The effectiveness of agile coaching – Part 2

In the first part of my article, I looked at how debates around the contribution of Agile Coaching are typically conducted and offered an explanation as to why this is the case. In this part, I want to show a way out of this kind of argument and in doing so offer a way forward for evaluating the effectiveness of Agile Coaching.

The decisive factor is the result

What is the purpose of an agile team?

Typically, the aim is to produce results. These results consist of outputs – more or less concretely specified artefacts such as executable software or features – and outcomes – effects that are achieved with the help of the outputs created.

The team’s environment has expectations of the team in terms of outputs or outcomes. The team is considered successful if it fulfils or exceeds these expectations. There is a very wide range in terms of the type of expectations, the expectation bearers (aka stakeholders) and how concrete or vague the expectations are formulated.

A key feature of agile approaches is that the way in which these expectations are met is, as far as possible, the responsibility of the team.

For me, the essence of agile leadership lies in formulating expectations in such a way that a team gains orientation from them. It is also important to provide feedback on the fulfilment of expectations and to offer the team the greatest possible support in achieving its goals.

One contribution of Agile Coaching to the success of organisations is to structure and bring to life this process of formulating and communicating expectations and feedback. Another contribution – and this is the focus of this article – is to support teams in every possible way to develop and improve an effective way of implementation.

The team decides

The key word is “support”. Because the team receives the assignment and the team decides how it fulfils the assignment. The team is offered support. Whether the team takes advantage of this should be left up to them. Rejecting the support does not release the team from the expectations. Typically, it is beneficial for a team to receive feedback regularly – as often as reasonably possible – to enable early implementation of the feedback. This is the core of all iterative elements of agile approaches.

For this feedback mechanism to work, there must be consequences if expectations are not met. I don’t mean that people are dismissed. I mean that a serious dialogue takes place and that changes are developed and implemented that can plausibly lead to a convergence of expectations and actual performance. The team is largely responsible for what measures are taken, although other stakeholders can also be involved.

This statement does not mean that management stands passively on the sidelines. Rather, the management is responsible to others for the results. It has to assess the extent to which it trusts the team to fulfil expectations or, if expectations are repeatedly not met, whether a different approach is necessary. It goes without saying that the management can express its perspective on the team’s approach and also make suggestions.

As long as the team has the task, the responsibility for implementation lies with the team. This also includes whether suggestions are accepted and what support is utilised. The question of whether or not the team wishes to utilise the services of an Agile Coaches also lies within the sovereignty of the team.

Viewing Agile Coaching as a service that teams can  ‘pull’ to fulfil their mission opens up a qualitatively different way of assessing the value of Agile Coaching. The moment teams decide to be accompanied by an Agile Coach (and Agile Coaches decide whether they want to accompany a team), the value that teams attribute to Agile Coaching can be seen from the demand. If Agile Coaching is utilised, it is valuable. Otherwise it is not.

What costs nothing is worth nothing

Agile Coaching on demand is good because it is voluntary. However, without further supplementation, it is a one-sided transaction – like a gift. Teams are incentivised to take Agile Coaching on spec, with no real motivation to improve aspects of the way they work. The risk of this increases if expectations of the team are not met and they call on an Agile Coach to show that they are “doing it all”.

For Agile Coaching to have value, it has to cost something. By this I don’t mean money, but the willingness to invest time and energy in their own improvement and to engage with themselves. I have seen time and again that teams say they want to improve, but then don’t take the time to look at where and how they can improve. They expect the improvement to be “served” to them. However, fundamental positive change always requires a certain amount of personal effort and the will to change.

The use of a coaching agreement

When a team decides to make use of Agile Coaching, this is the opportunity and the right point to explicitly clarify mutual expectations and set them down in writing in a coaching agreement:

• What is the reason for the request?
• What is to be achieved?
• How will success be measured?
• How do the team and the agile coach contribute to success?

And in this agreement, the key figures mentioned at the beginning – throughput, customer satisfaction, quality, etc. – can appear. The difference is that the numbers here express what the team wants to achieve and do not measure the performance of the Agile Coaches.

You may now feel a certain resistance within yourself:

• Why should I do this?
• What if the team doesn’t want me?
• How would they even know how great it is to be accompanied by an Agile Coaches?

The questions are justified. What’s more, drawing up a coaching agreement involves a lot of effort that some team members would certainly prefer to avoid. However, at a time when the usefulness of Agile Coaching in organisations is being put to the test, Agile Coaches need to market themselves. They have to reflect on their value proposition, deal with uncertainty and also with one or two prejudices. Precisely because mutual expectations are explicitly documented in the coaching agreement, this is an excellent way of proving their effectiveness as Agile Coaches in retrospect. Furthermore, the use of a coaching agreement is an expression of self-confidence and trust in the value of one’s own performance.

In my view, anyone who sees the purpose of their work in sustainable positive change and does not want to engage in mock debates should take this route and thus focus on producing results. Ultimately, this is what working with and in agile teams is all about.

Notes:

You can find the first part of the two-part article here.

Peter Rubarth is very happy about any exchange of ideas. You are also welcome to talk to him about how he can support you in the topic of Agile Coaching. Simply contact him on LinkedIn.

If you like the article or would like to discuss it, please feel free to share it in your network.

Peter Rubarth has published more articles in the t2informatik Blog:

t2informatik develops and modernises software as a service provider. Click here to learn more.