Forums

Question

How (if at all) should I approach a person in our organization who I barely know about some process issues with my team told to me by a scrum master working with my team?  I'm the people manager of the team and her complaints are about process.  But I'm also ultimately responsible for product delivery.  I've offered advice to the scrum master on how to work with this person but she wants me "to do something".  (NOTE: I did re-listen to the pod-cast on feedback about directs and thought about some of those points.  But it's not really the same.  The pod-cast on handling peer conflict had some thoughts like focusing on the work that I feel apply.  But it's not exactly that either.)

Here's some ideas I'm mulling over:

  1. Just keep working with the team and the scrum master to assert their issues to the person.  I am doing this now because I believe they need to learn to stand up for themselves and processes if they believe things are being done wrong.  But do I need to do more?
  2. Ask to be added to the meetings where issues are happening.  (I'd probably have to explain why I'm suddenly there.  In scrum, I would not normally be invited to planning meetings.)  See if I can see for myself what is happening.  I could then either give ideas to the scrum master for how to handle this or talk to the other person.
  3. Call the person and ask how he feels things are working.  (NOTE: I asked about 6 weeks ago in a meeting and was told it was working out fine.  I've never talked privately to this person.  My relationship has been with his boss.)  I'd then share facts - and not the emotions - the scrum master shared.
  4. Call the person's boss and share facts.  I've never met this person face to face.  But he was the previous boss of my directs and we have talked a few times.  With the current structure, he interfaces with Product Management - not me.  I've initiated a few conversations but it's only been 4 months.

Lots and Lots of Details!

About 6 months ago, we re-organized and I was given a team of two who had worked for an acquisition.  That office had really been left alone for the 5 years since they were acquired.  It's a small office of about 20 people working on a few small but profitable products.  The Product Management, Services and Engineering organizations of several groups was combined into a single group.  I have the Engineering group with the charter to get out products and get the groups integrated. 

At the same time, we were told to switch to scrum.  I have 3 scrum masters - none of whom report to me.  None of them even report into the same chain in the organization until you hit the President.  It's seems odd but we're making it work because the people in these roles are good people and bosses support getting the job done.

Now, we get to the problem.  One of the scrum masters is dealing with a 2 Engineers who just started reporting into me in March.  This SM is having problems with the Product Owners of the product they are working on.  According to the SM, the POs aren't supporting the scrum process, go around her to the Engineers, refuse to do what is asked of them, are unrealistic on what they ask, ...  I have no reason not to believe her but I've only known her for 4 months.  Some of her comments have been opinions not facts.  I have worked the conversations to stay on facts not guesses that they want to make it look bad so they get the people back or that they don't care about being professional and are just hackers.) I am not invited to the discussions where this is happening because this is typically a SM & PO discussion on setting the backlog and priorities.  The SM says I need to do something.

I think I've built a good relationship with those 2 directs - albeit over the phone except for a one week face-to-face scrum training.  One really just goes with the flow.  He says he's good and this is just the typical almost shipment process for them.  He agrees with me that it's not ideal but sounds relaxed and said he doesn't need any interference from me.  The other direct sounds stressed.  I've repeatedly told him not to burn himself out if it too much to ask.  He said he appreciates the support.  I asked if he wanted me to talk to the POs and he said he didn't think it was necessary.

I've been mulling over what to do.  I have little to no relationship with the PO.  I've had a few discussion with his boss.  The boss told me that he wasn't sure that having the Engineers in our group would provide value.  In fact, he thought it would add overhead and interfere with what he thought was a good process.  My response to that was that we would try to give the two Engineers support in best practices, cross train so they had backup, help with quality practices, etc.  But we would try hard not just to add overhead. I THOUGHT things were going okay until the SM exploded last week!

Any thoughts on the options above or something I've forgotten?

ken_wills's picture

Whew!  All those details make it hard to respond, because I'm afraid I'm missing something or might appear to be giving this short shrift.  But Ms Sunshine, you've been a great contributor to these forums for a long time, and I felt as another longtime member, I'd be wrong to ignore you and move on to "easier" posts...

I can offer two observations - and they're based on two of your initial statements:

"I'm the people manager of the team and her complaints are about process."

In most cases that I've experienced, Process IS People.  Process is generally behavior - when we say that "the process broke down" we're often avoiding saying "somebody didn't do their job."  So I wouldn't be so quick to say that the people manager shouldn't be involved here....

"But I'm also ultimately responsible for product delivery."

So you're ultimately responsible for ensuring the quality and the timeliness of the product - and that's a pretty darn good framework for judging your next move.  If your DON'T intercede, will the quality and/or timeliness of the product likely suffer?  It's possible that you're worrying a bit too much about the reactions and relationships of people INSIDE the company and not enough about people OUTSIDE the company (customers and owners).

And of the ideas you're mulling, I like #4 the most.  But that's just me.

Good luck!

MsSunshine's picture

The more general question is this:  What are the best practices with effectively mediating between two different parties when my team is effected by the outcome but neither is in my direct management chain? 

Any good books or reference material?  What are effective ways to coach them on getting to a resolution?

P.S.  Sorry for the novel!  I really struggled with what information was important.  This morning I actually talked with everyone and have pulled the team out from the scrum master and will work with them myself for the duration of this project.  It's not a great solution but my lead direct was so stressed by the tension between the scrum master and product manager.  The team has a very short window with a tough deliverable and did not need any extra distraction.  The lead felt he could work efficiently with the product manager to push it through.  I do totally realize that I have a problem I need to solve.  But the delivery is critical.

mikehansen's picture

One proven best practice I have used to deal with this situation is to focus on communicating the impact of the changes rather than trying to head them off.  Here is some detail.

I believe the main process problem is the PO swooping in and changing scope for the deliverables.  Don't try to stop the PO from talking to the Engineers, ensure that the Engineers work with you to detail out the impact of the changes resulting from the PO conversations.  Then you (or the SM) can facilitate the right business answer on how to proceed.

If you are using Scrum, the scope of the sprint should have been locked down and agreed to by the PO/SM/Engineers (and yes you should be part of these kick off meetings!).  Your team should already have a burndown of tasks that make up the scrum sprint.  Therefore, adding tasks or changing durations to the burndown is a perfect tool to use to communicate the ramification of the change.  If you agree that the change(s) can be absorbed, than agree to them and move on.  If not, the scrum process has a contingency that allows for the sprint to be aborted, priorities reset, and new goals and timeframes being set.

If the problem is other than scope creep or changing requirements, then I would need more info.

Hope that helps,

Mike

ps, I do not have a recommendation on the more general question of resolving conflice.  I defer to the other gurus here for that...

jhack's picture

Mike's statement to his directs:  "Don't make me come down there and do your job because that means I don't need you!"   

If you have to step in, you definitely need to develop someone on your team capable of being the "scrum master" if there is a problem on a project.  While a longer term project, you might begin the coaching process soon.  

Good luck, and let us know how the project turns out.... 

John Hack