The new way of organizing and working according to lightweight and flow-oriented principles has led to a rethinking in many organizations and in many individuals. However, there are still some misconceptions, especially with the term “agile management”.
Many believe that leadership and management should only take the form of support, enabling and coaching. Thus writes the german FAZ in the article “language in the office: Unwoven of the year” that Agile Managers are only allowed to support. (sorry, only available in german language)
But also the advocates of the new management culture, such as Simon Sinek, one of my favorite speakers, sees only a supporter in the New Work Manager.
In addition, some of the agile framework consultants for large organizations have expressed the opinion that middle management can be significantly streamlined by introducing agility. In my opinion, they are not only wrong, but also create fears in middle managers, fears about their jobs and their careers.
Scrum and the P4 framework have three roles that are clearly separated in their area of responsibility:
- The Product Owner, with a strong market and business responsibility,
- the Scrum Master, with the supporting, moderating responsibility, and who also takes care of the work environment and infrastructure,
- the Working Team, which is responsible for the implementation and the “incorporation of quality”, as well as the own team processes.
All three roles have a significant management share. That’s why I call it the “Trinity of Agile Management”. The same roles can also be found in the P4 framework at “higher” levels: the system / cluster level for multiple teams and the portfolio level for multiple team clusters.
Yes, the Scrum masters are supporters, that’s right. But the Product Owners are innovators, leaders and visionaries. And those responsible for technology, who are called System Engineers and Portfolio Architects in the P4 framework, are also designers and innovators.
Therefore, even in a fully agile organization, there is still plenty of room for management positions, advancement opportunities and careers. However, one has to opt for one of the three clearly defined areas of responsibility, which I personally see as a great advantage.
Read more about the Organizational Model of Knowledge Work here.
{Photo by @danielmingookkim on unsplash.com}
Question from Jonatan: Oliver, what about the commonalities and differences between project and people management? I considered agile practices mainly for the first area, so far. Would be interesting to think about what “agile people development” could be
Answer: Using Scrum only in projects doesn’t unleash the real power, especially when each person is alocated to multiple projects and therefore is only partly involved in each project. (See https://blog.hardscrum.com/en/das-monopol-der-projekte/ for more about that.)
For product creating companies, I love the concept of using Agility and Scrum for the entire organization, where product development work is assinged to (and flows through) stable teams and NOT by assigning part of the capacity of people to new projects. Since those “scaled agile” organizations don’t need an extra project organization (like Project Leaders and a PMO), also the roles of managers differ. In that case, the Scrum Master really becomes a mangement role!
To the second part of your question: Agile people development would be part of the Scrum Masters role, in terms of soft skills and the System Architect (in the P4 Framework) for the technical part. Most organizations also introduce Communities of Practice for additional knowlege building.
Es ist die Zeit, vom Herrschen zum Führen überzugehen. Die Kolleg*in sagt vielleicht bald nicht mehr: “Mein Chef hat mir gesagt …” sondern: “Der Chef dieses Prozesses möchte uns mit folgender Meinung/Richtlinie …. weiterhelfen”.
Das braucht natürlich einen Struktur- und Kulturwechsel. Diesen müssen die Produktionen mit ihren Prozesse und vor allem auch die Menschen aushalten. Und, was die Menschen betrifft, müssen diese den Kulturwandel auch gerne vollziehen. Jemand fragte einmal:” Warum haben die Ägypter Pyramiden mit lauter unterschiedlichen und nicht rechtwinkligen Steinen erbaut?” Antwort: Weil sie es konnten und es ihnen vor allem leichtfiel. Alles, was auch nur im Ansatz zu mühsam erscheint, hat kaum eine Chance, in einer komplexen Struktur, wie die eines größeren Unternehmens, einen von Allen getragenen Strukturwandel zu erzeugen. Übergänge sind die Zeit der Zauberer und die der Verzauberung.
Oliver Schönefeld scheint, so mein noch erweiterbarer Eindruck, dabei auf jeden Fall die logisch strukturierten Menschen gut erreichen zu können, denn der Shift der Struktur erscheint nicht nur im Detail durchdacht, sondern auch gut nachvollziehbar. Ich als Methodenforscher bin jedenfalls sehr angetan und hoffe, dass all die Unternehmen, die sich nicht verzaubern sondern mit unterkomplexen und nicht funktionierenden agilen Strategien haben blenden lassen, dem Gedanken jetzt doch noch einmal neu Raum und Hoffnung gehen. Es könnte sich auszahlen.