Self-organization in Agile team
Agile raises the aspect of self-organization, but what does it actually consist of? One of the principles of the Agile Manifesto says "The best architectural solutions, requirements and designs come from self-organizing teams." Quite a controversial thesis, but is it unfounded?
I have to start this paragraph by explaining that with agile thinking and self-organization, teams don't get +5 points to programming and problem-solving skills. In my last post, I wrote about the role of the Product Owner, who defines the product vision and the tasks that need to be done to achieve a certain goal. The rule mentioned refers indirectly to the effect that empowerment produces. People who define for themselves how to perform and organise their work identify more strongly with the task for which they are responsible. They feel a greater sense of value and responsibility for building increment. This results in greater responsibility for the end result. The team has more freedom to achieve the goal, but not to establish what it is.?
Sounds good doesn't it? However, there is also the other side of the coin. Such teams cannot be formed by chance. Scrum explicitly states that the team must have complementary skills to produce increment. This is not just about the technical skills so heavily glorified in the IT world. Collaboration between people is based on soft skills, which makes proactivity a key trait for long-term collaboration. The team must not consist of mere enthusiasts or malcontents. Such people must have a high level of commitment to their activities, which can lead to reflection on what they can do better.?
领英推荐
What else can we gain if the team has more freedom? By not officially having a leader who defines how tasks are to be carried out, the team has to pay more attention to understanding the whole context of the project. It is worth emphasising 'formally', as there will always be people who are more willing to take part in discussions and propose solutions. Even so, it is the group, not the individual, that decides how to proceed. What about individuals who are reluctant to speak up? If you have noticed such a person, try to involve him or her in the activities. A lack of engagement is not always because the person is uncooperative. It may be that this is a person who does not yet feel comfortable enough to come up with an initiative. Next time when planning, gently ask "What do you think? How would you resolve this?".?
Is the self-organising team then controlled by anyone? Self-organisation is not the same as self-management. The subject is more complex because managers need to be aware that they are in charge but not in control, but intelligent control means make an impact without giving that impression. Even in the best team, tensions happen. Differences in character can lead to a situation where outside interference is needed. However, the manager should not make an impact the work of the team, but nurture the relationships within it. He has to react if it turns out that the team is not competent enough to carry out the project or the members do not commit themselves strongly enough.?
Self-organisation is not easy. It requires a culture of error, proper understanding from the organisation, people with the right and complementary skills, time for the team to get along and develop a work flow, but we can gain a motivated group of people who, taking responsibility for their work, will produce creative solutions. These will be based on mistakes, but will build a sense of value and team unity.?