000 unread emails in their inbox. How do you ever expect them to be effective at communicating in a timely manner when they have that many emails overloading their inbox? How long do you think it will take them to respond to your inquiry? How often do you think emails “fall through the cracks” and are forgotten or missed? In my experience email is a serious challenge for some and cannot be relied on as an efficient or effective means to communicate across an organization.

In my experience, face-to-face communication is still the most effective way to communicate information, but in todays virtual environment we must adapt and understand that this is not always possible. Distributed teams and remote work have become the new normal. To convey information in the most efficient and effective way, we must communicate in a way that is fully understood by all parties in the least amount of time possible. We must be agile, and adaptable.

Choose the best method under the circumstances. Whenever possible, if you can meet face-to-face, do so, as this is the most efficient and effective means. This can be one-on-one, or in meetings, focus groups, workshops, trainings, or otherwise.

If that is not possible, consider web conferencing. Having a video presence provides personal interaction and allows you to see people’s expressions. While some people refrain from turning on their cameras, we can socialize the desire and rely on peer pressure to encourage greater participation. Additionally, these have the added benefit, as needed, of being recordable to capture outcomes and/or share with others who were unable to attend.

Internet down? Consider a phone call, where you lose the non-verbal cues, but still get the tone of voice, and a full range of verbal expressiveness. In a remote environment, this may be challenging as many colleagues may be hesitant to provide their personal phone numbers to everyone who asks for it. Work-Life balance is a thing after all.

Next comes chats or IM’s. No matter the tool you use, you at least get live interaction most of the time, and the bonus of emoticons and GIFs. Humor anyone?

Lastly, consider an email, in which expressions, tone of voice, and quick back-and-forth interaction is often lost. While email is a great form to confirm written agreement on a discussion, it is the least efficient or effective means to convey information to and within a development team.

Thoughts?