Scrum, XP, Management and the Ethics of Agile Software Development

Contrived Collegiality

This is one of three patterns of collaboration that entrench status quo.

“The unpredictable nature of collaborative cultures can lead administrators towards forms of collegiality which they can control, regulate, and tame.” 1

Contrived Collegiality

People in leadership roles often resist honest and open exchange. They don’t want change. They want it done their way. They fear loss of influence or status. They dislike confrontation. They feel external pressure. They are proud, defensive, in denial, or simply insecure.

With a courteous, professional veneer and a stated goal of collaboration, they suppress equal participation by:

  • controlling the schedule, conversation, or process,
  • withholding or misrepresenting critical information,
  • defining the collaborative task or roles too narrowly,
  • overly constraining allowed responses or behaviors.

Within an agile context, a product owner can prescribe a solution then use the agile planning to solicit a limited range of responses:

“Is it feasible?” “How long will it take?” “How much will it cost?”

All Scrum guarantees is that these questions will consider a manageable chunk of the application. But whether it’s a user story, minimum marketable feature or a full specification these questions fail to engage the life experience and passions of the team to addressing the core problem or opportunity.

Go on to create an environment where contrary thinking is a problem, define “buy in” as a lack of visible dissent and you’ve placed the development team in a black box they cannot see out of and you cannot see into.

Contrived collegiality leaves the product owner out on a limb. You’ve limited the chances of anticipating risks, redefining the opportunity in some dynamic way, and invention at any but the tactical level. Despite agile processes and a surface of collaboration, you are relying almost solely on your own abilities to avoid, as Mike Cohn says, “the wrong thing, on time and on budget.”

1 Hargreaves A. and Fullan M., What’s Worth Fighting for in Your School?, Teacher’s College Press, New York, 1991.

 

Comments

Pingback from >Collaboration and Competition: Balkanization vs. Bounded Cohabitation | Ken H. Judy
Time: December 23, 2007, 12:26 pm

[...] This is the second pattern of collaboration that entrenches status quo (see Contrived Collegiality). [...]

Comment from >SteveNo Gravatar
Time: December 23, 2007, 6:34 pm

All true points. The expertise is in re-framing the argument to something that is in the middle. There are very few black and white scenarios in the world and Balkanization vs. Bounded Cohabitation paints a world view at far ends of the spectrum.

I would try to come up with something in the middle. A compromise, a solution, a win-win. What do both sides need to win (or survive)?

It is in this this compromise that the solution will come.

Pingback from >Bounded Collaboration | Ken H. Judy
Time: January 2, 2008, 1:44 am

[...] “Contrived collegiality” and “balkanization” suggest a certain amount of bad faith. Bounded collaboration is a subtler dysfunction. [...]

Write a comment





ken h. judyI am an executive manager, software developer, father and husband trying to do more good than harm.
Working to spend each day doing a little less crap and a little more not crap than the day before.
Aspiring to pride in my accomplishments and pride in who I become as I attain them.
IEEE CSDP
CSP

Papers

Presentations

 

Site menu:


Meta

Creative Commons License

Post text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial - Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Unless otherwise indicated, Images in posts are not cleared for redistribution under creative commons.

Copyright © 2006-2012
Ken H. Judy.

This is a personal weblog. Views expressed are my own and not those of my employer.