Farming as a Metaphor for Workplace Culture

Michael Wade has an interesting post considering how non-agricultural workplaces can resemble farms.

Workplace cultures are in large part a reflection of the underlying metaphor driving the organization, whether by design or chance. When much younger, I used and advocated the “business is war” metaphor. I have been much more successful (and much less stressed) organizing around a farming metaphor. For truth, there can be times of battle on the farm that, as in the war metaphor, require the immediate and drastic mobilization of resources: the barn is on fire, the locus are coming, a tornado approaches. Life on the farm is more than endless summer days spent blissfully feeding magic ponies and dancing under rainbows. One must be prepared to “take up arms” and employ non-farm related tools and tactics in order to deal with any short term crisis that may occur.


Photo by Lucy Chian on Unsplash

The Limits of Planning Poker

As an exercise, planning poker can be quite useful in instances where no prior method or process existed for estimating levels of effort. Problems arise when organizations don’t modify the process to suite the project, the composition of the team, or the organization.

The most common team composition for these these types of sizing efforts have involved technical areas – developers and UX designers – with less influence from strategists, instructional designers, quality assurance, and content developers. With a high degree for functional overlap, consensus on an estimated level of effort is easier to achieve.

As the estimating team begins to include more functional groups, the overlap decreases. This tends to increase the frequency of  back-and-forth between functional groups pressing for a different size (usually larger) based on their domain of expertise. This is good for group awareness of overall project scope, however, it can extend the time needed for consensus as individuals may feel the need to press for a larger size so as not to paint themselves into a commitment corner.

Additionally, when a more diverse set of functional groups are included in the estimation exercise, it become important to captured the size votes from the individual functional domains while driving the overall exercise based on the group consensus. Doing so means the organization can collect a more granular set of data useful for future sizing estimates by more accurately matching and comparing, for example, the technical vs support material vs. media development efforts between projects. This may also minimize the desire by some participants to press harder for any estimates padded to allow for risks from doubt and uncertainty, knowing that it will be captured somewhere.

Finally, when communicating estimates to clients or after the project has moved into active development, product owners and project managers can better unpack why a particular estimate was determined to be a particular size. While the overall project (or a component of the project) may have been given a score of 95 on a scale of 100, for example, a manager can look back on the vote and see that the development effort dominated the vote whereas content editors may have voted a size estimate of 40. This might also influence how manager negotiate timelines for (internal and external) resource requirements.


Photo by Aditya Chinchure on Unsplash

Collaboration vs Clobber-ation – Redux

A reader took me to task for “not being a team player” in my example of walking away from an opportunity to co-develop a training program with a difficult Agile coach. It was easy to set this criticism aside as the person offering it was in no position to be familiar with the context or full story. Nonetheless, the comment gave me pause to consider more deeply the rationale behind my decision. What experiential factors did I leverage when coming to this seemingly abrupt decision?

I can think of five context characteristics to consider when attempting to collaborate in an environment charged with conflict.

  1. Is the disagreement over the details of the work to be done? My peer and I didn’t have agreement on whether or not it was important or useful to include information on basic story sizing as part of the story splitting presentation. I wanted to include this information, my peer did not.
  2. Is there a disagreement over how the work is to be done? I wanted to preface the story splitting section with a story sizing section whereas my peer was intent on eviscerating the story sizing section to such an extent as to make it meaningless.
  3. Is there any type of struggle around status or who “should” be in charge? My peer demonstrated unambiguous behavior that she was “The Coach” for the company and that anything that may be presented to employees should be an expression of her authorship. When she instructed me to send my deck of slides to her for “revision” and I refused, she visibly bristled. By this point, I wasn’t about to release my copyrighted material into her possession.
  4. Are there corporate politics that promote – intentionally or unintentionally – silos and turf protection? My client’s organization could be be held forth as a textbook example of Conway’s Law. The product reflected an uncounted number of incomplete efforts and failed attempts at unifying the underlying architecture. The Agile Coach’s behavior was just one more example of someone in the organization working to put their stamp of value on the ever-growing edifice of corporate blobness.
  5. Is there a conflict of personalities or communication styles? Again, this was true in this case. I wanted to co-create whereas my peer wanted to commandeer and direct. I wanted to present, she wanted to interrupt.

No work environment is free of these characteristics and it may be they are all present in some degree or another. I expect these characteristics to be in place no matter where I work. However, in this case, it was clear to me we were not in alignment with any of these characteristics and each of them were present at very high levels. Sorting this out wasn’t worth my time at just about any price. Certainly not at the price I was being paid. Walking away wasn’t going to burn any bridges as no bridges had been built.


Image by Dirk81 from Pixabay

The Changeability Decision Matrix

Responding to change over following a planThe Agile Manifesto

That’s one of the four values to the Agile Manifesto. It’s also one of the values that is commonly plucked from the context of three other values and twelve principles. Once isolated, it’s exaggerated and inflated to some form of “We can’t define scope before we start work! There’s too much discovery work to be done first! We don’t know what we don’t know! Scope (and requirements) are emergent!” That bends the intent of the Manifesto and disregards the context from which a single value has been extracted.

I don’t believe Agile practices ever meant for software development to be a free-for-all, a never ending saga of finding and implementing better and better ways to code something before a product can be released. Projects run like this never see the light of day, let alone a shelf to languish on waiting for a long since departed market opportunity.

What isn’t in the Agile Manifesto, but is implicit in the Agile methodologies I’ve worked with is the notion of decision points. These are the points around which change, to a small or large degree, is not allowed. At least not for a while. Decision points bring stability to the development process from which Agile teams can move forward with a stable set of assumptions. If subsequent discoveries inform the team that they need to revisit a decision, than they must do so. The key element is that the work subsequent to the decision is what generates the need to revisit the decision. It isn’t done arbitrary, on a hunch, or with minimal information.

There are numerous decision points that exist within Scrum and SAFe, for example. Stories are decisions. “We need to create this thing.” Acceptance criteria, definitions of ready and done, sprint duration, feature and epic definitions, milestones, minimum viable/valuable products are also examples of decisions. Some of these can be quite changeable. Stories, for example, can be refined many times prior to and during sprint planning. The description, acceptance criteria, definition of done, and effort estimation can change many times before a story is committed to a sprint. And there’s the decision point. When the team agrees that a story can be brought into a sprint and they commit to completing it before the sprint is over, they have made a decision and the story shouldn’t change on its way to being completed by the team. (As noted previously, the work on the story may reveal a need to change something about the story – maybe even indicate that work on the story should stop – but that should be an edge case and not part of common practice.)

To help teams understand these distinctions, I’ve developed a 2X2 matrix called the Changeability Decision Matrix. Its purpose is to help teams evaluate the effects of changing work in the queue. The horizontal axis goes from “Small Impact” to “Big Impact.” The vertical axis goes from “Few Changes” to “Many Changes.”

The two questions the team needs to ask when thinking about changing a decision they’ve made (acceptance criteria, story description, MVP, etc.) are:

  • Will this change have a small or big impact? They may consider any number of variables: cost, time, productivity, effort, etc.
  • Will this change require a few or many changes (lines of code, documentation updates, other components that consume the code, budgets, release dates, etc.)

Where the proposed change resides on the grid may be dependent on where the team is on the project timeline. Consider the Epic, feature, and story hierarchy: Early in the project – during the design phase, for example – there may be little more than features in the backlog. As placeholders for ideas, they may be quite volatile as new marketing information enters the conversation or obvious technical issues become apparent. So changing an epic or a feature may have a relatively small impact on the project and involve few changes. Most probably there won’t be any code involved at this point.

As the project progress and backlog refinement continues, epics and features will be broken up into large stories. More detail is added to the backlog and more time and money has been invested in the design so the epics and features are less changeable. If any changes are needed, it is probably that the impact of those changes and the number of things that need to change will be greater than it would have been during the design phase.

Eventually, as the project moves into high gear, the backlog will become populated with more and more smaller stories that can be easily estimated and planned into sprints and increments.

For the duration of the project, it’s likely most of the stories in the backlog can and should be responsive to multiple changes…right up to the point the decision is made to drop the story into a sprint.

The Changeability Decision Matrix is an easy way to evaluate whether or not an Agile team is pondering undoing a small or large decision by forcing the conversation around the consequences of making the change. If either of these two axis are not a good fit for your organization or what you consider important to consider, then change them to something that makes more sense to your project.

Here is a representation of these phases on a hypothetical project timeline:See also:


Photo by Linus Nylund on Unsplash

The World Needs More Booths

Remember face-to-face conversation? You know, sharing thoughts, talking through concerns, sketching out ideas, and having intelligent discussions without the overblown internet persona outrage? You have instant feedback through facial expressions, tone of voice, and spoken word. You have instant ability to clarify a particular point, on the spot. You get a better “read” of where the other person is coming from. And, you get better engagement in the conversation. – Rick Knowles

Conference rooms, court rooms, hospital rooms, elevators – these are some examples where the space presupposes a particular way of behaving and communicating (or, in the case of elevators, not communicating.) The informal setting of a booth, however, allows for a comfortable space to let some of the usual barriers to conversation fall away.

 

Many of the most memorable conversations and exchanges of ideas in my life happened in restaurant booths. They weren’t all good, but most of them were and all of them were important. Add in a good cup of coffee and they can be incredibly creative spaces. Perhaps it’s just a lucky spacial anchor thing. However it happened, the result is that booths, particularly coffee shop booths, are my go-to spaces for near-instant solace and creativity. So much so that when we kicked off a major home renovation some years ago it included, among many other things, a breakfast booth off the kitchen. The design of the booth was completed by the same designer/builder of the booths at Racine’s Restaurant – perhaps my second all-time favorite Third Place behind The Market. (Sadly, neither Racine’s or The Market survived the government lockdowns of 2020.)


(Image credit: johnny_automatic)

Teams, Tribes, and Community – 0.1.0

Several months ago, I made bold decision: Take command of the helm for a brilliant tribe of diverse creative thinkers dedicated to helping each other succeed. This is the first of an on-going series of posts – maybe once or twice a month – describing this evolving effort.

For an extrovert, this might not have been a bold decision. But in my case, you should know I designed the card that card-carrying introverts carry. So this decision involved a more thorough application of my already robust decision-making process. On a professional level, this may be the most significant challenge I’ve taken on to date. Will my years of experience with forming and guiding teams help this tribe further their success? Will I be able to find the gravitational force that holds us together and the spark that keeps us inspired? These are open questions. They are also questions that occupy much of my thinking.

We are not dedicated to achieving a single goal or moving in a unified direction. We each have our areas of expertise and independent business goals. We are much more a tribe than a team. As such, I believe we will be guided more by tribal dynamics and models than team rules and policies. The path is not clear, but this much I know…

  • There is no leader of this tribe. Not in the sense of a single person who’s responsible for setting the direction and making all the decisions that impact the organization. There is no “Chief” or “Czar” of anything. I’ll fill the role of Launch Commander and Flight Commander in order to get us organized and moving forward. However, I have been clear from the start about my intention to structure our tribe on principles of self-organization.
  • The emphasis is on simple and accessible technology and easy ways to organize meetings based on Agile principles and practices – lean coffee, for example, has served us well for our initial meetings. What has emerged since then are more involved and interactive meeting formats, such as client role-plays and accountability exercises. Keeping things simple and remaining mindful of barriers to participation is vital. Too many tools with too many logins risks the creation of a Tower of Babel. For now, the weekly video call is the center-point around which we all meet. This in itself is enough of a challenge given the global participation. Other than this, email is the acknowledged primary channel for asynchronous communication.
  • We are not accepting new members. Whether or for how long this remains the case is undecided. We have discussed various ways of introducing new members, but have decided to decide on this issue later. The circumstances that brought each of us together created a unique bond of trust and familiarity with each other’s business interests that makes the introduction of new members a risk to maintaining these relationships. At the moment, we are tipped slightly toward being on the large size and everyone acknowledges if we grow much bigger the meetings may become unmanageable and the interactions less valuable. Since trust is foundational, none of the details related to who we are and what we discuss will be revealed in this space. My writing will be limited to the general case of what I discover from having participated in and helped guide our tribe. It is my hope this may help others with forming and guiding their own teams and tribes.

Whatever the outcome, it’s been more fun thus far than I’ve had in a loooooong time.


Image by Youssef Jheir from Pixabay

Agile and Changing Requirements or Design

I hear this (or some version) more frequently in recent years than in past:

Agile is all about changing requirements at anytime during a project, even at the very end.

I attribute the increased frequency to the increased popularity of Agile methods and practices.

That the “Responding to change over following a plan” Agile Manifesto value is cherry picked so frequently is probably due to a couple of factors:

  • It’s human nature for a person to resist being cornered into doing something they don’t want to do. So this value gets them out of performing a task.
  • The person doesn’t understand the problem or doesn’t have a solution. So this value buys them time to figure out how to solve the problem. Once they do have a solution, well, it’s time to change the design or the requirements to fit the solution. This reason isn’t necessary bad unless it’s the de facto solution strategy.

The intent behind the “Responding to change” value, and the way successful Agile is practiced, does not allow for constant and unending change. If this were otherwise nothing would ever be completed and certainly nothing would ever be released to the market.

I’m not going to rehash the importance of the preposition in the value statement. Any need to explain the relativity implied by it’s use has become a useful signal for me to spend my energies elsewhere. But for those who are not challenged by the grammar, I’d like to say a few thing about how to know when change is appropriate and when it’s important to follow a plan.

The key is recognizing and tracking decision points. With traditional project management, decisions are built-in to the project plan. Every possible bit of work is defined and laid out on a Gantt chart, like the steel rails of a train track. Deviation from this path would be actively discouraged, if it were considered at all.

Using an Agile process, decision points that consider possible changes in direction are built into the process – daily scrums, sprint planning, backlog refinement, reviews and demonstrations at the end of sprints and releases, retrospectives, acceptance criteria, definitions of done, continuous integration – these all reflect deliberate opportunities in the process to evaluate progress and determine whether any changes need to be made. These are all activities that represent decisions or agreements to lock in work definitions for short periods of time.

For example, at sprint planning, a decision is made to complete a block of work in a specified period of time – often two weeks. After that, the work is reviewed and decisions are made as to whether or not that work satisfies the sprint goal and, by extension, the product vision. At this point, the product definition is specifically opened up for feedback from the stakeholders and any proposed changes are discussed. Except under unique circumstances, changes are not introduced mid-sprint and the teams stick to the plan.

Undoing decisions or agreements only happens if there is supporting information, such as technical infeasibility or a significant market shift. Undoing decisions and agreements doesn’t happen just because “Agile is all about changing requirements.” Agile supports changing requirements when there is good reason to do so, irrespective of the original plan. With traditional project management, it’s all about following the plan and change at any point is resisted.

This is the difference. With traditional project management, decisions are built-in to the project plan. With Agile they are adapted in.


Photo by Chris Lawton on Unsplash

Fall Reflections – 2021

Over four years ago, I was in a position to retire early. After some thought, the idea didn’t suit me. I was, in the arc of my life, in an entirely novel position. I could be much more selective about where I chose to exchange my time for money. With nothing to lose and a lot to gain, I sought work with a company that would put Agile principles and my coaching skills to a rigorous test. Did I have what it takes to guide a global legacy corporation into an Agile learning organization? I ran this experiment within the software divisions of two different medical device manufacturers. The first was a 6 month engagement that ended when a better option opened up at a much larger manufacturer with more pay and less commute. I was there for three years until a layoff in the spring.

So it is I’ve come to wrapping up an extremely active spring and summer after having tripped a wire that launched me into a career shift about six months earlier than planned – a span of time I’m affectionately calling an unplanned sabbatical. I’m still not ready to retire, but I’m in an even stronger position then I was four years ago – the silent advantage of a Stoic minimalist lifestyle. Shedding the corporate baggage has opened up a universe of space and time for unfettered thought and exploration. Sabbaticals should be integrated into the work lives of every employee who demonstrates integrity and a strong work ethic.

In the coming months, I’ll be writing more about what this new direction involves. A change in direction doesn’t begin to capture the shift. There’s a multi-leveling up in play, too. This fall and winter – seasons ideally suited for deep reflection and planning – will see a continued pace of activity and preparation. Belying the quite stillness of winter, I will be extremely busy moving fieldstones into position and crafting a renewed foundation for success.

The purpose and mission I declared at the very beginning of 2020 is still in place. When I crafted that mission I was at the very beginning of a grand experiment, full of optimism and yet fully aware of the daunting task ahead. The company I was working for presented me with choice: I could accept a new management role or pursue a stated goal of mine to create an official Agile Coach position within the software group. The organization had just created an official scrum master role in the org chart, but the PMO was strongly resisting the idea of an official product owner role. I was an epic turf battle.

The management path offered greater security but had significant downsides. Not only would I have the decidedly unpleasant task of managing people in a highly regulated and bureaucratic organization, I would also be expected to fill in the scrum master gaps on various teams. This sounded like a good way to end my career as an Agile Coach.

The coach path offered the highly appealing challenge of implementing Agile and SAFe in a 60 year old medical device manufacturer. The known risks included a certain tsunami of resistance. I’d be out on a limb, working to navigate in uncharted and dangerous waters. But I had excellent support. The arrival of a new CEO broke up many of the old ways of organizing software development and opened a window of opportunity. After a rigorous decision process, I chose the Agile Coach path. My 2020 mission reflects the enthusiasm I had for having made this choice.

Then things went sideways. The new CEO brought a much bigger broom than anyone imagined and my key executive support left the organization. Two new senior execs were hired that had a rather stunted understanding of Agile, SAFe, and working with software professionals. Progress stalled as head nods and “Yeah, we’ll get to that.” can-kicking substituted for action. A lot of really good people started to leave the organization, including what was left of my support and allies. A deeply disturbing experience while serving as the Unofficial Official Agile Coach and the effects of the pandemic lock-down sunk the Agile Coach boat. The bubble I placed myself on became more so. I’m surprised I wasn’t laid-off sooner.

The period since separating from my previous employer in early 2021 has been a period of immensely positive growth. The gain in perspective on the prior three years has enlightened me to just how toxic the work environment was. Taking that job was an experiment and in the end the primary failure was not discovering sooner that the experiment was destine to fail. My optimism was misplaced. I trusted untrustworthy people. The greater sadness is that the organization has a wonderful mission and excellent products, each held back from what they could be by a select few and their caustic alliances within the organization. My health and well-being are much the better for having left on their dime.

 I finished my 2020 declaration with “Here’s to moving into 2020 with mind and eyes wide open.” And so I did. Where to next will be on my terms. Free from people who talk inclusion but practice exclusion, talk diversity but practice conformity, talk about change but fight for stagnation, and talk about collaboration while protecting their tiny fiefdoms with vindictive ruthlessness. My tuned purpose and mission for 2022 will reflect this. And a good start will be to conduct business operations in ways that are aligned with the Mission Protocol.


Photo Credit: Original, Copyright © 2021, Gregory Paul Engel

Behind the Curtain: The Delivery Team Role

Even with the formalization of Agile practices into numerous frameworks and methodologies, I have to say not much has changed for the software developer or engineer with respect to how they get work done. I’m not referring to technology. The changes in what software developers and engineers use to get work done has been seismic. The biggest shift in the “how,” in my experience, is that what were once underground practices are now openly accepted and encouraged.

When I was coding full time, in the pre-Agile days and under the burden of CMM, we followed all the practices for documenting use cases, hammering out technical and functional specs, and laboriously talking through requirements. (I smile when I hear developers today complain about the burden of meetings under Scrum.) And when it came time to actually code, I and my fellow developers set the multiple binders of documentation aside and engaged in many then unnamed Agile practices. We mixed and matched use cases in a way that allowed for more efficient coding of larger functional components. We “huddled” each morning in the passage way to cube pods to discuss dependencies and brainstorm solutions to technical challenges. Each of these became more efficiently organized in Agile as backlog refinement and daily stand-ups. We had numerous other loose practices that were not described in tomes such as CMM.

But Agile delivery teams today are frequently composed of more than just technical functional domains. There may be non-technical expertise included as integral members of the team. Learning strategists, content editors, creative illustrators, and marketing experts may be part of the team, depending on the objectives of the project. Consequently, this represents a significant challenge to technical members of the team (i.e. software development and  tech QA) who are unused to working with non-technical team members. Twenty years ago a developer who might say “Leave me alone so I can code.” would have been viewed as a dedicated worker. Today, it’s a sign that the developer risks working in isolation and consequently delivering something that is mis-matched with the work being done by the rest of the team.

On an Agile delivery team, whether composed of a diverse set of functional domains or exclusively technical experts, individual team members need to be thinking of the larger picture and the impact of their work on that of their team mates and the overall work flow. They need to be much more attentive to market influences than in the past. The half-life of major versions, let along entire products, is such that most software products outside a special niche can’t survive without leveraging Agile principles and practices. Their knowledge must expand beyond just their functional domain. The extent to which they possess this knowledge is reflected in the day-to-day behaviors displayed by the team and it’s individuals.

  • Is everyone on the team sensitive and respectful of everyone else’s time? This means following through on commitments and promises, including agreed upon meeting start times. One person showing up five minutes late to a 15 minute stand-up has just missed out on a third of the meeting at least. If the team waits for everyone to show up before starting, the late individual has just squandered 5 minutes multiplied by the number of team mates. For a 6 member team, that’s a half hour. And if it happens every day, that’s 2.5 hours a week. It adds up quickly. Habitual late-comers are also signaling a lack of respect to other team members. They are implicitly saying “Me and my time is more important than anyone else on the team.” Unchecked, this quickly spills over into other areas of the team’s interactions. Enforcing an on-time rule like this is key to encouraging the personal discipline necessary to work effectively as a team. When a scrum master keeps the team in line with a few basic items like this, the larger discipline issues never seem to arise. As U.S. Army General Ann Dunwoody (ret.) succinctly points out in her book, never walk by a mistake. Doing so gives implicit acceptance for the transgression. Problems blossom from there, and it isn’t a pretty flower. (As a scrum master, I cannot “make” someone show up on time. But I can address the respect aspect of this issue by always starting on time. That way, late-comers stand out as late, not more important. Over time, this tends to correct the lateness issue as well.)
  • Everyone on the team must be capable of tracking a constantly evolving set of dependencies and knowing where their work fits within the flow. To whom will they be delivering work? From whom are they expecting completed work? The answer to these questions may not be a name on the immediate team. Scrum masters must periodically explicitly ask these questions if the connections aren’t coming out naturally during stand-ups. Developing this behavior is about coaching the team to look beyond the work on their desk and understand how they are connected to the larger effort. Software programmers seem to have a natural tendency to build walls around their work. Software engineers less so. And on teams with diverse functional groups it is important for both the scrum master and product owner to be watchful for when barriers appear for reasons that have more to due to lack of familiarity across functional domains than anything else.
  • Is the entire team actively and consistently engaged with identifying and writing stories?
  • Is the team capable and willing to cross domain boundaries and help? Are they interested in learning about other parts of the product and business?

Product owners and scrum masters need to be constantly scanning for these and other signs of disengagement as well as opportunities to connect cross functional needs.


Photo by Yu Hosoi on Unsplash

Book Review: Tribes – We Need You to Lead Us

Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us by Seth Godin

 

Reading Seth Godin is a lot like going for an enjoyable mountain hike and finding a handful of small gold nuggets along the way. No heavy effort to dig for miles in order to find the deeper, richer vein of wealth. Just enough interesting shiny bits of useful wisdom scattered along the trail to invite the reader to explore further.

“Tribes” isn’t so much about the composition and character of tribes, per se, but more a call to serve as a leader for tribes yet to be formed. “Human beings can’t help it,” he writes. “[W]e need to belong. One of the most powerful of our survival mechanisms is to be part of a tribe, to contribute to (and take from) a group of like-minded people.” But left to their own devices, tribes dissolve or evolve into something directionless, perhaps unruly. What they need to persist is some form of leadership to set the rules and customs.

Speaking to aspiring or future leaders, Godin presents what he views as the biggest blocker to people stepping up and fulfilling leadership roles.

The only shortcut in this book, the only technique or how-to or inside info is this: the levers are here. The proof is here. The power is here. The only thing holding you back is your own fear….Dr. Laurence Peter is famous for proposing that “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” In other words, when you do a great job, you get promoted. And that process repeats itself until finally you end up in a job you can’t handle….I’d like to paraphrase the Peter Principle. I think what actually happens is that “in every organization everyone rises to the level at which they become paralyzed with fear.”

And the source of that fear is rooted in misaligned beliefs about criticism and failure.

As with almost everything I read, my eye is searching for ways the information I’m acquiring can be applied to improving team performance. The notion of tribes appeals to me from a social community perspective. I firmly believe there are deep psychological patterns in the human mind that unconsciously gravitate toward the idea of belonging to a tribal structure. And yet, there are limitations to that structure in the 21st Century business world. As Godin notes, “[I]n addition to the messages that go from the marketer or the leader to the tribe, there are the messages that go sideways, from member to member, and back to the leader as well.” What about communication between tribes? How might we avoid the formation of silos and corporate turf battles? These are questions for which I’ll need to continue searching as they are not addressed in “Tribes.”

Written more than ten years ago, there are elements of the book that have not aged well. For example, writing at a time which many today are considering the Golden Age of the Internet, Godin observes “In the nonsquishy tribal world of this decade, Twitter and blogs and online videos and countless other techniques contribute to an entirely new dimension of what it means to be part of a tribe.” And later, while writing about how easy it is for tribes to connect, communicate, and spread messages: “The tribe thrives; it delivers value and it spreads. Internet folks call this viral activity, or a virtuous cycle.” More commonly today the technology noted by Godin – particularly Facebook and Twitter – have resulted in the formation of more mobs than tribes and the cycles are 2021 are more vicious than they are virtuous.

However, I don’t think Godin was casting his gaze into the future through entirely rose colored glasses. He notes that crowds (and their blunt force object version: mobs) and tribes are “[t]wo different things: A crowd is a tribe without a leader. A crowd is a tribe without communication. Most organizations spend their time marketing to the crowd. Smart organizations assemble the tribe. Crowds are interesting, and they can create all sorts of worthwhile artifacts and market effects. But tribes are longer lasting and more effective.”

Several of the gold nuggets I picked up pointed to the importance of systemic thinking and analysis:

Leaders don’t care very much for organizational structure or the official blessing of whatever factory they work for. They use passion and ideas to lead people, as opposed to using threats and bureaucracy to manage them. Leaders must become aware of how the organization works, because this awareness allows them to change it.

Working in an environment that’s static is no fun. Even worse, working for an organization that is busy fighting off change is horrible.

When you fall in love with the system, you lose the ability to grow.

The status quo is persistent and resistant.

The last quote is a clear reflection of Shalloway’s Corollary. The status quo is the system pushing back.

I’ll round out this review with a few quotes that apply to a life in general.

Leaders have followers. Managers have employees.

If you need the alternative to be better than the status quo from the very start, you’ll never begin.

Life’s too short to fight the forces of change. Life’s too short to hate what you do all day. Life’s way too short to make mediocre stuff.

Defending mediocrity is exhausting.

Instead of wondering when your next vacation is, maybe you ought to set up a life you don’t need to escape from.

People don’t believe what you tell them. They rarely believe what you show them. They often believe what their friends tell them. They always believe what they tell themselves. What leaders do: they give people stories they can tell themselves. Stories about the future and about change.