Month: December 2015

Newly Published: Achieving Impact through Engagement

While various studies explore the business impact of employee and customer engagement, they don’t necessarily offer a way for operationalizing their findings!
Throughout various endeavors to foster greater employee and customer engagement for business impact, two particular models have emerged — The Ownership Pyramid (TOP) and Artful Agility or Actions-Intentions-Results (AIR) — that have empowered individuals and groups to operationalize the findings of many such studies!

This book briefly explores these models and how they work together to foster achieving impact though engagement!

415fZODGfyL._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_

Fostering A Healthy Relationship Between Coaches and the PMO

ID-100186558
Source freedigitalphotos.net

Effective Coaching is based heavily on the partnerships established within an organization. To produce the results necessary for the organization to realize the value add of the Coach, the Coach needs to be well positioned to influence meaningful change.

The essence of an effective Coach stems from their ability to navigate an organization with little or no  organizational constraints. Whether the constraints are hierarchical reporting, agenda and scope driven, simply political, or cultural, the Coach needs to establish a presence within the organization that is agnostic to all of those, and is solely reporting to “the best interest of the organization” as a whole. By remaining outside of the boundaries that others may find they need to operate, the Coach’s next best ally is the sound partnerships they establish throughout the organization.

As enterprise transformations unfold, or even before they begin, at times the Coaching Community may find themselves reporting directly to the PMO. If a proper understanding of the Coaching role is not grasped by all parties, the relationship between the Coach and the PMO will inevitably become toxic, as the Coach is focusing on the dynamics (Behaviors, Relationships, and Communication) of the organization and teams, while the PMO is focused on the mechanics (Process + Tools).  With these different underlying intentions, the relationship between the two can quickly become toxic and dysfunctional, causing whatever partnership existed, to breakdown and dissipate. And because there is a direct reporting structure in place (Coach to PMO), the Coaching Community will be handcuffed, creating an environment that allows for minimal chance of survival. Additionally, the organization as a whole will not have respect for the Coaching Community, as they are bound to a division that is concerned more with metrics and reporting than fostering healthy human dynamics and establishing an organizationally owned enterprise value-driven framework. Other parts of the organization won’t understand the coaching intentions coming from the PMO and will push back on any suggested changes. The best recipe for success is to have a partnership between the two, and not a direct reporting structure, permitting them to work toward the same result while remaining steadfast to different intentions. Additionally a partnership will enable the Coaching Community to have more impact on the organization and position them to cultivate change.

In addition to a partnership, clearly understanding who owns what is paramount. The Coaching Community should own and be accountable for “coaching in” the framework created by the organization and guiding and mentoring teams on best practices/disciplines, while the PMO should have ownership and accountability over enterprise initiative budgets and the enterprise roadmap. If the PMO takes ownership over the framework, the partnership will collapse and eventually the Coaching Community and Framework will be dissolved.

The best position for the Coaching Community is to be a direct report to the CIO, and have sound equal partnerships with the Leadership Team (including CIO and COO, focused on overall strategy of the organization), the PMO (enterprise roadmap + budgets), the Enterprise Architect (enterprise architecture description ), and the Oversight Team (focused on value discovery and delivery). This dynamic will enable ownership and accountability of the framework to reside safely with the coaches, and continue to foster a healthy relationship between the coaches and the PMO.

 

I Want It All, I Want It Now: Changing the Diner Mindset of the Business

Courtesy of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Courtesy of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Far too often as coaches, we find ourselves in a professional environment where the breakdown in communication and collaborative efforts has led to dysfunctional behaviors that cause development teams to over promise and under deliver due to a magnitude of reasons. Searching for a root cause, one may need to look no further than the culture of the organization and its stress on ownership. Teams need to be in the position of owning the work they are asked to deliver.

Even before estimating and writing “better” user stories/requirements, its important that the organization allow the teams to Commit to completing the work within the specified timebox. Commitment doesn’t mean to blindly agree to complete everything thrown their way in a specified period. Its authentic commitment that is pragmatic to the situation of the team. Many organizations have difficulty adhering to this concept, as simple as it may sound, because resistance emerges from both Business and IT. Business wants everything yesterday, and IT wants to please the Business, as they “believe” it reflects on their performance.

Engaging IT and the Business together in conversation to first understand each other’s pain points is a key first step in promoting authentic commitment. It brings a healthy dynamic to an otherwise dysfunctional environment, as the two parties can begin to embrace each other’s humanity, driving respect and forgiveness for each. Next would be to begin formulating a framework that both parties can operate within, and one that fosters collaboration with a focus on results. Unfortunately, Coaches are in most cases deployed into the trenches, working individual teams on stand-ups and user story writing (for example), when the root problems are manifesting further upstream. If a sound yet loosely structured framework is in place, the teams can develop the best practices and processes within the delivery cycle, and the coach can focus their energy on ensuring the Business and IT are adhering to the disciplines within the framework.

Finally, heavy coaching is required for the framework to remain intact and disciplines to be followed and for the teams to be in a position to offer authentic commitment during each delivery cycle. Coaching the Business and IT, so both parties are aligned on expectations, will undoubtedly enable ownership to flourish at the individual and team levels, and authentic commitment will be welcomed by all.