DAVID: Ruth, I think we should buy the ABC software to track trouble tickets and issues.

RUTH: There is no budget for that.

DAVID: But it takes me days to put together the information you want about the state of the product. And without an automated collection mechanism, I think many problems aren’t being reported.

RUTH: Provide the best information available.

DAVID: @#!~

Like many technical people who don’t know the basic ingredients and recipe for selling their ideas to management, David leaves this interaction feeling frustrated.

I’ve felt the hurt of management rejecting my ideas. When I look back on those experiences, I see a clear pattern — rejection was an understandable response to my failure to connect an idea to something that management considered significant.

Think back to a personal experience when someone was trying to persuade you to do something. If whatever they wanted you to do — such as buying insurance, volunteering your time, or making an investment — didn’t offer you significant value, didn’t you reject or ignore it?

Upper managers’ thought process isn’t different than yours. They need to know how an idea connects to something that is significant to them. If you want a thousand times better chance to sell an idea to management at any level, connect it to something that has significant value to that person.

Change the Perspective

Did David put Ruth’s desires first during his dialog with her? No. His desires dominate the interaction. That’s a huge mistake.

Effective selling focuses on the buyer, not the seller.

But David can change the perspective. It starts by doing research about Ruth. By recalling past interactions with Ruth, reviewing emails from her, and querying his network about her goals, David quickly finds many things that Ruth value. It surprises him that he never took the time to notice them before. Three things seem significant: 1) Ruth wants to hire additional testers; 2) her management has rejected her proposal to hire more testers; and 3) she wants her management to see that her organization is delivering more quality at a lower cost.

Change the Recipe

Learning about what matters the buyer is the vital ingredient for successful selling. But the flavor of that ingredient is enhanced when combined with other ingredients using a simple recipe.

The following recipe has served me well over the years when preparing for a selling interaction:

If you do X (the idea), you will get Y (the benefits).

Otherwise (if you do nothing) it will cost you Z (the cost of doing nothing).

Do I have your approval to do X?

In his first interaction with Ruth, David articulated X (the idea) but he didn’t articulate Y (the benefits) and Z (the cost of doing nothing). And he didn’t ask for approval to take action so Ruth didn’t have to explicitly reject his idea. She was free to ignore it, which is what she did.

Using the recipe, David can put the ingredients of the interaction with Ruth in context. He sees that the idea (X) is for the company to buy the ABC software package to track trouble reports. The benefits (Y) to Ruth are related to the three thinks he discovered that are significant to her. The cost of doing nothing (Z) is unknown, which tells him to estimate that cost before the interaction. And finally the recipe reminds him to explicitly ask Ruth for permission to proceed with the purchase.

Change the Interaction

Let’s look how David’s interaction with Ruth might change after using the recipe and updating the interaction with what he has discovered:

DAVID: Ruth, if you approve the purchase of the ABC software to collect and analyze trouble ticket data, you could justify to your management the additional testers you’ve talked about hiring. The software will enable us to provide management with timely summaries of the troubles encountered by both the testers and beta clients. If we continue to be unable to articulate the quality of the product, we will continue to ineffectively prioritize the use of our developers. I estimate that poor prioritization is wasting 30% of the development’s time, which works out to about $150K per month.

RUTH: I don’t have the budget to buy the product.

DAVID: Are you willing not hire the additional testers you want and for the development organization to continue to waste $150K per month?

RUTH: @#!~

DAVID: Do I have your approval to buy the ABC software?

RUTH: Let me think about it.

DAVID: When should I check back with you?

RUTH: Friday.

Did David make an immediate sale? No. But Ruth did hear him and he is a thousand times better chance of action being taken on his idea.

Notice that David’s interaction with Ruth also provided information to justify the idea to her manager, Stan. Selling to upper management starts by selling your manager and providing information that helps them sell their manager.

If Ruth rejects the ideas, David may want to appeal to Stan. He will want to change Y (the benefits) so they resonate with Stan. As you sell higher up the management chain, the benefits that matter come from the idea’s impact on increasing revenue and reducing cost.

The same ingredients and recipe apply whenever you sell ideas to anyone, such as a teammate or client.

Summary

Many people with technical backgrounds consider “selling” to be a dirty word. That’s a curious notion. I believe selling ideas is part of every aspect of life. Many organizations fail because they buy inferior ideas from people who know how sell. If you have superior ideas, I believe you owe it to your organization and yourself to learn how to sell them effectively. Start with the lesson of putting the desires of the buyer first and your own a distant second. And use the X, Y, Z ingredients and the recipe for combining them to sell your ideas to management. You will have a thousand times better chance of selling the idea.

©2000-2010 Steven M. Smith | Permalink | 3 comments |

Virginia Satir developed this method for discovering a group’s temperature — what we in technology often call the system’s state.

A facilitator leads the discovery. He or she keeps the group focused on each agenda item; works with the group members to help them communicate information congruently; and publicly displays each contribution so the group can review the temperature data throughout the meeting.

The temperature reading consists of five items in the following sequence: 1) Appreciations, 2) New Information, 3) Puzzles, 4) Complaint with Recommendation, 5) Hopes and Wishes.

Appreciations (past)

The first item focuses the group on the positive aspects of past experiences between the members of the group.

A model for an appreciation is –

“________ (person’s name), I appreciate you for ________ (doing some specific thing).”

For example, “Don, I appreciate you for creating the annotated bibliography in the handout about personality types. It’s cool and I feel it increases the value of our handout.”

Amplify the power of an appreciation by standing face-to-face with the recipient and looking into their eyes while appreciating them.

New Information (now)

Group members may learn, within minutes of a temperature reading, news that will affect how the group sees itself . This agenda item provides an opportunity to share news so everyone has the most up to date information, which may eliminate someone’s puzzle or complaint, which prevents needless processing of them in the next two agenda items.

For instance, “Food will be served at the banquet tonight (Sunday) from 7:30–9:30pm. That time is later than previous years.”

This item is also an opportunity to alert the group to foreseeable interruptions. For instance, “My father is in the hospital and I’m expecting a call from the doctor to update me on his status. When the doctor calls, I’ll step out of the meeting for a few minutes to take his call. My (meeting) buddy will update me on what transpired while I was gone.”

Puzzles (now)

This agenda item is an opportunity to share something that is puzzling a member; for instance, “I’m puzzled about how to connect to our new file server.”

The facilitator prevents participants from using a puzzle as a vehicle to make a complaint. Complaints are the subject of the next agenda item so the facilitator will ask an individual whose puzzle sounds like a complaint to restate it during the next agenda item.

Complaint with Recommendation (now)

After puzzles are noted, the next agenda item is an opportunity to share a complaint and make a recommendation for eliminating the complaint. A recommendations is vital for preventing other members from feeling burdened to solve the complaint so — carefully note — a complaint without a recommendation is NOT allowed.

For instance, during a conference where I did a session on The Temperature Reading, a participant complained, “I won’t be able to remember the specifics about each agenda item in the temperature reading. I recommend that you provide more information about each item in a handout.” You are reading my response.

Hopes and Wishes (future)

An opportunity for members to share with each other what they would like to have happen in the future. For instance, “I hope a solution to the puzzle I mentioned emerge.”

Final Thoughts

A temperature reading is about uncovering the state of a group: It isn’t about solving a puzzle or deciding whether to accept a recommendation. Use those discoveries to schedule separate meetings to solve problems and make decisions.

The success of this method depends on how safe members feel about sharing information (for ideas about how to measure and build safety please see my Safety Check article). The safer people feel, the richer and deeper the information they will provide. Part of the facilitator’s role is to foster a safe environment where members feel safe to share what they know and how they feel.

I advise against altering the sequence of the agenda items. The sequence is carefully designed to move the group from past to present to future.

I prefer a rapid fire method for gathering people’s contribution so the reading is completed in 25–35 minutes.

I typically ask people to raise their hand if they have a contribution; create a stack of contributors; and process each person’s contribution. Processing name stacks enables me to keep the meeting within the expected duration. How? I monitor the time carefully and if we are consuming it too rapidly, I stop at the end of a name stack and move to the next agenda item.

Regardless of the methods used to collect the information, I believe you will find that a temperature reading is an effective method for revealing the state of a group to its members.

©2000-2010 Steven M. Smith | Permalink | 4 comments |

You have what you believe is an important thought to share with management. You’re concerned though that management may dislike your message. How do you assess how safe it is to share your thought with management?

It’s certainly perilous if management regularly scowls, aims their finger at you and fires words such as: “You have no right to correct me;” “you never do anything right;” and “it’s all your fault.”

The more management copes with problems by blaming others, the less safe it is for you to share potentially sensitive information with them.

I don’t need anything to measure this danger—my body automatically feels it. But if you are someone who senses rather than feels things, note the number of times you encounter blaming by management. The larger that number, the more dangerous communication is with them.

Gauge Safety

Let’s use the following three categories to gauge environmental safety:

Secure (zero blame) when you share your thoughts with management.

Risky (blame is possible) when you carelessly share your thoughts with management.

Perilous (blame is highly likely) when you share anything that doesn’t support the party line.

Frame Your Thought

Let’s explore how the safety categorizes can be used to frame your message so that you minimize the risk of being harmed by sharing your thoughts with management.

Secure — Use Complaint with Recommendation

I relish working in secure environments. I can speak my truth without fear of recrimination. But if my thinking is scattered, management may label me as someone who doesn’t think things through. That label will limit both my access to management and my opportunities for advancement.

Rather than merely making a complaint as many people do in secure environments, show management your thoughtfulness by framing your communication as a complaint with recommendation.

Let’s investigate an example: As a developer, you notice that clients are bypassing the sustaining organization and going directly to people in product development for fixes to problems. Management tells you that fixing these problems is important. You experience a decline in your productivity as you divert time to conversing with these clients and fixing their problems. You notice your colleagues are experiencing the same effects. Furthermore, the development organization failed to deliver three critical features it had promised in the last product release.

You could merely complain to management by saying, “Those damn clients are circumventing our sustaining organization and chewing up my time.” What is management supposed to do with that? They can’t read your mind. Unless they have already have thought through the dynamics, they aren’t going to know what to do. You have burdened them with yet another problem.

Let’s frame the same information differently—”I believe a key element of our failure to deliver scheduled features in our least release was caused by clients circumventing our sustaining organization and bringing their problems directly to us (the developers). I recommend that we disable this direct access and return clients to escalating their problems only through the sustaining organization.”

You’ve registered a problem with management but, just as importantly, you have provided them an action they can take to solve the problem.

Management in secure environments appreciate people who make complaints with recommendations. They label them as people who think things through. That’s how I want to be labeled. I suspect that’s how you want to be labeled.

Risky — Use Puzzle

Let’s look at how that same information might be framed in a risky environment where your uncertain about whether it’s safe to speak your mind. A complaint with recommendation may expose you to danger in a risky environment, instead frame your thought as a puzzle.

For instance, “I am puzzled about whether there is a relationship between our clients going directly to product development for fixes rather than working with our sustaining organization and our inability to ship all the scheduled features in our last release.”

That statement is neither a complaint, conclusion, nor recommendation. You’ve suggested that there may be a relationship, but you aren’t sure. The puzzle is open for discussion, data exploration, and interpretation. If management probes, you can choose to provide more information and you can can help them reach a conclusion and solution. Otherwise, you can let the puzzle go knowing that the timing was wrong for that conversation.

Timing is critical for management to recognize things in risky environments. Puzzles offer the possibility for you to safely offer the opportunity for management to become aware of a situation. Puzzles also help you probe for whether the timing is right for communication with management on that topic.

Perilous — Use Silence

How do you frame that same information in a perilous environment? You don’t.

Maintain your silence. Perilous means sharing any thought that deviates from the party line will expose you to harm. It would be masochistic to share potentially sensitive information with management. If you need a catharsis, talk with a colleague or someone outside the organization.

Keep your mouth shut, hope for an organizational change, and look for a new job.

Final Thoughts

I like sharing my thoughts with management. They are my partners in producing the desired organizational results.

I am depressed by my recommendation that you keep your mouth shut in a perilous environment. I suppose that’s why I don’t always follow my own recommendation. But I recognize that 95% of my attempts were ineffectual and harmed me.

I am uplifted by recognizing that solidly framed communication in secure and risky environments will increase the chances of management respecting people’s thoughts. In my experience, puzzles and complaint with recommendation are powerful frames for communicating with management.

I believe in accepting the environment as it is now rather than how I would like it to be. If I’m hiking in the desert, I carefully monitor and consume my water so that I survive. Organizational environments can be like deserts. You are wise to carefully construct and share your thoughts. Your organizational survival and growth depend on it.

Wishing for you encounters with management where you see the palms of their hands rather than the tip of their index finger.

What’s your experience communicating in perilous environments? What tips will you share with me?

©2000-2010 Steven M. Smith | Permalink | 5 comments |

Ban whining. It’s destructive communication inside organizations.

Why is whining destructive? How can a whiny complaint be transformed into a constructive, actionable proposal?

You ask Anthony, who reports to you, “How are things going?”

Anthony unloads on you like a dump truck unloading fertilizer, “I’m sick and tired of the mandatory meetings that your management is forcing me to attend. Management schedules these meetings at the last minute, which forces me to reschedule conflicting appointments and meetings. I’m losing credibility. And I’m pissed off about the poor organization of the mandatory meetings. I sit and listen to things that don’t matter to me. Attending these meetings wastes my time. Will this stupidity ever stop?”

Please, whatever you do, don’t say, “I’ll see what I can do about the problem.”

Utter those words and you take ownership of the problem. Anthony will rightly expect that you will do something about his problem. You are setting both Anthony and yourself up for disappointment.

When you accept responsibility for the complaint embedded in the whining, you add to your own burden; you make communication indirect; and you fail to train your people effectively.

Step back. Do you know what will satisfy Anthony? You can’t. I haven’t given you enough information to know. If you think you already know the problem and its solution, then you are assuming too much.

By unloading on you, Anthony may already be satisfied. Ask him, “What would you like me to do?”

You may be surprised to hear Anthony say, “Nothing. I know your management. That’s the way they do business. You can’t do anything.”

But if Anthony says, “I want you to talk with your management about the problem.”

Start training Anthony by replying, “Tell me the problem.”

“I thought I already told you the problem.” says Anthony.

“No. I heard a lot of things, but I didn’t hear a clear problem statement.”

Antony looks down at your desk as he ponders your statement.

“Uh…” sputters out of his mouth. “Uh… Scheduling mandatory meetings at the last minute isn’t fair?”

You ask, “What’s the impact on you of scheduling meetings at the last minute.”

“I have to reschedule other meetings and appointments at the last minute.” answers Anthony.

You ask, “What’s the impact of these scheduling changes to the business?”

“Some of the meetings I have to reschedule are with clients and some of them don’t like last minute changes.” replies Anthony.

You verify the problem by saying, “So I gather the problem is that last minute mandatory meetings are hurting relationships with our clients.” And you ask, “Is that close?”

Anthony looks you in the eye and says, “I know where you are going… That definition is close enough.”

Continue coaching by asking, “What do you recommend that my management do?”

Anthony continues looking you in the eyes as he replies, “I realize your management will need a few emergency meetings so I recommend that 90% of all mandatory meetings be scheduled at least one week in advance.”

“Sounds good. Email me the complaint and recommendation so I can forward it to my management?”

“My name will be on the message?” asks Anthony.

“Yes, of course, it’s your problem. Right?”

“Let me think about it. I’ll get back to you.”

©2000-2010 Steven M. Smith | Permalink | 7 comments |

First published in the Management Chronicles of Better Software Magazine, January – February, 2008 issue. It’s also posted on the stickyminds website.

<>

A smile formed on Eleanor’s face as she saw me approach her doorway.

She and I were meeting to discuss her views on recognizing and rewarding employees. She had been my manager for three years when I worked as a developer. A skillful manager, her recognition and rewards had brought out the best in me and my teammates.

I am now a manager in the testing organization. Although I recognize and reward the members of my team as best I can, I know that Eleanor’s recognition and rewards are more effective than mine. I knew what she did, but I knew little about the thought process behind her actions.

I wanted to learn about the thoughts that shaped her actions, because I suspected they could help me.

As I entered, Eleanor moved around her desk, extended her hand, and said, “Trevor, it’s great to see you. How is Ginny’s first semester at the U going?”

Typical Eleanor. Although we hadn’t talked in months, she remembered that my daughter Ginny had started at the university two months ago. How did she remember details like that?

“She’s doing well,” I answered, reaching out to shake her hand. “Although I think she may be a little homesick. Thank you for asking.”

“Sit down,” Eleanor said, motioning to a chair that I had sat in many times. She moved to the other side of the small, circular conference table and sat down.

“How can I help?” she asked.

“I want to learn the secrets you use to recognize and reward employees,” I replied.

“Secrets?” Eleanor’s forehead crinkled as she started to laugh. “I don’t have any secrets.”

“Your methods may not seem like a secret to you,” I said, returning her laughter, “but I don’t see any other managers rewarding the members of their teams as effectively as you. For instance, I recall your giving Fredericko soccer tickets as a reward for the work he did on the Tahoma project. He told me how thrilled he was to receive them. Other managers give their people trinkets, such as pens and USB flash drives.”

“Oh, I hope taking the time to know people well enough to reward them with something that will please them isn’t a secret,” she said. But you’re right. Some managers do reward people with trinkets. I don’t believe in that.”

I probed, “Why?”

She looked up for a few seconds, then slowly leveled her eyes with mine and said, “I suppose my behavior follows directly from a story my mentor told me years ago about a reward he received. At the banquet for the program he led, his manager gave him a gold watch.”

“A gold watch sounds like a great reward to me.”

“It did to me, too,” Eleanor said slowly. But it turns out my mentor is allergic to metal. It causes him to break out in hives. Although he never said anything to his manager, he told me he felt insulted by being given something that he could never use. He thought his manager should have known him well enough to give him something he would enjoy.

“The look of hurt on my mentor’s face still drives me to this day to learn enough about each member of my team to know the rewards that would please them.”

Eleanor continued, “You may be surprised, though, to find out that some people tell me that they don’t like receiving awards. They feel like they’re being bribed.”

“What do you do for them?” I asked.

Eleanor leaned back in her chair and said, “I explain to them that receiving a reward is part of a bigger process.”

“What do you mean by that?” I sputtered, caught off guard.

“When I give an award to someone at a big event, it exposes that person and his work to other members of the organization. And that exposure leads directly to more opportunities in the organization for him.”

“Those rewards you gave me did bring me opportunities. No question about it.” I said.

“I haven’t had anyone insist he didn’t want an award after my explanation. But if anyone ever does, I won’t force him to accept an award. I’ll find another way to communicate his value and the value of his work to the other members of the organization.”

“Are there other questions I should be asking about rewards?” I asked.

Eleanor looked up and didn’t say anything for a few seconds.

“I can’t think of anything.”

“Then tell me your thoughts on recognition,” I said.

“I invest significant energy recognizing things that team members do to help the team be more effective. The essence of what I do is what my mentor called ?Catch Them Doing It Right.’”

“What did he mean by that?”

“He believed that the behavior of people in organizations is shaped by every organizational action and, just as importantly, every organizational inaction. He thought of recognition both as feedback and as action. He coached me to provide immediate feedback to employees when I caught them doing something right. And he also taught me how to leverage other team members to provide similar feedback.”

“Whoa!” I said. “I remember we had a segment in status meetings where we appreciated people for something specific they had done that helped us. You said it was something you learned from a famous family therapist. That’s recognition?”

“You got it,” Eleanor said. “The part of recognition that’s the most overlooked is providing the feedback as close as possible to when the behavior happens.”

“What else should I be asking you about recognition?” I asked.

“You should be asking me why it’s important to recognize a behavior as soon as possible.”

“You’re right. That’s exactly what I should be asking. Please tell me why.”

Eleanor’s eyes sparkled as she said, “It’s to increase the chances that the behavior is repeated by that member. Then the other members who hear the recognition consider exhibiting similar behavior. I like to think of it as planting the seeds of effective behaviors.”

“Is there anything else should I be asking you about recognition?”

She smiled. “I can’t think of anything. And now is a good stopping point because I have another meeting in five minutes. Did the discussion help you?”

“Yes, I got more help than I expected. Thanks for your help, Eleanor. Would it be alright if I sent you an email outlining my understanding?”

“Of course, I would like that. And please let Deanna know that I appreciate her for the coaching she gave Sanjay today on putting automated unit tests in his code. That’s going to pay dividends in speed and quality as we go through the development of the new product. Normally I would send her an email, but I think it would be more powerful coming from you,” she said with a wink.

©2000-2010 Steven M. Smith | Permalink | No comment |

“What?” raced through Janet’s head as she read the email. “Now that’s a surprise.”

The message was from Jack Johnson, vice president of development. It said she would receive a meeting request from Rajan Alak, an outside consultant, to interview her about the problems with the new system. The message went on to say the company had made a significant capital investment in the development of Synergy and problems with the system were preventing the company from enjoying the expected ROI. Jack asked Janet to give Rajan her full cooperation.

“He wants me to give an outside consultant—a total stranger—my full cooperation?”

The problems with Synergy didn’t surprise Janet. She had invested almost all of her time during the past year in developing the system. She believed the business planners had been too aggressive with the system integration plans. She thought the company’s chance of achieving the projected ROI was zero. Her suspicion was that the projection was based on politics rather than reality.

A portion of Jack’s message was a surprise: In addition to fixing the problem with Synergy, he wanted to fix problems in the development process that had caused the issues with the system. Solving problems with the development process was an initiative Janet had wanted to see since she started her job seven years ago.

She waited to exhale and asked herself, “How much should I tell this outside consultant? Will my statements be used against me? Or my manager?” And as she exhaled, no answers came.

The next morning Janet received the meeting request from Rajan to interview her the following Wednesday. The request included a copy of Jack’s message and told her she would receive more information about the interview in a forthcoming email.

A part of her kept wondering, “How much can I say?”

Rajan’s email titled “The Interview Process” arrived two days later. Janet read the message carefully. It said she had complete control over the information she shared. She could choose to have information marked as originating from her, originating from an anonymous source, or recorded as off the record. Rajan said that after the interview she would receive a transcript of the “on the record” parts of the interview for her review and approval. Rajan emphasized he would not share any of her comments with anyone else until she approved them.

“Hmm . . . ” she thought. “Maybe it’s OK to share what I know.”

Fundamentals

The quality of an interview depends on how safe the interviewee feels. People guard their knowledge when their answers may endanger themselves or a valued colleague. The safer the interviewee feels about answering questions, the higher the quality of information available to the interviewer.

Creating a safe environment is only the start. In addition to safety, the quality of a set of interviews–whose purpose is to discover problems and solutions–depends on managing the sponsor, interviewing the right people, and interacting skillfully with the interviewees.

Let’s explore effective actions available to the interviewer before, during, and after the face-to-face interview.

Before the Interview

Sponsor Agreement

Gaining clarity about the objectives of the sponsor saves everyone time. Help your sponsor write down what is important to him and, just as importantly, what will gain the cooperation of the interviewees. Have the sponsor sign off on a written set of discovery objectives and a list of people to be interviewed.

For instance, if a vice president says her objective is to fix the problems with a system, her message will be compelling to some of her people. Adding that she also desires to solve the development problems that caused the system’s problems may energize additional people.

Rarely does anyone create objectives that are compelling to everyone. Objectives that are compelling to some people may de-energize others. So, focus on creating compelling objectives for the people whose opinions matter most to your sponsor.

Overcome Restrictions

You will want to talk to the organization’s customers. Some organizations carefully restrict who communicates with their customers. Despite these barriers, assume management wants you to speak with them. Work with your sponsor to identify which customers you will interview. If your sponsor objects to your talking directly to the customer, negotiate. Explain that without customer feedback, the most that can be discovered is less than half the available information.

I prefer to interview the customers first. I want to hear their unfiltered perspectives about outcomes that were expected but never satisfied. Next, I like to interview key middle managers to gain additional perspective. The customer and middle management interviews reveal a panorama of the most visible problems and provide an opportunity to find out more about whose opinion is the most influential.

Sponsor Communication

Regardless of whether you are an inside or outside interviewer, the person you are interviewing needs to hear from his management why he is being interviewed, who will perform the interview, and what actions management expects from him. In the introductory story, a vice president, Jack Johnson, provided that information to Janet.

Prepare an email for the sponsor to send to all the people being interviewed. Take control; if the context isn’t set properly, it will be a barrier to your success. If the sponsor is uncomfortable with your message, ask him to discuss it with you and work with him to revise it so it works for the sponsor and you.

Ask the sponsor to send the message to each interviewee individually. My experience is that messages addressed to a single recipient gain more attention than messages addressed to a group.

Also ask the sponsor to mention the interviews in staff meetings and to emphasize the importance to the interviewees. Scheduling interviews is difficult in busy organizations. When upper management deems the interviews to be of high priority, middle management will more readily support the scheduling of its people’s time. Otherwise, the interviews will be a low-priority event that may never happen.

Interviewer Communication

After the message is sent from the sponsor, it’s up to you to schedule the interview. I suggest you attach the sponsor’s original message to your scheduling request so recipients can review it. The inclusion of the original message prevents confusion by people who may not have read the message from their management.

Follow the meeting request with an email from you to each interviewee explaining how the process will work. This message lets the interviewee know he controls the use of the information he shares. This email will surprise the recipient. People in large organizations frequently receive messages about protecting the company’s rights but rarely receive messages giving them rights.

My preference for the first interview requires no preparation by the interviewee. If you are interviewing the right people, they already know everything they need to know. Inform the interviewee that he doesn’t need to do anything prior to the interview.

I strongly suggest you telephone the interviewee the day before the interview to confirm the time and location. Priorities change regularly in organizations and the interviewee may need to cancel the interview. Knowing about cancellations early will enable you to reschedule your day. If your call is transferred to voice mail, let the interviewee know the time and location of the interview, leave your cell phone number, and let him know that you’ll assume everything is as scheduled, unless you hear from him.

Question Sequencing

The sequence of your questions contributes significantly to a successful interview. A key aspect of most interviews is gathering information about problems. I like to look at questions as either branches or stems. Branch questions move to a new subject area. Stem questions (indented below) gather more detail about a branch. Let’s look at a high-level plan for sequencing questions during a sixty-minute interview:

Q: Who is your customer?

• How does your customer relate to Synergy?
• Who else is your customer?
• Would you recommend that I interview any of the people you mentioned?

Q: What problems did Synergy solve?

• Tell me more.
• Anything else?
• Someone in a previous interview mentioned that Synergy retired a number of older applications. What’s your take on that?

Q: What problems did Synergy create?

• Tell me more–what evidence do you have?
• Who else should I talk to about that problem?
• Who might see this differently?
• Anything else?
• Francois suggested that I ask you about complaints about poor performance. What can you tell me about that?
• Why did this problem occur?
• Could something have been done to prevent it?
• What suggestions do you have for fixing the problems?

Q: What problems happened during development?

• Tell me more.
• How did that affect you?
• What else?
• What recommendations do you have for fixing the problems?

Q: What other questions should I be asking you?

• How would you answer your questions?
• Anything else?

Q: Do you have any questions for me?

Q: May I contact you if I have additional questions?

These questions can be asked to anyone in the organization. As you gain information from each interview, adapt your questions to fit the person you are interviewing.

Metaquestions

In addition to questions on the topic of interest, effective interviewers equip themselves with metaquestions to gather feedback about the interview process itself. Metaquestions are questions about questions. For instance, if you see a puzzled look on the interviewee’s face, you might respond, “I see a look on your face that suggests to me that you might be puzzled by my question.”

I find answers to metaquestions open new possibilities about what to do next. For instance, you may discover that the person you are interviewing has a different role than you thought and the role isn’t relevant to the discovery. Rather than continue the interview and waste his time and yours,you now have the option of ending the interview. The following is a list of metaquestions I have found valuable in any interview situation:

• Do you have any questions for me?
• Do my questions seem relevant?
• Do my questions puzzle you?
• Are you the right person to answer these questions?
• Is there anything else I should be asking you?

Don’t Worship the Plan

Plan the interview, but don’t worship your plan. Effective interviewers adapt to the desires of the interviewee. Don’t be the type of interviewer who never deviates from his list of questions. I have experienced that kind of interviewer, and I wondered if he even heard or cared about my responses.

If the interviewee makes it clear that he would enjoy answering more questions, you have connected. And connection is an objective of every interview.

During the Interview

Virginia Satir, a pioneering family therapist, created an interaction model that offers interviewers insight into how to conduct an interview. Satir insightfully broke down each interview interaction into a series of steps. She suggested that careful processing of each step offered new choices for strengthening the connection between the interviewer and the other person.

Satir’s interaction model can be summarized as follows: Perceive -> Interpret -> Evaluate -> Respond.

Let’s use the interaction model to examine a portion of the interview from the perspective of Rajan, the interviewer. For example, Rajan asks Janet, “What problems did Synergy solve?”

Perceive

The first step in the interaction model is to perceive the interviewee’s response. Rajan hears and sees Janet’s response. The words are a single component of Janet’s response; other components–such as tone, pace, breathing, and facial expression–are also part of her response.

For instance, before Janet uttered a single word in response to the question about the value of a solution, Rajan noticed her eyes narrow and her forehead crinkle. Rather than rush to interpret the words, the interaction model suggests there is an opportunity to gather more data before interpreting meaning.

Rajan has the opportunity to say something like this to Janet: “I noticed that your eyes narrowed and your forehead crinkled before you answered my question. I’m not sure how to interpret that reaction. What can you tell me about it?” Regardless of how Janet responds, Rajan has gained additional and perhaps more relevant data about Janet’s response.

Janet blinks, straightens herself, and answers, “It would mean a whole lot to the department. We could process work faster.” Let’s analyze this. Notice that Janet’s words are about the value of the solution to her department rather than to herself. Without further probing, valuable data could be missed.

An effective interviewer explores how something directly affects the interviewee. That’s the subject where the interviewee has total expertise. Rajan, an experienced interviewer, then asks Janet a clarifying question, “What would a highly effective solution to the problem do for you?” Rajan might ask several probing questions to gain more specific data about the value of the solution to Janet.

Interpret

The second step in the interaction model is to interpret the data. Rajan decodes Janet’s meaning from the data he gained through his senses. Successful completion of this step happens when the interviewee agrees that the interviewer’s interpretation is the same as his meaning.

Sometimes interpretation is simple. For instance, Rajan says, “Janet, I understand that solving the problem would save you four to six hours per week. Does that capture the value of the solution for you?” If Janet says yes, Rajan is done with that question. But watch for her wanting to say more. After a long pause from Rajan, she may say, “But the most important thing is that I then could rely on the accuracy of the results.” Now Janet has revealed the real value to her.

Sometimes interpretation is difficult. Transmission errors are normal. Your perception might be wrong. The interviewee might have said something wrong and not realized it. That’s why it’s crucial to gain the interviewee’s agreement about this meaning. After you publish the findings and recommendations, the last thing you want to hear is an interviewee saying, “That’s not right,” “That’s not what I said,” or “That’s not what I meant.”

Let me suggest a method for confirming that you have captured an interviewee’s meaning correctly. Ask the interviewee a series of “Do you mean X? Do you mean Y? Do you mean Z?” questions until you hear three “Yes” answers. For instance, Janet may have provided Rajan with a lot of data about the value of the solution that doesn’t have a single simple interpretation. Rajan asks Janet:

• “Do you mean the solution will save you four to six hours per week?”
• “Do you mean the solution will enable you to more effectively communicate the status of the client’s requests?”
• “Do you mean the solution will enable you to help your colleagues with their work and for them to help you with yours?”

A “Yes” answer confirms your interpretation. “No” answers provide opportunities for finding out what was meant.

Evaluate

The third step in the interaction model is to determine the significance of the meaning. Explore how the meaning connects to value for the interviewee, organization, and customers.

For instance, consider the response “X will save me four to six hours per week.” On the surface that sounds terrific. But how significant is that savings? During the interview with the head of engineering for an airplane manufacturer, I informed him that someone in his organization said that a new system would save each of his engineers four hours per week. He squinted his eyes and said, “So what? That doesn’t guarantee me increased productivity. They may take that time savings and stare at the holes in the ceiling tiles.”

In other words, without connecting the time savings to something else, a benefit that seems obvious at one level may not be obvious at all to a different level or perspective. Dig deeper. Ask follow-up questions such as, how would you use the time savings? Keep probing until you uncover a benefit that is meaningful to the interviewee and, if possible, to his management.

Respond

The final step in the interaction model is for the interviewer to choose the next question. You can choose to continue asking stem questions, ask the first question in a new question branch, ask the first question in an unplanned branch, or ask a metaquestion to help you decide what to do next.

If you are like me, you may have times when you aren’t sure what to ask next. I have found a comment and a metaquestion that has worked well. I tell the interviewee, “I’m not sure what question to ask you next,” and then ask the metaquestion, “What question should I be asking you?”

After the Interview

Observe And Transcribe

I suggest an interviewer use a pocket recorder so you can keep your eyes on the interviewee rather than looking at your notes. Be sure to ask for permission to make a recording, and if you don’t get it, don’t record. Throughout the interview, watch for signs that the interviewee is uncomfortable with the recording. Be willing to switch it off if it’s obstructing the interview process.

Write the transcript of the interview as soon as you can. The transcript only includes the material you may want to use in your discovery report. Share only what is relevant and needs to be confirmed by the interviewee.

I like to tell the interviewee that anything in the transcript is something that I might quote directly. I believe it’s extremely powerful to include in the discovery report quotes from people in the organization as well as customers. If the interviewee grants you permission to quote him, give him the credit for discovering a problem and how to fix it.

Don’t Share Until Approved

Don’t share information from the interview with anyone until the interviewee has given you permission. And let me be clear: I mean no one else. That includes the sponsor and your manager. You have made a commitment to the interviewee with the hope he would feel safe to share things with you. Don’t break your promise.

Adapt Your Plan

From each transcript, follow the suggestions about questions to ask other people. The interviewee gave you a person’s name because he thought that person knew something important or his thoughts had significant influence within the organization. Use this information.

Revise your question plan based on what you have learned during the interview.

Thank the Participants

Thank the participants at the end of the interview. Thank them when you send the transcript. Thank them when all the interviews are done. Thank them all in the preface to your report.

The more appreciation you show the participants, the more they will appreciate you.

Summary

Interviewing is an art. Learning how to do it effectively takes practice.

I’ve made many suggestions. If you can only do three of them, I recommend:

1. Building a foundation of safety so interviewees will tell you what they know.
2. Conducting face-to-face interviews so you hear and see what is being communicated.
3. Planning your questions and using metaquestions to adapt to the needs of the interviewee.

By executing a set of effective interviews, you will gain knowledge about the organization and its problems that no single person in the organization can offer you.

Remember to conduct yourself with integrity every step of the way. It’s fundamental for gaining the trust of people you are interviewing.

Originally published as Drawing Out the Facts: The Art of the Discovery Interview in Better Software Magazine, July, 2007 issue.

©2007 Steven M. Smith

©2000-2010 Steven M. Smith | Permalink | No comment |

Do some members of your team make agreements during meetings but fail to support them afterwards? If this behavior is happening, I suspect your team is using an obscure process to make decisions.

Identifying Obscure Process

An obscure decision making process is easy to identify. Ask each member to create a map of the process used to make team decisions. If the individual maps aren’t similar, obscure is an accurate description of the process.

Probe the maps of an obscure process further and you will find false assumptions. Members assume things about the behavior of other members that isn’t true; for instance, some members assume that their teammates will support the decision made by a team and how it was made with outsiders and yet some other members assume that their support is only necessary when they personally agree with the decision.

I believe an obscure decision making process disables teamwork. People aren’t connected by shared principles. They don’t cooperate. They work like a group of individuals. It doesn’t have to be this way.

I have worked with a simple, clear process for making team decisions for over a decade. I have found it highly effective. It’s designed for teams who make their decisions by consensus. If you are the leader of a team, you may object to the idea of a consensus decision. The idea may trigger the word “groupthink” to pop into your head. But as I will discuss later in this post, a leader has more control over a consensus decision than they might initially think.

Making Team Decisions

The aforementioned simple process is called Roman Evaluation. Figure 1 is a map of the process. Using the process creates visible feedback about the state of each member’s agreement on a proposed team decision. That feedback drives needed discussion and eliminates unneeded discussion.

Figure 1. A Map of the Roman Evaluation Process

Follow the following four steps to help a team reach a decision:

1. Propose

A proposal that defines a course of action desired by a member of the team drives the process. Without a concrete proposal, there isn’t any decision to be made.

The first four words of any proposal are “I propose that we…” This wording explicitly announces the proposer’s desire; for example, “I propose that we reduce the duration of this meeting to 60 minutes.”

Note, the word “we” is used to clearly identify that it is a team decision.

Post a written copy of the proposal in the room so that every member is able to read it own their own during the entire decision making process. The proposal may be amended so leave room for changes.

I would write the proposal mentioned earlier as, “Steve proposes that we reduce the duration of this meeting to 60 minutes.” Communicate it to the group using whatever medium you prefer, such as a flip chart, overhead projector or computer projector.

2. Discuss

Let the proposer speak first so he or she can provide context. Start facilitating a group discussion with an explicit duration. The purpose of the discussion is to understand the proposal and its impact. Using the example, I might ask the proposer: “What’s the problem you are trying to solve by reducing the duration of the meeting?” I might ask the team, “What do you think?”

My experience is that groups often exceed the time allocated for discussions so constantly monitor the time and periodically share how much time remains. Whenever either the discussion naturally ends or the time limit expires, close the discussion and vote.

3. Vote

A group recognizes their agreement faster with clear signals. Ask each person to signal their decision with one of their thumbs:

• Up means “I agree.”
• Sideways means “I will accept the majority’s decision and support it.”
• Down means either “I disagree.” or “I have something to say.”

I suggest that you emphasize that a thumb up or sideways means the member will support the proposal. Spell out that support means they will say “We decided to…” when asked about a decision by an outsider (see my post entitled Word Choices — We — Part 2). And they will defend the logic behind why the decision was made. This understanding makes voting a serious responsibility rather than a ho-hum exercise.

The vote gives the team clear feedback about the state of their agreement on the proposal. It enables different choices to be made than are possible without feedback.

Record the vote and verify that you have the same number of votes as members. A consensus is any mixture of thumbs pointing up or sideways. Any thumb pointing down signifies dissension.

4. Process

As you tally the vote, write down the names of people with their thumb down. Ask each dissenter, name by name, what he or she would like to say about their vote. Don’t let anyone interrupt them. When each dissenter finishes, ask them whether their thumb is still down. They may surprise you. My experience is that many people want to say something and once they do, they move their thumb up or sideways.

If there is still dissent, ask the team whether someone wants to amend the proposal. If someone offers an amendment, discuss, vote, and process. Otherwise, reject the proposal.

Considering Consensus

As you may have guessed, I believe in consensus decision making. Some leaders have told me they don’t like it though. They believe it leads to “groupthink.” I understand the thought, but that doesn’t happen. If the leader makes it clear that in the absence of a consensus they will decide on the course of action, groupthink is impossible.

The leader is a member of the team. They vote on a proposal. And, like all the other members, they are free to vote so the team makes the appropriate decision. If they put their thumb down and an acceptable amendment can’t be found, then they are free to make the decision they think is best.

I suggest that leaders don’t make a habit of using this power. But, in my experience, some situations demand decisions in a faster time frame than a team may be able to process them.

Conclusion

Roman Evaluation has a powerful effect on decision making. It connects the members of the team. It creates shared principles. It increases cooperation. It helps build a solid foundation for teamwork.

When reinforced, the act of voting makes it clear that unless a member vetos a proposal, as a member of the team, they are expected to support the proposal. And that’s the kind of thinking that binds a team together.

If your team’s decision making process needs improvement, I can help. Contact me.

©2000-2010 Steven M. Smith | Permalink | No comment |

What does it say about the participants of a weekly meeting when the meeting consistently starts 5-10 minutes behind schedule?

Answer, the participants are cooperating with each other to start late.

Starting late is the status quo.

Let’s explore:

1. Are you cooperating with the participants of your meetings to start late?
2. How do you feel about that?
3. How do you feel about feeling that way?

Let me share how I would have answered the questions in 1990:

1. Yes, I have cooperated with others to start late
2. I feel powerless to change the status quo
3. I feel angry about feeling powerless

I have never liked feeling angry. But I felt powerless to change the status quo so what could I do about the situation?

I had more power than I first thought. I took a deep breath. I decided to arrive before the scheduled start time. I encouraged other participants to arrive early. I worked to become a meeting leader; and, when I became a leader, I demanded that people arrive on time.

Arriving early and encouraging other participants was successful at bringing more people into the room before the scheduled start time. Becoming a meeting leader and demanding that meetings start on time was a failure.

Despite my embarrassment, let me share just five of the many interventions I tried as a meeting leader to cause meetings to start on time:

• Rescheduling the meeting to a start time all participants agreed would work
• Contracting with the participants to arrive on schedule
• Locking the door to the room at the scheduled start time
• Cancelling meetings when an agreed upon quorum wasn’t present
• Publishing the names of the late arrivers in the meeting minutes

After gaining feedback from these interventions, I realized that successfully starting the meeting with all of the participants required the cooperation of, surprise, all the participants. The decision about whether we started on time was theirs to make.

Rather than fighting the status quo, I thought, “Why not make the status quo visible so every participant can decide for themselves whether it is acceptable?”

So Agenda Item #1 for all my meetings became Wait for people who arrive late. All the agenda items in my agenda have durations. I assign the duration for item #1 as the difference between the actual start time and scheduled start time of the previous meeting.

The agenda item looks like—

#1. Wait for people who arrive late. 10 minutes

Regardless of why the status quo existed, its existence is out there for everyone to see.

What happened?

Reactions varied: Some participants didn’t react to the agenda item. They seemed to think it signaled nothing. Some participants commented that they thought the agenda item started the meeting out on a sour note and wanted it eliminated. And some participants thought starting late was unacceptable and they wanted to do something about it.

It’s easy to sense which reaction creates an opportunity to change the status quo.

Agenda Item #1 offers the opportunity for people to choose whether they want to continue the status quo or start changing it. I wish I could tell you agenda item #1 always triggered a change that caused a meeting I led to start on time. It didn’t. It does, however, always offer an opportunity for the participants to choose again. And sometime that’s all that’s needed to trigger the change process that creates a new, more effective status quo.

You may be wondering, Does starting meetings on time truly matter? I believe it does. If people are the organs of an organization, then meetings are are surely its lifeblood. These gatherings are where people come to define and solve problems as well as status projects. The more healthy a meeting, the more healthy the organization. And, conversely, the sicker the meetings, the sicker the organization.

If the people who participate in a meeting can’t cooperate to start their meeting on time, what chance is there they will cooperate to start a project on time? I you were a member of a relay team running a race against another team, would you agree that everyone on the team can arrive for the race whenever it fits for them?

The same people who participate in meeting are the same people who are responsible for the tasks in a project. A meeting is nothing but the simplest of projects. My experience is that attitudes of participants at meetings mirror their attitudes to their task work and the project as a whole. How could they not?

How healthy are your meetings? If they are sick, gaining cooperation about starting on time and actually starting on time will make them healthier. It’s not easy to change the status quo, but it can be changed.

©2000-2010 Steven M. Smith | Permalink | No comment |

I argued in my first article about stand-up meetings that the right participants were the key to a successful meeting rather than whether the participants were standing up or sitting down. Despite my dislike for forcing people to stand up, I mentioned in that article my positive regard for other elements of the standard stand-up meeting.

What elements do I like? Why do I like them? How can we innovate?

Three elements of a SCRUM stand-up meeting stand out for me:

1. Knowing the agenda
2. Limiting duration
3. Minimizing participants

Knowing the Agenda

A daily SCRUM stand-up has each team member answer the following three questions:

• What did I accomplish yesterday?
• What will I do today? and
• What obstacles are impeding my progress?

All the participants know what is expected. I like this a lot. If the participants know what’s expected of them, they are more likely to prepare.

I think there are opportunities to innovate on this solid agenda. Rather than verbally report status information, ask each participant to write their status on sticky 3×5 cards. Ask for a separate card for each element of their answer to the three questions. For instance, 1) Completed refactoring of module Gamma, 2) Created automated test cases for module Delta, 3) Will begin coding module Delta (expect 3 days to develop), 4) Intermittent failures on server Toledo are slowing my efforts.

As you do the round robin, ask each person to read their cards and post them on a community white board. Using cards will cause the participants to prepare something before they arrive at the meeting. That will increase the pace of the statusing. It will provide information for publication to people who are interested in the project but could not attend. It can be compared with 3×5 cards from the day before to detect problems.

I also think there is an opportunity to add a fourth agenda item—What do I propose? For instance, I propose we divert our efforts on accomplishing X and use them to accomplish Y. The answer to this question notifies the team that a member wants the team to make a decision. As with the answers to the other questions, the team is notified but it doesn’t discuss or decide during the daily stand-up. That’s done at a separate meeting.

Limiting Duration

The objective for the duration of a daily stand-up meeting is 15 minutes or less.

I like short meetings. As a participant, I also like to have enough time to share my answers.

I suggest you divide 15 minutes or whatever you plan for the duration of your meeting by the number of participants. Is that enough time for a person to effectively status their work? For instance, if you have 10 participants, there is an average of 1.5 minutes available for each participant. Is that enough time? That’s 0.5 minutes to answer each question. That’s enough time for me to status, but is it enough for your participants?

I recommend that someone perform the role of time keeper. Alert each person, I like to use a chime, when they are 30 seconds from their time limit. And again when 10 seconds remain. Stop them and move to the next person when their time limit expires.

Please, don’t stop someone in the middle of their report in the first few status meetings. At a point where the participants have had sufficient time to practice delivering status, it may be time to stop them. Without being at the meeting, I can’t know whether stopping them is appropriate. But you can.

Time in a meeting is like money in the economy. It’s capital. Use it wisely and you will increase your return.

Minimizing Participants

A principle of a daily SCRUM stand-up is the separation of participants from observers. The less the number of meeting participants, the more time is available to each participant to share status information. This is a smart action and I like it a lot.

I interpret there is more to this element than merely minimizing the number of participants. It’s about gathering the right people together and demonstrating to them that they have the authority, power, and responsibility to produce the product.

If your hiring process isn’t putting the right people in the meeting, minimizing participants will be less effective than it could be.

Gathering Feedback

There isn’t a feedback component that I am aware of in the standard stand-up meeting format. I believe a status meeting becomes more effective when it adapts to its environment through the use of participant feedback. Without feedback to improve a meeting, it becomes a picture of a sprinting cheetah rather than a real sprinting cheetah. Pictures of cheetahs don’t turn when its prey makes a turn, but a real cheetah does.

Find out what turns your team needs to make by gathering feedback about the meeting. See my blog post Measure ROTI (Return On Time Investment) to learn how to gather the feedback. Note, I don’t recommend gathering feedback every meeting: I suggest instead gathering it every third or fourth meeting. When you do gather feedback, respond to it; otherwise, a picture of a snoozing cheetah is apt visualization of the state of your meeting.

Final Thoughts

Too many people believe that stand-up meeting are more effective than traditional status meeting because the participants are forced to stand up. That’s a fallacy. Increased effectiveness results from the other elements of a stand-up meeting—knowing the agenda, limiting duration, and minimizing participants. The elements are classic elements of any effective meeting. The actual application of these elements is the root cause for a stand-up meeting being more successful than a traditional status meeting.

A possible benefit for forcing people to stand up is notification. Participants who have continually experienced ineffective status meetings—those with poor agendas, poor participant preparation, poor adherence to the meeting schedule, and poor choices about who will participate—may benefit from physical notification that the meeting has changed. Once the notification is complete though, standing up loses its value.

I know people from an earlier era who believe wearing a tie makes developers more alike and more disciplined. I don’t buy it. And I don’t buy the idea that participants should keep standing up once they understand the rules for participation. Forcing a developer to continue standing up is like forcing them to wear a tie. Both actions will make them uncomfortable and neither will improve their productivity.

Use the standard stand-up meeting format as a starting point. It’s a solid foundation. Don’t worship the format. Encourage innovation so that your status meeting better responds to the unique needs of your team.

For More Information

Jason Yip, It’s Not Just Standing Up: Patterns of Daily Stand-up Meetings. It’s an excellent article.

You will find an abundance of information about this topic on the web. Search for “stand-up meetings” using your favorite search engine.

©2000-2010 Steven M. Smith | Permalink | 3 comments |

Stand-up meetings are popular in software development organizations now.

What makes a stand-up meeting more effective than a traditional meeting to socialize status information?

Nothing.

The effectiveness of a stand-up meeting, like the traditional status meeting, depends on the participants. If you have the right people at the meeting, you can be effective whether the participants are sitting down, standing up, or standing on their head.

The theory behind a stand-up meeting is that a physical reminder of the duration of the meeting will keep it shorter. The longer the meeting, the more your body signals it’s time to stop. The proponents of stand-up meetings like this natural time-boxing signal. Every participant feels the signal to some degree.

The signal may be too strong, however, for people who have a physical problem that make standing difficult. For instance, I twisted my ankle recently, it’s painful when I stand on it.

If I am a good teammate who listens and participates appropriately, does it matter whether I’m standing or sitting down with my ankle propped up? No, of course not. It matters how I participate, not the position of my body.

I have heard that proponents of stand-up meetings claim that the meetings helps build teamwork. If your teamwork is better, I am thrilled for your team. But I doubt whether the stand up component made the difference.

When I started my career, I had to wear a tie every day. The next job required a suit. Management told me clothing built teamwork. I think standing up during a meeting is like wearing a tie. My teamwork isn’t any better wearing a suit and tie than it is when I wear shorts and a t-shirt And I don’t believe my team’s effectiveness changes whether they are standing up or sitting down during a meeting.

If you want to have effective meetings of any kind, you need leaders in the room. That’s the kind of people I referred to as “the right people” earlier. Leaders who organize the meeting; leaders who lead the meeting; and leaders who follow other leaders.

If you have people who see no value in meeting with their teammates, having people stand up might help the meeting from lasting too long. But there is more to an effective meeting than preventing people from being trapped in a room.

—–

Please read about my positive regard for elements of the SCRUM stand-up meeting in my article Rethinking Stand-Up Meetings, Part 2.

©2000-2010 Steven M. Smith | Permalink | 10 comments |