It is not without reason that open communication is one of the basic principles of agile action. Agile project management requires open and transparent communication in order to work, because the decision-makers are the executors themselves. And they also bear the responsibility! “Political games” with “targeted” communication inevitably lead to the failure of agile projects. It is not for nothing that certain meetings are an integral part of the structure of the agile Scrum method, for example, and these must not be changed. Even if the news is “Nothing new in the West”.
Communication? – Not a chance
The author himself was sent abroad a few years ago as managing director of a smaller subsidiary that was full of local and international employees. The atmosphere there was rather dull. Although everyone was sitting in an open-plan office, everyone was muddling along. There was a great deal of dissatisfaction and the atmosphere was at rock bottom. This did not go unnoticed by those responsible at the head office, and performance always fell short of expectations. In addition, the company worked in a matrix structure, which meant that individual complaints always ended up directly at head office. Things could not go on like this. It was discovered that the managing director, who on paper had the best qualifications for his role, was virtually invisible. He was also a foreigner, but had studied in the country and knew the language and mentality of the employees. But he hardly saw them, which was not the fault of the employees. From time to time, he turned up at meetings that required his presence and otherwise spent a lot of time in his office – he had the only single office, of course.
Communication? – Management task
The managing director was therefore replaced by the author. The task, as a project so to speak, was to improve the atmosphere and increase productivity. Through meetings and management by walking around, I first gained an overview. This visibility had a certain positive effect, as the employees now had the feeling that there was someone who was interested in their concerns and who was approachable. At that time, agile methods were not yet on everyone’s lips, but were reserved for a certain group of experts. Nevertheless, I was aware that further improvements were needed. The employees were all willing, well trained and quite capable of doing their job well. In order to promote transparency and to always know what was going on in the company, I introduced a weekly meeting with all my direct reports, from the head of department to the assistant. Everyone was equal there, in the sense that everyone reported to me and was listened to. Each participant had to report on what they were currently working on, what they were planning and what they might need support with. This meeting proved to be an “icebreaker”, because there was never a meeting where at least one participant didn’t say: “You, this is important. This concerns me too. Let’s sit down together later.” Bingo – this got the communication going again and after a short time, the employees were looking forward to the meeting because they had not only recognized its value, they had also given it this value themselves through their participation. For me, this was a very convenient thing, because it meant I could concentrate on my actual tasks and be sure that the rest of the “store was running”.
The atmosphere changed accordingly, which was noticed positively at the head office. When we were later assigned two other employees from outside the company to strengthen the team for a special task, this approach also made integration into the company much easier. The unconscious “weekly Scrum meeting” had proved its worth and no magic formula is needed to implement communication. Even simple measures can lead to success – you simply have to implement them!
Attitude – the decisive leadership factor
The basis for the success of the meetings was therefore that they took place. And also that they took place in the right atmosphere. There was no top or bottom. There was no boss to report to. The boss himself was part of the procedure, because he also reported what he was working on, just like everyone else. This does not mean that there were no hierarchies, but they simply did not play a role. Everyone reported to everyone else, and that’s how it was understood. The boss merely acted as a moderator. Furthermore, it was deliberately only about reporting, not about judging, complaining or apportioning blame. The success of the meetings was based on these factors. In this respect, they were no different from agile working methods and impressively demonstrated the success of pursuing agile principles outside the agile world.
Leadership and communication in projects – an example
Only recently, I was able to experience in a seminar how all the decisive success factors contributed to success and failure. Two teams of three people each had to build a tower from various materials (paper, scissors, glue, etc.) that had to meet certain criteria. Stability, originality and height were assessed. The teams had 30 minutes to do this. A very conventional and common exercise in seminars. The company in which the seminar participants work has a very classic project approach.
Let’s go!
Both teams started full of enthusiasm. Everyone communicated and lots of ideas were generated. 30 minutes is actually enough time, but no one in either team was watching the time. Instead, everyone threw themselves into the work and tried to contribute to the success of the project as best they could. The goal of the work was determined “en passant”, so to speak. Team B’s goal quickly emerged as being to build the tallest tower, although this was only one of the assessment criteria. Once this had been accepted by all team members by silent agreement, i.e. no conscious decision had been made, everyone began to use the materials like mad and contribute to success by learning by doing. The activity quickly devolved into individual actions that were all well-intentioned but not coordinated. The result: the tower was the tallest, but it toppled over 30 seconds before the end of the construction time. No one had kept track of the time and it was too late to repair it.
Strategy is a conscious decision that must be communicated
Team B, on the other hand, presented a tower only half as high. But it stood firm and was decorated with original paintings and embellishments. This design was based on a conscious decision. Team A had also started in the same way as Team B, and nobody had paid attention to the time there either. Both teams could not see each other, but after Team B wanted to build upwards and one participant had to climb onto a table to do so, this did not go unnoticed. Team A then decided to deliberately change their strategy under the leadership of one of the participants: if they couldn’t or didn’t want to compete on height, they would focus on stability and originality. There was still enough time for this and the tower was finished accordingly. Conclusion: Even if Team A had had the highest tower (if it hadn’t fallen over), Team B would have won.
The “Tower of Babel” and its findings
Team B’s success was due to several factors. Firstly, the team was in a position to question its strategy, to realign it and to reach a consensus that was implemented by everyone. Secondly, there was leadership at the decisive moment that brought about the change in strategy. Thirdly, they were able to react to changing conditions after Team A had “betrayed itself”. Although Team A had also not taken the time to discuss the fundamentals at the beginning and had lapsed into actionism due to the perceived time pressure, this approach was crowned with success through trail and error and the corresponding strategy changes. One of the reasons for this was that a generally accepted leadership role had emerged.
Agile or not agile – communication is the key to everything
Even though both teams began with experiments, iterations and freedom from hierarchy, this approach can hardly be described as agile. Agility is not characterized by blind experimentation, but precisely by having a clear goal in mind. It is then a question of how this goal is to be achieved. However, it is also clear here that regardless of the project organization or approach, communication is the key factor for success. This is actually a truism and the exercise of building a tower is anything but new. This makes it all the more important to emphasize that these “common” insights must always be communicated, i.e. COMMUNICATED, in order for them to be implemented. And as our first example shows, even simple things can have a big impact. Agile principles are the prerequisite for successful agile working, but that does not mean that they cannot also be successfully applied in other constellations. After all, they contribute to joint success and that is what ultimately matters. However, it is important that the leadership role, whoever it may be, must be perceived so that communication firstly takes place at all and secondly is directed in the right direction.
