Intro

Join Brian and Barnaby Golden as they dig into a surprisingly common roadblock in Agile teams, the underpowered product owner, and how it quietly derails decision-making, flow, and team momentum.

Overview

In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, Brian welcomes Agile coach and community contributor Barnaby Golden to explore the risks and ripple effects of placing a product owner in the role without the authority to own it.

They discuss the stark difference between empowered and underpowered product owners, why availability without authority is a setup for frustration, and how misalignment at the leadership level creates more theater than agility. From trust gaps to political decision-making, Barnaby and Brian unpack the hidden reasons teams get stuck and what it takes to create real, empowered ownership that delivers actual value.

References and resources mentioned in the show:

Barnaby Golden
#104: Mastering Product Ownership with Mike Cohn
#3: What Makes a Great Product Owner? With Lance Dacy
How to Engage and Help Busy Product Owners by Mike Cohn
What Happens When For Product Owners
Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast

Want to get involved?

This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input.

• Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one.
• Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com

This episode’s presenters are:

Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work.

Barnaby Golden is an experienced Scrum Master and Agile Coach with a knack for helping teams truly live Agile, not just adopt it. Lately, he’s been diving into the real-world use of AI—helping organizations, including nonprofits, turn tech hype into practical, high-impact tools with smart governance

Auto-generated Transcript:

Brian Milner
(00:00) Welcome in Agile Mentors, we're back. This is another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I'm here with you as always, Brian Milner, and we have a very special guest with us today. We have Mr. Barnaby Golden with us. Barnaby, welcome in.

Barnaby Golden (00:14)
Thank you, it's good to be here.

Brian Milner (00:16)
Very excited to have Barnaby here. Barnaby is an Agile coach, also a Scrum Master. He is known to us because he is part of our Agile Mentors community. And he is an active member there and has weighed in on several issues and helped people and mentored people through things there. So we wanted to share some of the wisdom of the crowd that we have there at Agile Mentors. Just a few select people that have really contributed. and giving us some really good advice there with the podcast audience as well. So you guys can kind of hear what kind of stuff is there on the Agile Mentors discussion forums. But we were talking about topics here with Barnaby about what we were going to talk about and he proposed one that I really found intriguing. It was focusing around the underpowered product owner, the underpowered PO. And I think that's probably a good place for us to start then, Barnaby. Why don't you kind of just explain to everyone what that idea is, what you mean by the underpowered PO.

Barnaby Golden (01:12)
Sure, of course. So in fact, what I'll do is I'll explain it by giving you the opposite, which is what does a good, effective, powerful product owner look like? And I was working for an organization a few years back, it was a publishing organization. And we had the head of the editorial team was the product owner for a particular Scrum team.

Brian Milner (01:16)
Okay.

Barnaby Golden (01:38)
And this head of editorial had a lot of power and influence in the organization. They were pretty much a decision maker in terms of the products that the team was building. And I remember a particular conversation where the team was talking to this product owner and the team said, look, we know you want to get this, this release out this week, but we've got some technical debt. really need to fix it. And I remember the, this guy saying, look, okay. I'm going to let me think about this for a second. Okay. I can make the decision on this, which is, yep, you can have your time. I'll communicate with others within the organization. The release will be delayed. And that was such a powerful moment because in that second, the decision was made. The product owner trusted the team, the team completely trusted the product owner. And it felt slick and efficient and worked really well. Conversely, I've worked in organizations where in some way, surprisingly enough, product owner is seen as quite a junior role. So I've seen the situation where you have a whole hierarchy of product people and the most junior role in the product organization is the product owner. And what happens in that scenario is the product owner is powerless to make a lot of decisions. So they have to push them up the tree. And in that situation, the conversation between the team and the product owner is the team says, yeah, we need to do this thing. And the product owner says, okay, give me some time. Might be a day and I'll get back to you. Hopefully I can get in contact with other people within my hierarchy and the flows broken. What's the team going to do now? They're going to maybe find something alternative to work on. It's very frustrating. And you sometimes get the situation as well where the the underpowered product owner will sympathize with something the team is saying, but will not be able to make a change because they haven't got the authority to do the change. So they'll say, yeah, I agree with you. I know what you're saying. This is a really bad idea what's being suggested, but I have no choice. We have a roadmap. We've got to meet the roadmap.

Brian Milner (03:45)
Yeah, that's a clear picture. I agree with you that those are two stark contrasts. And what I like about the explanation is you kind of highlight the effectiveness of one versus the ineffectiveness of the other, right? It's just, it's such a dramatic difference when that person is able to make the decisions on the spot. go forward, and the team is just free to move as quickly as possible. Whereas the other one, it's just holdups. It's just delays and obstacles, roadblocks in the team's way. So yeah, a really clear picture there. Just as you were talking about this, I was thinking to myself, well, maybe one of the worthy paths for us to go down here and talking about this. is trying to understand a little bit about the why behind it. ⁓ Because I think there's, just in thinking about it, I think there's maybe several causes for this or several things that might lead to having an underpowered PO. What's been your experience? What kind of things have you seen that might contribute to an underpowered PO?

Barnaby Golden (04:36)
Hmm. I think the main reason, the biggest driving factor behind it is the feeling that the people with the authority to make decisions do not have time to spend with the team. So you've got your head of product or the real decision makers in the organization. They are saying, I can't spend two, three hours a week with a team. I can't go to a planning meeting. got, you know, I'm a busy person. I've got things on my schedule. So they see the product owner role as a stand-in for themselves with the team. And this stand-in has lots of time to spend with the team, which is good. And that's a powerful thing. But at the same time, if they've not got the authority to make decisions, then maybe that time is not effectively spent.

Brian Milner (05:41)
Yeah, it's almost as if they just want a warm body there. It's a placeholder. You're here as a placeholder for me because I can't be two places at once. I've heard a couple of things that people will frequently point to that a product owner needs to be successful. And there's sort of this dichotomy of these two things that are part of that. And that's the kind of empowered

Barnaby Golden (05:44)
Yeah.

Brian Milner (06:05)
product owner that is empowered to make decisions versus having the availability to actually be present with the team. it's always, it seems like that's a fracture point that sometimes causes this because you have the leaders who, hey, I need to make all the decisions, but I don't have the availability. and the people that they know have the availability, they don't want to empower to make the decisions. So they're kind of setting up their product owners to fail.

Barnaby Golden (06:35)
I think it's a classic example as well with when you want to be an agile organization, you can't just have pockets of agility. You can't just have a scrum team and say, well, that's where we'll be agile in this scrum team. The entire organization as a whole has to think in the agile mindset. And if you want to be able to adapt to change, then one of the ways you're to have to do that is you're going to have to have the decision makers close to the teams that are implementing the decisions. and so you can't have your, your cake and not eat it. If you see what I mean in terms of, you, you can't pick and choose the aspects of agile that you want. need to, as an organization, adopt the whole thing.

Brian Milner (07:17)
Yeah, that's always one thing I try to tell people as well is when you're selecting a product owner, when you're trying to decide who's the right person to be the product owner for this team, those are two of the things you have to really consider strongly is does this person have the availability to be here with the team and is this person empowered to make decisions? I've run up against leaders before that don't want to empower someone and Kind of the counterpoint I give them a lot of times is, I don't know, I think maybe in their head they're thinking this is giving someone free reign to make really long-term decisions on their own when that's not really the case. The product owner can be fully empowered, but the decisions that they're making on the spot are just a couple of week decisions. It's not a six month decision. there's gonna be sprint reviews, we're gonna display stuff and get feedback and we can course correct and all those things. So once you can kind of put it in that frame that it's really just a couple of weeks that you're empowering them to make decisions, I've had more success framing it that way. I don't know, what about you?

Barnaby Golden (08:23)
Yeah, I think that makes a huge amount of sense. The fear is loss of control. So the fear is that by empowering the product owner, they might do something which they would regard as a mistake. And they will often see themselves, because they're in a senior position, they see themselves as being responsible. So if they're responsible and the product owner makes a decision they don't like, perhaps that will reflect poorly on them. So there's a trust issue here. A good product owner is going to be consulting their stakeholders anyway. And I would think the, the senior product leadership team is part of their stakeholders. So you would hope that they were keeping them very, very up to date on their thinking that there would be no great surprises that they wouldn't do something, you know, suddenly switch from one product to a completely different product. They would always be keeping their stakeholders in the loop. And in which case. they would be building up the trust of the people around them and then you would hope that over time that they would become more empowered.

Brian Milner (09:23)
Yeah. Yeah. I just, I kind of wonder if that's maybe part of it, that the, they have a misunderstanding of kind of how the role works. You know, cause maybe they, maybe they see it as completely independent. This person is just making decisions on their own without consulting anyone. Maybe that's because that's how they do their job.

Barnaby Golden (09:35)
Yeah. Yeah.

Brian Milner (09:49)
So they may look at that as, know, this is how I would do it, so why wouldn't this person do it the same way? Well, that's not how it's designed. It's designed to be done in concert.

Barnaby Golden (09:59)
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, it's a misunderstanding of the product owner role. And it's also a misunderstanding of why the product owner role came about, which is the reason it was there was to solve the problem of too many chefs, of too many people trying to make decisions. So there's huge value in the role. But the value in the role only comes about if that person can actually take ownership of the product. I mean, the clue's in the name, isn't it? They are the owner of the product, so therefore they can make the critical on the ground decisions, but all the time talking to their stakeholders. So, I mean, as with many things in Scrum, it's about a misunderstanding, a general misunderstanding of what the roles are within the Scrum team.

Brian Milner (10:41)
Yeah, I think they also have the fear of the wrong decision that somehow that's going to lock them in or this person's not equipped to make the right decisions that they are the knowledge expert for the product. so they should be the one making all the decisions. They have the authority. I have had a couple of cases where I've had to have difficult conversations with leaders to say, well, let's examine the decision. because you're looking at them as making the wrong decision, but is it the wrong decision? You're disconnected from the day-to-day of the team. This person is fully connected to the day-to-day, and they're more likely to have more current knowledge. And it's not always the case that just because you assume it's the wrong decision that it actually is, they may actually be right and you could be wrong.

Barnaby Golden (11:30)
And funny enough, this brings on to another topic I'm greatly interested in, which is the definition of value. And that is if there is no clear understanding within the organization of value, then decisions become arbitrary. You know, we decide to do X rather than Y in the product. Well, why did you decide to do that? Well, because it was my decision to do that. Yeah, but is there a rationale behind it? Do you have a definition of the value of X and the value of Y? and why you chose one over the other. And I think that's part of the problem as well. The kinds of organizations that don't have empowered product owners also typically don't have a definition of value.

Brian Milner (12:08)
Yeah, I completely agree. I know I've had conversations in classes where I've talked to people about how when you're prioritizing, when you're looking at things in your backlog, and we always say you prioritize according to value. Well, what's the value? What's the value of doing that thing? And so many times, I think there are organizations that can't really identify what it is. Why are we doing this thing? because it sounded cool, because it seemed like the right thing to do, it just felt right? No, we're doing it so that it does something, it creates some outcome for us. And if you can't even really define what that outcome is that you're hoping it achieves, well, isn't that the start of the problem?

Barnaby Golden (12:55)
And I think part of the root cause of that as well is the tendency for these types of organizations to do long-term planning. So what they'll often do is they'll have a roadmap for the year and they'll say in this roadmap for the year, we will achieve all these things. And then it becomes less about delivering value and more about delivering the roadmap. And I've had conversations with product owners where I've said to them, you do realize what we're doing doesn't make sense. And they say, yeah, of course they do, but I'm not being measured. on sense or the delivery of value, I'm being measured on whether or not I meet the roadmap. And that was what's important to me. You can see how all these elements are tied together within the organization.

Brian Milner (13:28)
Right. Right? Yeah. No, that's an excellent point. And you're absolutely right. So much of our metrics and some of the things that we judge teams on or performance by is basically just a volume kind of metric. And it's how much stuff is being produced. that's not value. Volume does not equal value. Value can be achieved with much less a lot of the times. And if we're This is why sometimes I'll advise product owners in classes to say, look, start up your sprint review. Maybe go back and look at some things that you've done recently and show the metric that you're using for that thing to see if it's successful. Because if the team's done something in the past three or four sprints and it's actually moved the value needle some way, it's increased customer satisfaction. added new members to our site, whatever the thing is, right? If you can show that kind of business value to it, my experience is that people stop focusing as much on volume, because that's volumes of means to the end, which is the value.

Barnaby Golden (14:40)
Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And the other thing I've noticed as well in these types of organizations is that the value they're focused on is the incremental, is not the incremental delivery. It's usually a new feature or something like that competing. And what you often find is that the teams are not end value creators. They're often parts of... the creation of value. rather than the whole creation of value, there may be a component of it. And because of that, people will say, well, there's no direct link between you and value creation in the organization. And I find that is very problematic. And it really flies against the rationale of Scrum, which is that you want within each sprint, you want to deliver some incremental value. And if you can't measure it, if you can't... clearly define what that value is. And as you were saying, if the product owner can't stand in the sprint review and say, well, this is the value we've delivered. How does the team keep motivated? How do they keep passionate about what they're doing?

Brian Milner (15:50)
Yeah. Yeah. I think part of that is just trying to put yourselves in the shoes of your customers and try to look about what they would find as being really valuable. I don't know about you. know, well, I'm sure this applies to you as well. But we all are consumers of different software products, whether that's a business software product or even games or other things that we would use. And when they come out with new releases of those things, they come out with release notes. Now, when they come out with the release notes, are you looking at the release notes and going, wow, I'm satisfied. There's a ton of things that's in this release. Or are you looking through the individual items and going, well, I don't care about that. I don't care about that. I don't care about this. That thing, oh yeah, that's important to me. Right? That's what we do. And that's a clear picture of value over volume.

Barnaby Golden (16:49)
Yeah, I mean, I think the thing that gets in the way here is a lot of it is the pride of the management team. So they often have strong self belief. They believe they make, they believe by definition, the decisions they're making are powerful decisions. So, I, it's also, think one of the reasons why a lot of organizations don't aren't data driven. You would hope they would. produce a feature and then measure whether or not that feature was a success. But that's not as common as it should be. There's very rarely business metrics tracked against deliveries. I mean, I'm generalizing here. There are many organizations do this very well. But I found there's quite a few organizations that don't really do that. And it leads to a disconnect with the customers. I mean, I can think of an example that we're... an organization I was working at where they worked on a feature delivery for six months that was on the roadmap and they got it done and they shipped it. And I think the expected users were tens of thousands and they got 16 users for this feature. And at that point there wasn't even a post-mortem. They didn't even look back and say, well, what are the lessons learned here? It was like, that's shame. Let's move on to the next item on the roadmap and hope that works instead. And it's very frustrating, especially because the feel of a good Scrum team is the connection with the customers and the feeling that you can see the passion in the engineers and in the team's eyes because they're delivering things that people want and they feel connected to it. And it means they work better and they work more effectively.

Brian Milner (18:22)
Yeah, there's no worse feeling than building something no one uses. I used to joke with the team, it's kind of like that old joke about if a tree falls in the woods and no one's around us, makes, if we build software that nobody uses, did we build it? It's not going to be used for anything. So it didn't serve any purpose.

Barnaby Golden (18:31)
You Yeah. Yeah, the way I like to think of it is that an organization should not view people's time spent in the job as important. What they should view is the value that that person has delivered as important. So sometimes people will say, know, yeah, okay, we delivered a feature that nobody really used, but you you did your job, you came in for eight hours a day during that time. And that's hard for people, I think, because they feel like this is my life. I'm investing time and energy into this. Yeah, the money is important, of course. I'm doing it as a career. But at the same time, I also want to feel reward. I want to feel like I'm achieving something. And I think with that element, you get so much better performance from the team if they feel that.

Brian Milner (19:26)
I agree. There's another thing I was thinking of here too, when we were talking about underpowered POs. Another cause I think that maybe you've encountered or seen as well, but screwy things that people do with kind of personnel. Like for example, having multiple product owners for a team, that leads to underpowered product owner or the opposite even putting a product owner on too many teams. That's going lead to underpowered POs as well. What's been your experience with that? Have you seen that? Okay.

Barnaby Golden (19:54)
I have one extreme example where there was an engineering team and the organization was an international organization. And politically within the organization, it was unacceptable to have one backlog. They had to have a backlog for the UK, a backlog for the US, a backlog for Australia, backlog for other areas of the world. And the team then had to... prioritize them kind of in this wild order. So they would say, right, we'll take number one from UK, number one from US. And so there was no coherence to what they were building at all. It was really just about satisfying people within the organization. And it kind of brings you back to that key point about why do we have product owners? Because product owners, they narrow down all the ambiguity, they narrow down all the possibilities to the thing that's most effective for the team to do next.

Brian Milner (20:47)
Yeah, I like your example because it highlights kind of what I think about those scenarios a lot of times is that they're theater. They're an act. They're not really serving the purpose, but they're making someone or helping someone to feel a sense of security about something that really they shouldn't feel. It's not there, but it has the appearance of it. It has the stage set.

Barnaby Golden (20:55)
Hmm. Yeah.

Brian Milner (21:11)
of something that looks secure, you know?

Barnaby Golden (21:13)
Yeah. mean, whenever somebody mentioned that to me, the first thing I always think about is the length of the backlog. I've worked in organizations where they could not achieve the backlog in 10 years if the team kept at it. And yet people within the organization say, yeah, I'm not worried. My feature request is on the backlog. And I'm thinking, yeah, but we're adding 10 new items a week and we're only completing eight. So in fact, you're moving further down the backlog. You're not actually getting closer to. being done. And it's, it's, it's a disconnect to gain. And this is what it's all about. Good agility, good scrum is when there's a strong connection. And if you start having that, that just doing things for appearances sake, then you lose that connection.

Brian Milner (21:55)
Yeah, and it really is kind of that fundamental flaw that we try to address throughout Scrum of transparency. When you do those kind of theater-ish things to give the appearance of something, it's the opposite of being transparent. You're trying to make it more difficult to see the reality. Yeah, it's on the backlog, so you have this false sense of security. It's on the backlog. It's never gonna get done, but... that's not transparent that it's never going to get done because it's on the backlog. Yeah, mean, part of that I put on the product owner a little bit, but that could also be that the organization demands it. Like your example with it having different backlogs across different geographies, does it serve a purpose? Well, maybe the purpose is to make someone feel better. That, hey, my thing's number one on our list, but...

Barnaby Golden (22:39)
Yeah.

Brian Milner (22:43)
That doesn't mean it's number one, that's the next thing that's going get done. It's theater.

Barnaby Golden (22:47)
And it was done exactly for that reason. I mean, it was done because they didn't want to alienate the heads of the individual countries. So they wanted to make them feel like they were going to get something even though they weren't going to get it. Which is really frustrating.

Brian Milner (22:59)
I've seen that as well with the multiple product owners. When there's a team that has multiple product owners, a lot of times that's a theater kind of thing as well, because there's a, I don't know if there's a fear that someone's gonna feel undervalued if they're not called the product owner. But it just seems like, yeah, we want all these voices to be involved with it, which again, maybe it's a misunderstanding of the product owner role. That's okay, you can have multiple voices involved, but you gotta define who's the decision maker. And if a team doesn't know that, that's gonna cause a whole host of problems.

Barnaby Golden (23:34)
Absolutely. I mean, I've been in scenarios where you would have multiple product owners. The team has been instructed by a product owner to go in a direction and then midway through a sprint, the other product owner will come along and say, yeah, that's not really what I had in mind for this sprint. Can you please switch onto this other thing? And as a, you know, I was a scrum master at the time and what I ended up doing in my sprint report was I would say, and the team lost 20 to 30 % of their capacity in switching. between what one product owner wanted and what the other product owner wanted. And that at least got a reaction because people said, well, OK, maybe that's not a good thing if we're losing output from the team. But it's a failure of the organization to make value judgments and make genuine decisions. Instead, it becomes political decisions.

Brian Milner (24:19)
Yeah. Well, I'll give you my trick for when I've encountered it as a consultant a couple of times, I usually just ask one question and it'll clear it up. I'll just go to them and whoever the leader is that's insisting that there's multiple product owners on the team, I'll just go and say, all right, what happens when, let's say it's two, what happens when those two people disagree? And usually the immediate thing I hear back is, oh, no, no, no, they get along. They usually understand.

Barnaby Golden (24:45)
You

Brian Milner (24:47)
And I always just counteract it really quickly and say, yeah, but what happens when they don't? What happens when the day comes when one of the product owners wants something that's number one and the other one wants an entirely different thing as the number one priority, who makes the call? And usually they'll point to one of them and say, push comes to shove that one. right. I mean, at that point, I just say, well, you just told me that's your product owner, right?

Barnaby Golden (25:08)
got a little bit more authority so they make the decision here.

Brian Milner (25:15)
That's the product on the other person's a stakeholder, which is fine. There's nothing devaluing about someone who's a stakeholder. They can work all day every day with that product owner.

Barnaby Golden (25:24)
Yeah, absolutely. I think that people feel if they're not in the product owner role, then they will just be another stakeholder and maybe they won't have as loud a voice. But what's so frustrating about the situation is when you see it done well, when you see it done effectively with a really good empowered product owner, a very motivated team, it's such a powerful thing. And I mean, it's why I stayed in Agile for so long is because I know how good it can be and It's very frustrating and I guess I have sympathy for organizations because maybe if they've never seen it done well, it's difficult for them to understand how just how effective it is.

Brian Milner (26:00)
Yeah, I agree. Well, this has been a great discussion. I really like this topic. It's great to focus on product owners a little bit. And hopefully, maybe there is a leader out there or somebody listening who heard some of these things and thought, you know what? Maybe it is time to give our product owner a little more power. We talk about testing things all the time, inspecting and adapting as we go. Well, leaders, try that.

Barnaby Golden (26:25)
Yeah, maybe just try it as an experiment. You know, if you're concerned, give it a go.

Brian Milner (26:27)
Yeah. Yeah. Give it a shot and see what happens. You may like it, and you may decide this is the best way to go. So yeah, I think that's a great suggestion. Well, Barnaby, this has been great. I really appreciate you making time for this. thanks for not only being on the show, but for the contributions you made in the Agile Mentors community as well.

Barnaby Golden (26:47)
Well thanks a lot Brian, I really enjoyed that, it was a great conversation.