Category : Management

Une maison pour les leaders – entrevue avec Rémi Tremblay (1re partie)

À l’automne dernier, j’ai eu l’occasion de me joindre à l’une des cohortes de La Maison des Leaders, une initiative lancée en 2005 par Rémi Tremblay.

À la suite de cette rencontre, je me suis posé plusieurs questions. Puis, dernièrement, j’ai eu le plaisir d’échanger avec Rémi au sujet du leadership et du développement personnel des individus, et ce, dans les bureaux de La Maison des Leaders à Montréal. Nous partageons avec vous le premier segment vidéo d’environ 30 minutes dans lequel les thèmes suivants ont été abordés :

  • l’intention de Rémi en lançant l’initiative de La Maison des Leaders et son fonctionnement;
  • les conversations entre leaders et dirigeants ainsi que la zone « sécurisée » qui permet ces conversations;
  • la transition vers un style de leadership plus équilibré.

Tout comme moi, j’espère que vous trouverez cette entrevue avec Rémi inspirante.

à bientôt,

martin

À propos de Rémi Tremblay

Rémi Tremblay a fondé Adecco Québec à 22 ans où il a œuvré pendant 17 ans jusqu’à occuper la présidence d’Adecco Canada et de ses 11 000 employés. On l’a reconnu comme l’un des douze bâtisseurs du Québec lors du Gala du commerce 2003 et il a aussi été reconnu parmi les 120 hommes et femmes au monde qui ont contribué à une éthique intégrale en entreprise par la Chaire de management éthique des HEC. Il est coauteur avec Linda Plourde de Découvrez le bonheur au boulot et avec Diane Bérard, du livre Les Fous du roi. Toujours avec Diane, il a publié un nouvel ouvrage en octobre 2009, J’ai perdu ma montre au fond du lac – Retrouver la tranquillité pour mieux gérer, mieux vivre.

L’énigme des gestionnaires – Où dois-je tracer la ligne?

Image by Lars PlougmannPierre se présente pour la réunion de l’équipe avec 5 minutes de retard. Est-ce OK?

Cynthia complète 8 des 9 tâches qu’elle s’est engagée à terminer. Est-ce un problème?

Patrick rate son objectif de ventes de 0,5%. Devrions-nous accepter cela?

En tant que gestionnaires, nous sommes rémunérés pour nous assurer que les gens livrent ce sur quoi ils se sont engagés (entre autres). C’est ce que je définis comme «l’intégrité» – dire ce que nous allons faire et faire ce que l’on a dit. S’assurer que les gens fonctionnent avec intégrité est une tâche difficile!

Revenons à nos 3 questions originales. Qu’auriez-vous fait? Accepter la situation ou faire quelque chose?

Continue Reading

150 Minutes of Power

Breakthroughs in unexpected contexts !

I recently had a startling experience while leading a meeting with a demotivated Agile pilot team.

After 2 sprints, serious concerns were still not being outspoken; people morale was low.

So, I convinced all employees and managers to get together in a session I had specifically designed for them.

Two things struck me:

First: energized by the unusual agenda, participants felt empowered at unfolding deep concerns and at finding creative solutions.

Second: I was awarded a WOW ! statement by the customer because of the positive outcome of the meeting.

This strategic partner of ours is one of the largest public companies in Canada. Are they serious about Agile ? – Yes.

Continue Reading

Lean against Agile – really?

There is a theme emerging from my 2011 coaching assignments; Lean and Agile initiatives are everywhere I go, and people are confused!

Sign of times: a pretty significant group of Lean and Agile experts just got together in Berlin earlier this month for the first European ‘ALE 2011 unconference‘; sharing their experience and knowledge on these two converging approaches.

What’s all the fuss about Lean and Agile?

In a nutshell, these two giants are fighting to get enterprise governance attention.

Continue Reading

Dirigeants d’entreprises avant-gardistes

J’ai fréquemment l’opportunité de discuter avec des leaders d’entreprises. Plusieurs d’entre eux sont innovateurs par leurs produits, leurs services ou leurs processus opérationnels et c’est stimulant d’échanger avec eux.

J’ai aussi le privilège, moins souvent cependant, d’échanger avec des dirigeants d’entreprises avant-gardistes par leur gestion des employés. Contrairement à la majorité des entreprises qui considèrent leurs employés comme des ressources humaines, les dirigeants avant-gardistes travaillent avec des êtres humains et comptent sur eux pour atteindre le succès.

Si vous croyez que ressources humaines et êtres humains sont la même chose, vous ne vous qualifiez probablement pas comme un dirigeant avant-gardiste. Désolé!

À mon avis, il y a plusieurs facteurs qui distinguent l’approche de gestion des dirigeants avant-gardistes des autres gestionnaires plus traditionnels. Je vous partage certaines de mes observations.
Continue Reading

Le but de votre entreprise… Enchanter vos clients… En fait non!

Mon collègue Martin a déjà publié un billet au sujet de la présentation que nous avons préférée jusqu’à maintenant à Agile 2011. Il s’agit de Making the Entire Organization Agile par Stephen Denning.

Je vous conseille fortement de lire le billet de Martin avant de lire ce billet car il fait un survol complet de la présentation. Ne ratez pas la courte vidéo de 1 minute.

Le bouquin Radical Management de Stephen Denning est dans ma liste de bouquins à lire depuis quelques temps. Depuis la présentation de hier, j’ai pris un peu de temps pour commencer à absorber le contenu, valider des hypothèses, intégrer les implications sur d’autres modèles d’organisation, etc. En d’autres mots, mon cerveau est en cinquième vitesse. Le bouquin de Denning se retrouve maintenant en première position dans ma liste de lectures !

Denning propose cinq changements fondamentaux qui s’imbriquent et se renforcent. Le premier étant que le but de l’entreprise (bottom line) passe de générer de l’argent pour ses actionnaires à enchanter (delight) ses clients. C’est en fait le changement fondamental que propose Denning et celui sur lequel il a passé le plus de temps durant la présentation.

Ce changement a des implications profondes car il demande entre autre de passer d’une logique de production (output) qui génère des profits à une logique de produire un résultat (outcome). Je crois que c’est absolument génial que des entreprises réalisent ce changement fondamental qui amène à prendre une perspective plus globale.

Il est important de rappeler que Denning nous dit que de simplement adopter ce but d’enchanter nos clients ne fonctionnera pas et qu’il est nécessaire d’adopter les quatre autres changements suivants :

  • Nouveau rôle pour les gestionnaires : de controleur à facilitateur ;
  • Coordination du travail : d’une hiérarchie bureaucratique à des équipes liées dynamiquement ;
  • De valeur à valeurs : transparence radicale, amélioration continue ;
  • Communication interactive : de commander et contrôler à une conversation d’adulte à adulte.

J’ai bien hâte de lire le bouquin de Denning pour comprendre plus spécifiquement ce qu’il propose et mettre tout ça en parallèle avec les modèles d’organisation apprenante (The Fifth Discipline) développé par Peter Senge et Management 3.0 développé par Jurgen Appelo.

Lorsque je prends un point de vue systémique, comme mentionné plus haut, je suis ravi d’intégrer une mesure d’enchantement des clients en priorité sur les résultats financiers et mobiliser l’organisation vers cet objectif. J’ai d’ailleurs suggérer à Martin qu’il serait une bonne idée pour Pyxis de mettre en place une mesure similaire au Net Promoter Score (voir The Ultimate Question) dans notre cadre de suivi des résultats. Je lui également dit à la blague qu’il devrait passer de Chief Executive Officer à Chief Delighter Officer !

Je souhaite vigoureusement ajouter que je crois qu’il est important voire essentiel pour une entreprise d’avoir un futur envisagé (une vision) établi collectivement qui met l’entreprise en mouvement dans une direction cohérente.

De façon plus fondamentale, j’aimerais ajouter que la perspective systémique m’amène à dire que le but d’une entreprise ne doit pas être d’enchanter ses clients ; elle doit selon moi avoir cet objectif et cette préoccupation bien présente dans sa culture. Je crois qu’une organisation doit avoir une clarté de la part de l’ensemble de ses participants sur ce qui constitue sa raison d’être (sa mission). Rémi Tremblay dans son bouquin J’ai perdu ma montre au fond du lac nous invite à réfléchir et clarifier ce qu’il nomme le bien commun de l’organisation.

Dans le cas de Pyxis, la raison d’être est notre guide depuis plusieurs années :

Pyxis aide les organisations de développement logiciel à devenir des endroits où les résultats, la qualité de vie et le plaisir coexistent de façon durable en étant en premier lieu un exemple de ce qu’elle propose à ses clients et en accompagnant ceux-ci.

Nous devons trouver comment nous assurer que nous accomplissons notre raison d’être ; que nous respectons entièrement notre définition du bien commun. Des suggestions ?

Agile isn’t easy

Anybody who says otherwise is probably trying to sell you something

I’m spending the whole week here in Salt Lake City; attending the Agile 2011 Conference.

Earlier this week, Agile veterans Ron Jeffries and Chet Hendrickson held a session on what they thought they got right and what they thought they got wrong over the last decade.

I’m taking the liberty today to cherry-pick and to comment on two of Chet and Ron’s assessments regarding the things that did not go so well since 2001.

Dogmatism

Yes, there is still a fair amount of Agile practitioners around who will religiously apply each and every principles of the Scrum Guide without having a deep understanding of what it really means, nor will they prove to have real-life experience from the field deploying Agile values and principles.

New people embracing Agility seem to frequently fall into that trap; coaching others at learning Agility like following a recipe cookbook.

Moreover, some experienced Agile practitioners clearly never came out of this paradigm. Hiding themselves behind dogmatism and religious behavior brings fear, ignorance, and inexperience to people willing to get the best out of Agility.

Besides material available on the web, from trainings, to books and the likes, I do believe a good Agile coach must be able to clearly demonstrate to his partners (usually called customers) the following top 5 core competencies;

  • Proven management experience at navigating inside complex organizational cultures, systems and politics
  • Exceptional listening skills
  • Ability to think outside the box; Agility being one box
  • Proven track record in having positively coached people on Agility
  • A genuine dedication towards delighting customers (I do recommend the following Agile 2011 conference blog post by my colleague Martin Proulx)

Bottom line, being dogmatic and following step-by-step guidelines can be comfortable for many reasons. One of them can be the silver bullet syndrome that solves every possible issues faced by an organization in one monolithic state of mind and rigid framework.

I do personally think serious coaches needs to be fully inclined at mastering the above top 5 competencies if they really want their partners to be not only satisfied, but totally delighted!

Agile is not the answer to everything

Taking a step back and looking at why organizations are moving towards Agile, we can observe a heavy trend emerging from Agile practices on the field.

In an attempt to achieve all the benefits promised by Agility, some ‘agilists’ have started to accommodate or to modify quite substantially the Agile framework.

Out of the many reasons why one would be inclined to do so, there is one particular frightening motivation that caught my attention.

Let’s turn that toaster into a dishwasher… both are kitchen appliances aren’t they?

Applying Agile values and principles inside an organization is a challenge by itself. It requires a lot of skills, efforts and commitments from all parties involved. Most of the times, the Agile adoption cycle will expose many caveats and pitfalls for which the framework has not been designed to address at all.

In such circumstances, we do see Agile coaches, scrum masters, trainers and product owners distorting their practices so they can extend and reach out areas of the organization for which Agility is simply not the best answer (a toaster is a toaster).

If you’re really into turning your partners into Agile organizations focused on totally delighting their customers, you may consider the followings:

  • Agile’s framework doesn’t answer all your needs for doing so
  • Instead of turning Agile into something it isn’t, ask for help and complement with other approaches based on your needs
  • Using traditional management approaches and tools is not a sin. If it fits the purpose, why reinvent something new for that is the same things?

A good example on expanding your mindset by complementing your Agile practices with better-suited approaches is covered in my colleague’s most recent post from the Agile 2011 Conference.

In his blog entry, Martin comments on an inspiring presentation by Steve Denning on Making the Entire Organization Agile. I do recommend the read!

Making the entire organization Agile

At the 2011 Agile Conference, I had the opportunity to attend Stephen Denning‘s session yesterday on Making The Entire Organization Agile and I was wow’d.

Before getting into the details of the presentation, I want to highlight that Steve is not an Agilist – and that’s a good thing. He is the author of many award-winning books (including The Leader’s Guide to Radical Management: Reinventing the Workplace for the 21st Century). Although the main topic covered during the presentation really didn’t have anything to do with Agile per se, it was a very powerful backdrop for coaches attempting the make any organization Agile. Steve has also published a short video that explains his concept.

Now, back to the presentation. [Note that Steve was kind enough to make his slides available to everyone.]

Steve’s presentation began with a simple question “Why do managers act the way they do?“, after all “These are highly intelligent, educated people!“, he said. He then followed by asking a powerful question: “Why did management systematically kill all the creative things in organizations?” To support his point, he provided relevant examples such as: knowledge management, lean manufacturing, innovation, marketing, leadership storytelling, and even Agile and Scrum!

See the connection with Agile transitions now?

The core of his presentation (and of his most recent book) is that “Traditional management rests on five interlocking principles”:

  1. The purpose of a firm is to produce outputs that make money - What is produced is much less of a concern than making money. Key point here is that traditional organizations strictly focus on generating money with little (or no) concern for anything that doesn’t generate money for the shareholders.
  2. Managers act as controllers of individuals – Traditional organizations need conformity and to get conformity, they need compliance. Having managers control their employees is the preferred method used within those organizations.
  3. Work is coordinated by hierarchy and bureaucracy – Historically, it was important to get standardization and compliance. As such, traditional organizations have promoted people who were good at ensuring the work of others was being done in accordance to the plans. The hierarchical structure supported by bureaucracy were great ways to ensure standardization, and hence to generate more money. In such organizations, planning, monitoring and reporting were critical activities.
  4. “The main thing is efficiency” – Since the most important thing the organization were focusing on was to make money, creating efficiencies became a critical activity in the system. Efficiency forces the organizations to look inside as opposed to focusing on the outside (the customers).
  5. Communicate by directives – The traditional model assumes that people aren’t able to determine the best way to do their work and that they need to be told what to do and how to do it. It also creates a dominating relationship where the one giving the order has more power and authority than the one receiving the order.
Image by Steve Denning

Based on an in-depth research from Deloitte (Deloitte’s Center for the Edge: The Shift Index), Steve presented some alarming statistics:

  • The rate of return on assets has fallen by 75% since 1965
  • The life expectancy of Fortune 500 firms down to 15 years, and is heading towards 5 years
  • Only 1 in 5 workers fully engaged

Based on such statistics, he claims that “Management is broken” (and I would agree) and as a consequence “We have to manage differently!” He proposes 5 fundamental shifts that organizations will be required to make.

  1. New goal for the organization -> delight the customers (from outputs to outcomes)
  2. New role for managers -> from controller to enabler
  3. New coordination mechanisms -> dynamic linking
  4. Shift from value to values -> radical transparency and continuous improvement
  5. New way to communicate -> conversation (adult-to-adult conversations)

Image by Steve Denning

Once Steve presented the five big shifts required for organizational survival, he quickly highlighted which of the 5 shifts the Agile approach are actually impacting, and which areas our community still needs to alter in order to make the entire organization Agile.

Steve rightfully pointed out that the Agile community hasn’t done such a great job at “delighting customers” (not just making them satisfied but really delighting them) and in “altering the conversations”. On this point, that fact that many of the sessions at the 2011 Agile Conference were about coaching, mentoring, and collaboration is a good step in this direction.

Image by Steve Denning

The other interesting observation that Steve had with regards to Agile and the big shifts, is the serious conflict Agile initiatives face (since they only address 3 of the 5 shifts). He explained that Agile transformation are executed while 2 of the required shifts (from “making money for the shareholders” to “delighting customers” and from “top-down commands” to “from commands to conversations”) weren’t being addressed. This situation creates an environment where “organizations are at war with themselves“.

Any Agile coach who has attempted a large scale organizational transition can certainly agree with the statement. The 3 shifts (from controller to enabler, from bureaucracy to dynamic linking, and radical transparency) are the realm in which the Agile teams are successful. Unfortunately, they are rapidly confronted to the remaining 2 traditional perspectives.

This is the area I referred to as the Level 5 – Management Level Maturity and where many paradigms need to be altered (such as the role of the Agile manager in a self-organizing team, among other things).

Image by Steve Denning

In the end, it is very interesting to realize that the shifts that are currently taking place within the software development field are not unique and specific. Many (most?) of the various industries are currently going through such fundamental shifts and we can learn from their experience along with continually improving our approaches.

For those with a systemic perspective, Steve provided a simple comparison between traditional management and the suggested radical management.

Image by Steve Denning

The presentation was, by far, the best one I attended during this week… so far!

Happy 2nd Anniversary Analytical-Mind

Picture by srsphotoToday marks the 2nd anniversary of my blogging hobby! It has been a fun and interesting endeavour that has allowed me to discuss various concepts with people all over the world, and within my organization. Blogging forces me to crystallize my thoughts and perspective on some important aspects of my leadership style, my coaching abilities and my personal development. Thanks to all of you who are reading my posts and comment (in person or in writing) on the posted topics. The number of readers have tripled in the last year and the number of Twitter followers has gone from 0 to 200 - if you’re not already one of them, send me some positive vibes and start following me :) If you like what you have been reading, don’t hesitate to link to my posts and even maybe include me in your blog roll. Thanks to those who have been tweeting and re-tweeting my posts. If you haven’t been following my blog since the beginning, you may want to read my top 10 blog posts: Now let’s get back to writing… Share You might be interested in these related posts:
  1. Happy 1st anniversary Analytical-Mind
  2. Gartner’s “The Current State of Agile Method Adoption”
  3. Analytical Mind has moved

You need a ScrumMaster to change the old style

There seem to be a confusion between the role of the ScrumMaster and one of a team facilitator. Jason Little recently wrote that you might need a coach, not a ScrumMaster:
So what is a coach going to give you compared to a Scrum Master? Scrum talks about a Scrum Master as the team facilitator, someone who is there to protect the team, remove obstacles and help the team function better. Essentially the scope of a Scrum Master is local optimization for the team.
A coach, on the other hand, will be focused on optimization of the organization. Often they are working and thinking on multiple levels and deeper when team output is exposing other organizational dysfunctions.
I disagree. This is a misinterpretation of the role of the ScrumMaster. Scrum is a tool that an organization can use to address hard problems. It is a tool to foment change. An organization that decides to use Scrum to address its issues is choosing very hard work. Only few organizations will fully take advantage of Scrum. The remaining organizations will try to use Scrum and run into ScrumButs. ScrumButs are the reasons why they cannot take full advantage of Scrum to solve their problems and realize the benefits. Each ScrumMaster is responsible for fighting ScrumButs by maintaining the integrity of the Scrum process, even if it is in conflict with the organization. This is much more than a facilitator role, right? Of course, when a ScrumMaster starts working with a team, he or she might act as a parent, teaching the team how to self-organize. As the team gets more mature though, the ScrumMaster will spend more time working with management on the ScrumBut backlog to remove the dysfunctions of the organization. The ScrumMaster is not a team facilitator, it is a secret change agent!