The Organisational Psychotherapy Approach To Agile Coaching
What’s the point of an Agile Coach? I guess the most common answer would be to make development teams more productive. After all, Agile Coaches cost money, and they don’t do much in the way of development work themselves. If they’re not a force multiplier for one or more dev teams, then where’s the cost-benefit justification?
Personally, I’d suggest the most common reason, although rarely articulated as such, is to raise the pace of improvement. Or, worst case, to reduce the pace of degradation of performance (given that things are always changing, and some teams may not be able to even keep abreast of change).
There are two essential problems with seeing the appointment of an Agile Coach as a means to improve a development teams productivity: The Motivation Fallacy and the Local Optimisation Fallacy.
The Motivation Fallacy
Many development teams have little to no manifest interest in improving, nor therefore in the pace of any improvement. This is often compounded or aggravated by the appointment (a.k.a. imposition) of a coach to encourage them. An iron first of coercion, even in a velvet glove of a smiling, happy coach, often offends. And rarely is the agenda for improvement part of any joined-up initiative. Much more often it occurs at the behest of one or two people looking to secure their personal bonus or make a name for themselves as innovative go-getters. Such personal agendas also serves to alienate people further, both the folks in the development teams and those folks up-stream and downstream on whose cooperation any joined-up approach would depend.
The Local Optimisation Fallacy
Unless the development team is the current constraint limiting the throughput of the whole organisation, improving the teams productivity has little to zero effect on the productivity of the whole organisation. Some authorities on the subject go further and suggest that in these (non-bottleneck) cases, improving the teams productivity will actually make the performance of the organisation as a whole worse. (Cf. Ackoff)
Even when the development team IS the current bottleneck, improving it soon moves that bottleneck elsewhere in the organisation. Agile Coaches and other folks in the development function rarely have the remit or authority to follow that moving constraint. And so rarely if ever does the improvement initiative continue in the newly-constraining area of the business.
Where Organisational Psychotherapy Comes In
Both of the aforementioned fallacies arise in organisations with low levels of congruence. Such organisations have a gulf between how they perceive themselves (self-image), their ideal self, and how they actually experience life. To paraphrase Carl Rogers:
“Organisations behave as they do because of the way they perceive themselves and their situation.”
Where an organisation’s self-image and actual experience are consistent or very similar, a state of congruence exists. Rarely, if ever, does a total state of congruence exist; all organisations experience a certain amount of incongruence.
Organisational therapy serves to help willing organisations reduce the gulf between their self-image and their actual experience. In other words, to improve congruence. Agile Coaches could do this, given the brief (remit) and skills – and some of the more effective ones likely do already. Albeit intuitively rather than with an explicit understand of what’s happening. Oh so rarely is this remit conferred, or sought, however.
The practical side to Roger’s Theory of Self states that being in a condition of incongruence is uncomfortable; therefore each organisation seeks to become more congruent. When the distance between the self-image and actual experience becomes too great, the organisation is more likely to exhibit both distress and anxiety. Likewise the people within it.
Thus organisational therapy helps to:
- Increase congruence
- Reduce stress and anxiety levels
- Broadly improve cognitive function (through e.g. lower levels of stress and anxiety)
- Indirectly, address a wide range of pathogenic beliefs, which in turn may lead to..
- Improved motivation
- Increased collaboration across silos
- More joined-up initiatives (fewer local optimisations)