Agile Mentors Podcast

What does it really mean to have a bias toward action and how do you build that into your culture without skipping strategy? Boris Gloger joins Brian Milner for a deep dive on experimentation, leadership, and the difference between tactical work and true strategic thinking. Overview In this conversation, Brian welcomes longtime Scrum pioneer, consultant, and author Boris Gloger to explore the tension between planning and doing in Agile environments. Boris shares how a bias toward action isn’t about skipping steps—it’s about shortening the cycle between idea and feedback, especially when knowledge gaps or fear of mistakes create inertia. They unpack why experimentation is often misunderstood, what leaders get wrong about failure, and how AI, organizational habits, and strategy-as-practice are reshaping the future of Agile work. References and resources mentioned in the show: Boris Gloger LinkedIn Leaders Guide to Agile eBook Join the Agile Mentors Community 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. Boris Gloger is a pioneering agile strategist and Germany’s first Certified Scrum Trainer, known for shaping how organizations across Europe approach transformation, strategy, and sustainable leadership. As founder of borisgloger consulting, he helps teams and executives navigate complexity—blending modern management, ethical innovation, and even AI—to make agility actually work in the real world. Auto-generated Transcript: Brian Milner (00:00) Welcome in Agile Mentors. We're back for another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I'm with you as always, Brian Milner. And today I have the one, the only Mr. Boris Glogger with us. Welcome in Boris. Boris Gloger (00:11) Yeah, thank you, Eurobrein, for having me on your show. Brian Milner (00:14) Very excited to have Boris here. For those of you who haven't crossed paths with Boris, Boris has been involved in the Scrum movement, I would say, since the very, very earliest days. He's a CST, he's a coach, he's an author, he's a keynote speaker. He had a book early called The Agile Fixed Price. He runs his own consultancy in Europe. And he has a new book that's been, that's going to be coming out soon called strategy as practice. And that's one of the reasons we wanted to have Boris on is because there's kind of this topic area that's been percolating that I've heard people talk about quite often. And I see some confused looks when the, when the topic comes up, you hear this term about having a bias toward action. And, we just wanted to kind of dive into that a little bit about what that means to have a bias toward action. and really how we can apply that to what we do in our day-to-day lives. So let's start there, Boris. When you hear that term, having a bias toward action, what does that mean to you? Boris Gloger (01:12) The fun thing is I was always in tune with the idea because people said my basic mantra at the beginning of doing agile was doing as a way of thinking. So the basic idea of agile for me was always experimentation, trying things out, breaking rules, not for the sake of breaking rules, but making to create a new kind of order. the basic idea is like we had with test-driven development at the beginning of all these agile approaches and we said, yeah, we need to test first and then we have the end in our mind, but we don't know exactly how to achieve that. So there is this kind of bias towards action. That's absolutely true. On the other hand, what I've always found fascinating was that even the classical project management methodologies said, Yeah, you have to have a plan, but the second step is to revise that plan. And that was always this, do we plan planning and reality together? And actually for me at the beginning, 35 years ago, was exactly that kind of really cool blend of being able to have a great vision and people like Mike and all these guys, they had always said, we need to have that kind of a vision, we need to know. Yeah, if the product owner was exactly that idea, you have to have that vision, but you really need to get the nitty-gritty details of, so to say, of doing this stuff. Brian Milner (02:40) Yeah, that's awesome. And the thing that kind of always pops to my head when I think about this is, we hear this term bias toward action and there's sort of this balance, I think a little bit between planning and action, right? I mean, you wanna plan, you wanna plan well, but you don't wanna over plan. You don't wanna waste too much time trying to come up with a perfect plan. You wanna... you want to do things, but you also don't want to be, you don't want to rush into things. So how do people find that balance between not just, you know, going off, you know, like we say in the U S half cocked a little bit, you know, like just not, not really not ready to really do the thing that you're going to do. Cause you didn't really invest the time upfront, but on the other hand, not spending so much time that you're trying to get the perfect plan before you do anything. Boris Gloger (03:28) You know, the problem, for me, the issue was solved by when I figured out that the teams typically struggle not to achieve, for instance, the sprint goal or the end or whatever they wanted to accomplish when they have not the right know-how. So it's a knowledge problem. So for instance, I don't know if this is still the case, but sometimes developers say, need to... to immerse myself with that I need to figure that out. I need to get the new framework before I can do something about estimates or something. So whenever you hear that, that you know that person that just tries to give you an estimate or the team that would like to come into a sprint goal or whatever it is, they are not really knowing what topic is about. It's a knowledge gap. And then people tend to go into that analysis paralysis problem. They don't know exactly what they need to do. So therefore they need to investigate. But by doing investigation, you start making that big elephant in the corner, larger and larger and larger and larger because you go that ishikara diagram, you have too many options. It's like playing chess with all options at hand and not have enough experience. What kind of gambit you would like to do. So everything's possible and by, because you have not enough experience, you say everything's possible, that creates too much of a planning hassle. And Agile, is the funny thing is, made us very transparent by just saying, okay, let's spend maybe two weeks. And then we figured out two weeks is too much. So let's do a spike, then we call it a spike. The basic idea was always to have a very short time frame, timeline where we try to bring our know-how to a specific problem, try to solve it as fast as possible. And the funny thing was actually was, as if I I confess myself that I don't know everything, or anything, sorry, that I don't know anything, then I could say, I give me a very short timeline, I could say I spend an hour. And today we have chat, CVT and perplexity and all that stuff. And then we could say, okay, let's spend an hour observation, but then we need to come up with a better idea of what we are talking about. So we can shorten the time cycle. So whenever I experienced teams or even organizations, when they start getting that planning in place, we have a knowledge problem. And a typical that is, is, or the classical mindset always says, okay, then we need to plan more. We need to make that upfront work. For instance, we need to have backlogs and we need to know all these features, even if we don't know what kind of features our client really would like to have. And the actual software problem is saying, okay, let's get out with something that we can deliver. And then we get feedback. And if we understand that our kind of the amount of time we spend is as cheap as possible. So like we use the tools that we have. We used to know how that we have. We try to create something that we can achieve with what we can do already, then we can improve on that. And then we can figure out, we don't know exactly what we might need to have to do more research or ask another consultant or bring in friends from another team to help us with that. Brian Milner (06:46) It's, sounds like the there's a, there's a real, kind of focus then from, from what I'm hearing from you, like a real focus on experimentation and, you know, that, that phrase we hear a lot failing fast, that kind of thing. So how, do you cultivate that? How do you, how do you get the organization to buy in and your team to buy into that idea of. Let's experiment, let's fail fast. And, and, we'll learn more from, from doing that than just, you know, endlessly planning. Boris Gloger (07:12) I think the URCHAR community made a huge mistake of embracing this failure culture all the time. We always tell we need to call from failure because we are all ingrained in a culture in the Western society at least, where we learned through school our parents that making failures is not acceptable. Brian Milner (07:18) Ha ha. Boris Gloger (07:32) And I came across Amy Atkinson and she did a great book to make clear we need to talk about failures and mistakes in a very different kind of way. We need to understand that there are at least three kinds of mistakes that are possible. One is the basic mistake, like a spelling error or you have a context problem in a specific program that you write or you... You break something because you don't know exactly how strong your material is. That is basic mistake. You should know that. That's trainable. The other is the kind of error that you create because the problem you try to solve has too many variables. So that's a complicated problem. You can't foresee all aspects that might happen in future. So typical an airplane is crashing. So you have covered everything you know so far. But then there's some specific problem that nobody could foresee. That's a failure. But it's not something that you can foresee. You can't prevent that. You try to prevent as best as possible. And that's even not an accepted mistake because sometimes people die and you really would like to go against it. So that's the second kind of mistakes you don't like to have. We really like to get out of the system. And then there's a third way kind of mistakes. And that is exactly what we need to have. We need to embrace that experimentation and even experimentation. mean, I started physics in school and in university and an experimental physicists. He's not running an experiment like I just throw a ball around and then I figure out what happens. An experiment is a best guess. You have a theory behind it. You believe that what you deliver or that you try to find out is the best you try to do. The Wright brothers missed their first airplane. I mean, they didn't throw their airplane in the balloon. Then it gets destroyed. They tried whatever they believed is possible. But then you need to understand as a team, as an organization, we have never done this before, so it might get broken. We might learn. For instance, we had once a project where we worked with chemists 10 years ago to splice DNA. So we wanted to understand how DNA is written down in the DNA sequence analyzer. And I needed to understand that we had 90 scientists who created these chemicals to be able to that you can use that in that synthesizer to understand how our DNA is mapped out. And we first need to understand one sprint might get results that 99 of our experience will fail. But again, management said we need to be successful. Yeah, but what is the success in science? I mean, that you know this route of action is not working, right? And that is the kind of failure that we would like to have. And I believe our Agile community need to tell that much more to our clients. It's not like, we need to express failure. No, we don't need to embrace failure. We don't want to have mistakes and we don't want to have complicated issues that might lead to the destroying of our products. need on the other hand, the culture, the experimentation to figure out something that nobody knows so far is acceptable, it's necessary. And then, edge our processes help us again by saying, okay, we can shorten the frame, we can shorten the time frame so that we can create very small, tiny experiments so that in case we are mistaken, Not a big deal. That was the basic idea. Brian Milner (11:04) That's a great point. That's really a great point because you're right. It's not failure in general, right? There are certain kinds of failures that we definitely want to avoid, but there's failure as far as I run an experiment. at that point, that's where we start to enter into this dialogue of it's not really a failure at that point. If you run an experiment and it doesn't turn out the way you expected, it's just an experiment that didn't turn out the way you expected. Boris Gloger (11:30) Basically, every feature we create in software or even in hardware, we have never done it before. So the client or our customers can't use it so far because it's not there. So now we ship it to the client and then he or she might not really use it the way that we believe it is. Is it broken? it a mistake? It was not a mistake. It was an experiment and now we need to adapt on it. And if we can create a system, that was all that was agile, I think was a bot. On very first start, if we can create a system that gives us feedback early. then that guessing can't be so much deviation or say in a different way, our investment in time and material and costs and money and is shortened as much as possible. So we have very small investments. Brian Milner (12:13) Yeah, that's awesome. I'm kind of curious too, because, you know, we, we, we've talked a little bit at the beginning about how, you know, this is part of this bias towards action as part of this entrepreneurial kind of mindset. And I'm curious in your, experience and your consultants experience that you've worked with big companies and small companies, have you noticed a difference in sort of that bias toward action? Uh, you know, that, that kind of. is represented in a different way in a big company versus a more small startup company. Boris Gloger (12:48) The funny thing is I don't believe it's a problem of large corporations or small, tiny little startups, even if we would say that tiny little startups are more in tune in making experiments. It's really a kind of what is my mindset, and the mindset is a strange word, but what is my basic habit about how to embrace new things. What is the way I perceive the world? Every entrepreneur who tries to create it or say it different way, even entrepreneurs nowadays need to create business plans. The basic ideas I can show to investors, everything is already mapped out. I have already clients. I have a proven business model. That is completely crazy because If it were a proof business model, someone else would have already done it, right? So obviously you need to come up with the idea that a kind of entrepreneur mindset is a little bit like I try to create something that is much more interesting to phrase it this way. by creating something, it's like art. You can't, can't... Plan art, I mean, it's impossible. I mean, you might have an idea and you might maybe someone who's writing texts or novels might create a huge outline. But on the other hand, within that outline, he needs to be creative again. And someone will say, I just start by getting continuous feedback. It's always the same. You need to create something to be able to observe it. that was for me, for me, that was the epiphany or the idea 25 years ago was, I don't know what your background is, but I wasn't a business analyst. Business analysts always wanted to write documents that the developer can really implement, right? And then we figured out you can't write down what you need to implement. There's no way of writing requirements in the way that someone else can build it. That's impossible. And even philosophers figure that out 100 years ago is written, Shanti said, you can't tell people what is the case. It's impossible. So, but what you can do, you can create something and you can have it in your review. And then you can start discussing about what you just created. And then you create a new result based on your observations and the next investment that you put in that. And then you create the next version of your product, your feature, your service, et cetera. Brian Milner (15:12) Hmm. Boris Gloger (15:25) And when we came back to the entrepreneur mindset and starting companies, Greaves created exactly that. He said, okay, let's use scrum to come up with as much possibilities for experimentation. And then we will see if it works. Then we can go on at that. And large corporations typically, They have on the one hand side, have too much money. And by having too much money, you would like to get an investment and they have a different problem. Typically large corporations typically needs to, they have already a specific margin with their current running products. And if you come up with a new business feature product, you might not get that as that amount of of revenue or profitability at the beginning. And therefore, can't, corporations have the problem that they have already running business and they are not seeing that they need to spend much, much more money on these opportunities. And maybe over time, that opportunity to make money and that's their problem. So this is the issue. It's not about entrepreneurial mindsets, it's about that. problem that you are not willing to spend that much money as long as you make much more money, it's the same amount of time on your current business. It happens even to myself, We are running a consulting company in Germany and Austria, and Austria is much smaller than Germany's tenth of the size. And if you spend one hour of sales in Austria, you don't make that much money in Austria than you make in Germany. this investment of one hour. Where should you focus? You will always focus on Germany, of course. means obvious. Brian Milner (17:08) Yeah. Yeah. Boris Gloger (17:10) Does it make sense? Maybe I'm running so. Brian Milner (17:14) No, that makes sense. That makes sense entirely. And so I'm kind of curious in this conversation about action and having a bias toward action then, what do you think are some of the, in your experience in working with companies, what have you seen as sort of the common obstacles or barriers, whether that be psychological or. organizational, what do you find as the most common barriers that are preventing people from having that bias toward action? Boris Gloger (17:44) the they are they are afraid of the of that of tapping into the new room endeavor. So that was always my blind spot because I'm an entrepreneur. I love to do new things. I just try things out. If I've either reading a book, and there's a cool idea, I try to what can happen. But we are not And most organizations are not built that way that they're really willing to, when most people are not good in just trying things out. And most people would really like to see how it's done. And most people are not good in... in that have not the imagination what might be possible. That's the we always know that product adoption curve, that the early adopters, the fast followers, the early minority, the late minority. And these inventors or early adopters, they are the ones who can imagine there might be a brighter future if I try that out. And the other ones are the ones who need to see that it is successful. And so whenever you try implementing Scrum or design thinking or mob programming or I don't whatever it is, you will always have people who say it's not possible because I don't have, haven't seen it before. And I sometimes I compare that with how to how kids are learning. Some kids are learning because they see how what is happening. They just mirroring what they see. And some kids are start to invent the same image in imagination. And but both that we are all of us are able to do both. It's not like I'm an imaginary guy who's inventing all the time and I don't, people, maybe there's a preference and the organizations have the same preference. But typically that's the problem that I see in organizations is based on our society and our socialization, on our business behaviors and maybe the pressure of large corporations and all that peer pressure is Brian Milner (19:34) Yeah. Yeah. Boris Gloger (19:54) The willingness to give people the room to try something out is the problem. Well, not the problem, it's the hinders us of being more innovative in organizations. Brian Milner (19:59) Yeah. Yeah. Well, that brings to mind a good question then too, because this experimentation mindset is very, very much a cultural kind of aspect of an organization, which speaks to leadership. And I'm kind of curious from your perspective, if you're a leader, what kind of things can you do as a leader to encourage, foster, of really nurture? that experimentation mindset in your organization. Boris Gloger (20:34) Let's have a very simple example. Everybody of us now maybe have played with chat, CPT, Suno, perplexity and so on. So that's the school AI technology around the corner. And what happens now in organizations is exactly what happens 30 years ago when the internet came here. You have leadership or managers who say, that's a technology, I give it to the teams, they can figure out whatever that is. And the funny thing is, if you have a technology that will change the way we behave, so it's a social technology, a kind of shift, then I need to change my behavior, I need to change the way I do I'm doing things. Yeah, everybody of us has now an iPhone or an Android or whatever it is, but but we are using our mobiles in a completely different way than 30 years ago. And to lead us and manage us, we need to train ourselves first before we can help our teams to change. So the problem is that Again, a lot of Agilist talks about we need, first we need to change the culture of organizations to be able to do Agile and so on and so on. That's complete nonsense. But what we really need to is we need to have managers, team leads, it with team leads, to help them to do the things themselves because Agile, even in the beginning, now it's technology change, now it's AI, is something that changes the way we do our stuff. It's kind of habit. And we need to help them to seize themselves. Maybe they can only seize themselves by doing that stuff. And that goes back to my belief that leadership needs to know much more about the content of their teams and the way these teams can perform their tasks and the technology that is around to be able to thrive in organizations. Brian Milner (22:40) Yeah. Yeah. I love this discussion and I love that you brought up, you know, AI and how that's affecting things here as well. how do you think that's having a, do you think that's making it easier, harder? How do you think AI is, is kind of influencing this bias toward action mentality? Boris Gloger (22:59) Yeah, it depends on if you are able to play. mean, because the funny thing is, it's a new kind of technology. really knows what all these tools can do by themselves. And it's new again. It's not like I have done AI for the next last 10 years and I know exactly what's possible. So we need to play. So you need to log in to adjust it. Yesterday, I tried something on Zulu. I created the company song in 10 seconds. I went to ChatGVT, I said I need a song, I need lyrics for a company song. These are the three words I would like to have, future, Beurus Kluger, and it needs to be that kind of mood. ChatGVT created the song for my lyrics, then they put the lyrics into the... And they created a prompt with ChatGVT and then put that prompt in my lyrics into Sono and Sono created that song within 10 seconds. I mean, it's not get the Grammy. Okay. It's not the Grammy. But it was, I mean, it's, it's, it's okay. Yeah. It's a nice party song. And now, and just playing around. And that is what I would like to see in organizations, that we start to play around with these kind of technologies and involve everybody. But most people, the very discussions that I had in the last couple of weeks or months was about these tools shall do the job exactly the same way as it is done today. So it's like... I create that kind of report. Now I give that to Chet Chibati and Chet Chibati shall create that same report again. That is nonsense. It's like doing photography in the old days, black and white. And now I want to have photography exactly done the same way with my digital camera. And what happened was we used the digital cameras changed completely the way we create photography and art. changed completely, right? And that is the same thing we need to do with ChatGV team. And we need to understand that we don't know exactly how to use it. And then we can enlarge and optimize on one hand the way we are working, for instance, creating 20 different versions for different social media over text or something like that, or 20 new pictures. But if I would like to express myself, so, and... and talk about my own behavior or my own team dynamic and what is the innovation in ourselves, then we need to do ourselves. And we can use, that is the other observation that we made. The funny thing that goes back to the knowledge issue, the funny thing is that teams typically say, I don't know if it's in the US, but at least in my experience, that we still have the problem within teams. that people believe this is my know-how and that is your know-how and I'm a specialist in X or Y set. So they can't talk to each other. But if you use maybe chat GPT and all these tools now, they can bridge these know-how gaps using these tools. And suddenly they can talk to each other much faster. So they get more productive. It's crazy. It's not like I'm now a fool with a tool. I can be a fool and the tool might help me to overcome my knowledge gaps. Brian Milner (26:20) Now this is awesome. I know that your book that's coming out, Strategy is Practice, talks about a lot of these things. Tell us a little bit about this book and kind of what the focus is. Boris Gloger (26:30) the basic idea when I started doing working on the on strategies, we be in the the actual community, we talk about strategy as what is a new idea of being OKR. So OKR equals strategy, and that is not true. And I came up with this basic idea, what is the basic problem of of strategic thinking and we are back to the in most organizations, we still believe strategy is the planning part and then we have an implementation part. And years ago, I came across a very basic, completely different idea that said every action is strategy. Very simple example. You have the strategy in a company that you have a high price policy. Everything you do is high price. But then you are maybe in a situation where you really need money, effort, revenue issues, liquidation, liquidation problems. Then you might reduce your price. And that moment, your strategy is gone. just your obviously and you have now a new strategy. So your actions and your strategies always in line. So it's not the tactic for the strategy, but tactic is strategy. And now we are back to Azure. So now we can say, okay, we need kind of a long-term idea. And now we can use for creating the vision. For instance, you list the V2MOM framework for creating your vision. But now I need to have a possibility to communicate my strategic ideas. And in the Azure community, we know how to do this. We have plannings and we have dailies and we have reviews and retrospectives. So now I can use all these tools. I can use from the bookshelf of Azure tools. I can use maybe OKRs to create a continuous cycle of innovation or communication so that I get that everybody knows now what is the right strategy. And I can feed back with the reviews to management. that the strategy approach might not work that way that they believed it's possible experimentation. And then and I added two more ideas from future insight or strategic foresight, some other people call it. So the basic idea is, how can I still think about the future in an not in the way of that I have a crystal ball. But I could say, how can I influence the future, but I can only influence the future if I have an idea what might be in future. It's like a scenario. Now you can create actions, power these kind of scenarios that you like, or what you need to prevent a specific scenario if you don't like that. And we need a third tool, that was borrowed from ABCD risk planning, was the basic idea, how can I get my very clear a very simple tool to get the tactics or the real environmental changes like suddenly my estimates might not be correct anymore or my suggestions or beliefs about the future might not get true in the future. So I need kind of a system to feed back reality in my strategy. it's a little bit like reviewing all the time the environment. And if you put all that together, then you get a very nice frame how to use strategy on a daily practice. It's not like I do strategy and then have a five-year plan. No, you have to do continuously strategy. And I hope that this will help leaders to do strategy. I mean, because most leaders don't do strategy. They do tactic kind of work. and they don't spend They don't spend enough time in the trenches. to enrich their strategies and their thinking and their vision. because they detach strategy and implementation all the time. That's the basic idea. Brian Milner (30:30) That's awesome. That sounds fascinating. And I can't wait to read that. That sounds like it's going to be a really good book. So we'll make sure that we have links in our show notes to that if anyone wants to find out more information about that or learn more from Boris on this topic. Boris, can't thank you enough for making time for coming on. This has been a fascinating discussion. Thank you for coming on the show. Boris Gloger (30:40) Yeah. Yeah, thank you very much for having me on your show and appreciate that your time and your effort here. Make a deal for the, it's very supporting for the agile community. Thank you for that. Brian Milner (30:57) Absolutely. Yeah, yeah, thank you.

Can you lead meaningful change without burning people out—or yourself? Sherri Robbins thinks so, and she’s sharing how she’s done it in high-stakes, high-complexity environments (with her sanity intact). Overview In this episode, Sherri Robbins joins Scott Dunn to talk about what it actually takes to lead large-scale change across teams, departments, and vendors without losing sight of your values—or your people. From agile leadership lessons and real-world mistakes to personality-aware management and learning how (and when) to let teams fail forward, this conversation goes far beyond frameworks. If you’ve ever tried to implement something new and wondered why it didn’t stick, this one’s for you. References and resources mentioned in the show: Sherri Robbins Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard by Chip Heath & Dan Heath Start With Why by Simon Sinek Five Lessons For Agile Leaders Join the Agile Mentors Community 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: Scott Dunn is a Certified Enterprise Coach and Scrum Trainer with over 20 years of experience coaching and training companies like NASA, EMC/Dell Technologies, Yahoo!, Technicolor, and eBay to transition to an agile approach using Scrum. Sherri Robbins is a 20+ year veteran in the medical device industry, blending strategic execution with deep regulatory and quality systems expertise to lead enterprise-wide transformations. She’s a thought leader in Agile implementation, known for aligning cross-functional teams, building psychological safety, and driving change that actually sticks.

How do you lead change when you’re not the boss? Casey Sinnema shares what it takes to build trust, influence outcomes, and make Monday feel a little less dreadful. Overview What happens when you give a self-proclaimed utility player the freedom to poke holes in broken systems and lead cross-functional change without official authority? In this episode, Scott chats with Casey Sinema about navigating ambiguity, building trust without a title, and leading impactful change through curiosity, clarity, and a deep understanding of what people actually need. References and resources mentioned in the show: Casey Sinnema Wolf Pack by Abby Wombach The Let Them Theory by Mel Robbins Micromanagement Log Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast Join the Agile Mentors Community 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: Scott Dunn is a Certified Enterprise Coach and Scrum Trainer with over 20 years of experience coaching and training companies like NASA, EMC/Dell Technologies, Yahoo!, Technicolor, and eBay to transition to an agile approach using Scrum. Casey Sinnema is a self-described utility player who’s built a career by asking great questions, poking holes in broken systems, and leading meaningful change across teams—without ever needing the official title to do it. With a background in accounting and a talent for cross-functional problem solving, she brings curiosity, empathy, and real-world savvy to every challenge she tackles. Auto-generated Transcript: Scott Dunn (00:01) Well, welcome everyone to another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I am your takeover, not your normal host, of Brian Miller, who's done a smash up job over a hundred plus episodes if you haven't checked those out. But part of the podcast takeover was not only a fresh voice, but also perspective and a lot of what I typically focus on for the people who know me. On leadership and culture and leading change. And I thought of no one better that I'd rather talk to about some of this. Casey Sinnema and I'll give you a little bit of introduction about who she is, what she does. Maybe also I think it'd be fascinating Casey on how you yourself in the role that you have. I think it's kind of a cool role, at least on paper. You can flesh that out a little bit more but I'll hand off to you. Tell us a little about yourself. Casey (00:46) Yeah, hey, thanks for having me. Yeah, so I currently am most often referred to as a utility player. And I'm still trying to figure out my elevator speech for how I talk about what I do because my role, my title is manager, which doesn't say much, right? And I actually don't do a function, but the easiest way to talk about it is I'm a project manager of sorts. I'm involved in a wide variety of projects from a varying level of involvement, from leading the project to leading the change to being a key stakeholder to just being the voice to leaders or executives or that type of thing. So yeah, I am a little bit of everything. And I got here on accident. I have... Scott Dunn (01:32) I was... Casey (01:34) You know, way back in the day when I was, you know, doing the like, what am I going to do for the rest of my life? I'm like, I just want a marketable skill. So I have a business degree and I went into accounting and I quickly became the troubleshooter. So I would go into a company, troubleshoot, fix the process, fix something broken, and then find myself in another company doing the same thing. And, so throughout my career, I've just sort of built this unique set of skills that allow me to poke holes in processes. and help companies fix them and then kind of find the next thing. So that's just kind of how I wound up here. I've been at my current company for almost a decade, which is going to be a record for me. And, but I'm still doing the same thing. I'm moving around the company and finding new places to, you know, rock the boat a little bit. Scott Dunn (02:20) Cool. Very cool. Yeah. It does sound like you have a number of things on your place to where that makes kind of expand on that a little bit and where you comfortably share those stories as we go through some of this because there's a lot, there's a lot more underneath based on what Casey shared before. And I love it that you found yourself like a happy accident and I guess have enough challenges and learning and growth there as long as they move you around that you're, you know, you need to be working on that are meaningful. things to be working on. Casey (02:51) Yeah, absolutely. That's the biggest thing, right? Is to like find work that you find valuable and that has an impact on the people around you, which is, know, squarely aligned with my values. Scott Dunn (03:01) Well, you touched on one thing that I know a number of other people could relate to and I could too as well as the kind of troubleshoots process can just easily see that things aren't working at a larger view. Some of that. maybe add on a little bit. What is it like about your role? For those who are kind of thinking they're in quasi space, they can hear you talk about that role and like, hey, that sounds like me too. What are the points of that different projects, different things you're involved with that that's what really lights you up? Casey (03:27) Yeah, I, it's so interesting because a lot of us find that the things that we're good at are the things that, you know, give us energy and that motivate us, right? I happen to be uniquely skilled at poking holes in things, including in my own life. So it works in my personal life as well. I could just sort of see things from different perspectives and find the gaps. And so it just sort of on accident. I think what's interesting is Scott Dunn (03:43) You Hmm. Casey (03:53) throughout my career and throughout my life, the biggest challenge has been to hone that skill for good, right? To lead with kindness and to manage my expectations along with the expectations of the world around me and troubleshoot the things or poke holes in things that need holes poked in instead of like everything. You know what mean? Scott Dunn (04:15) I love that. Two things that I want to, I guess, add on a little bit more there. One, you mentioned something and the other thing is I think you might just put out there like, same thing from different perspectives. I imagine for the people, we've all been around folks who just they only think their way. And you're just kind of reflecting on that. But Keith, it sounds like you can go into a meeting and you can hear three different state views and you can genuinely understand from their perspective why that's important to them or why that's a problem to them, right? If I'm hearing you. Casey (04:42) Yeah, absolutely. That's really key in all of the different types of projects that I've played a part in, right? Like hearing things from different people's perspectives and really understanding what they're looking to get, what they need and what's in it for them and being able to connect those things across stakeholders. Scott Dunn (04:59) Yeah, that's powerful. Yeah, but looking for commonality, alignment, et cetera. I do think there's a specialness, and we've talked about it a bit, like in the facilitation class, that looking for those folks having common and generating alignment is a unique gift that we just don't see a lot in corporate people kind of lobby for what they want. And actually, it's, it would be an afterthought to think about other people's perspectives and yet who draws different areas of the company together who are to get some new about the door or whatever like that. So you're kind of touching on that, which I think is really powerful. Is there anything that you see as like a go-to mindset that you bring in those situations or go to like tools that you're kind of using, whether that's things you're doing in writing down or in mural or even just how where your head is at when you walk into some of those meetings where you feel they have different perspectives and on the same page, you're supposed to walk out of that session on the same page. Casey (05:51) Yeah, the first one is to sort of leave my ego at the door, right? What I think is the right thing can't come in the door with me, right? Like I, of course I'm influencing, right? Where I feel like it matters. But it's not, I'm probably not the decision maker and the people that are not on the same page, when they need to get aligned, they need to be able to get there on their own. So what I think is the right way, I got to leave it at the door. So that's my number one thing. Scott Dunn (05:57) heheheheh. Casey (06:18) And then the next thing I do is just really stay curious, ask lots of questions, actively listen, model that active listening behavior so that everybody else is also actively listening. That's a big thing. And really just sort of helping people find a common language, I think, is really important. So I do a lot of restating what I'm hearing so that other people can maybe hear it from a different set of words and connect it. Scott Dunn (06:29) Hahaha Casey (06:42) more readily to the way that they're thinking about the topic. Scott Dunn (06:45) Yeah, you say these as if they're like, I mean those are short little pithy statements, but boy, powerful. I think it reflects an attitude beginning with what he said as the ego is like, we might know a whole lot, we gotta leave that at the door. Just at work, awesome. Here and you say something, I'm making notes like this would be good in life too, right? In personal life and relationships, stay curious, active. Don't assume that the way you see it is reality, right? So, I think that's super. The other thing you mentioned though was about Go ahead. Casey (07:17) I will say I'm better at it at my job than in my personal life because, Scott Dunn (07:23) Of course, I think, yeah, for everyone listening, they're like, me too. Why can't I do this? I can tell some stories. So the other one, though, you should just poke holes as if like, it's this little thing we're doing. But there might be something inside. I think I might be able to relate that is driving perhaps towards this isn't running as well as it could, or this isn't running. I think we know that, or this could be better. Something inside you that that you feel is churning, that you're seeing holes no matter what that is, if it's a small process, large process, a team, multiple teams. Tell me a little bit more about what does that mean to you when you say poke holes in things? What's running through your mind? Casey (08:01) Yeah, it's complex, right? Because sometimes it's really easy. This is broken. you know, right? Or there's a bottleneck, something that's really like you can, it's data driven, you can see in the data where something is not working well, that those are the easy ones, right? And you can just start asking sort of the five whys or the finding the root cause of what's happening there. Scott Dunn (08:06) Those are the easy ones, yes. Casey (08:26) But in the case where there's friction or there appears to be barriers or there's just this. any kind of challenge or even when there's not a challenge, quite frankly, I have this unique ability to like listen across people and across like data and technology. That's a weird thing to say is listen across technology, but I sort of just find where things are misconnected or disconnected and start to ask questions there. And so I can find something that maybe isn't working as well as it should without anybody else noticing which. Scott Dunn (08:35) Yeah. Casey (08:59) I've learned I need to be careful with. Scott Dunn (09:01) That's great. So at least the next question was any hard lessons, anything so you could do a redo on that one that you could pass on so someone else doesn't have to learn the hard way from Casey's experience. Casey (09:11) Ha yeah. Everything I learned, I learned the hard way. So if you feel like that's what you're doing, you're not alone. Yeah, the thing that I have learned probably the most often, and I will learn it several more times in my career, I'm sure, is when I think I have found something, go make sure it's true before you start to really socialize it. So like, I'm going to go ask the question of the expert. Scott Dunn (09:20) Ha Whoa. Casey (09:42) before I bring it up because maybe I'm not seeing it from all of the right angles or maybe I don't understand exactly what it's doing or quite frankly maybe I'm missing some context. And so really talking and building relationships with people who are experts on the topic or in the field is really kind of where I start. Scott Dunn (10:00) was great, great period. the number of times we miss out on relationships, especially in that one, really key. Casey (10:00) And. Yeah. Scott Dunn (10:08) I think I'd add to that though. sometimes I'll phrase it as rather wait to be sure than lose capital because if I go out saying things that aren't true. So sometimes we'll jump in on the outing side and they'll be like, why haven't you gotten yet? And I'll be clear, like, I'd rather wait and be sure than hurry and be wrong. And then we got to that mess before we get back to the work we're supposed to be doing. And sometimes it's a while to pick that up, depending on who got affected by We'll put out there sometimes innocuously, we thought, well, here's the numbers results. And someone's like, that's actually not correct. But now everyone knows we have now we have a PR problem, something like that. So I'm not alone in that. I've been there. That's a tough one. But also on the coin, though, what would you point to as wins if you look back like that's talking about? That's why this is important. That's what you feel good about. Casey (10:54) Yes, absolutely. Yeah, I think from a win perspective, the, a really good example, I'm going to go way back in the day. I had a, a chance to work, in a motorcycle dealership and we had huge, was, you know, weird economic times, right? And so there's weird financial things happening in this, you know, motorcycle dealership company and, and, everybody's just trying to stay afloat and You find the like the friction between either the mechanic shop and the, the sales shop. And when you find those and you can solve those problems and make the experience smooth for the, for the client, right. For the customer and make that like walk in the door experience consistent and smooth. This in this case was just people, right? It wasn't even technology. wasn't really a process. It was just people. And the biggest wins are when like. the people start to notice. And then what happens is everybody's life gets better and everybody has more fun doing whatever it is that they're doing. And it just changes the vibe. Scott Dunn (12:08) I love that. I love that. I do believe very much like the work that we could be doing here. People enjoy their work more people enjoy coming to work. doesn't have to be a place that people don't want to be in or watching the class. I love you touching on that's great. Casey (12:21) Yeah, there's a balance there, right? Like, because they call it work for a reason. It's a job. We don't love everything that we do all of the time. But, you know, are we doing the things that we can do to make life good for ourselves and for others? Scott Dunn (12:33) Yes, so nice segue because what I feel like I've learned later in my career, we'll just phrase it that way, that the importance of self-care, taking care of ourselves so that we have the energy and attitude to keep doing work that we're doing, especially if you're a leading changer, in some ways you're a change artist trying to bring that about, change agent, it can be taxing. So are there things along the way that are either You just know a good way that you take care of yourself could be learning, could be space, could be the road you carry, or that you actually do to protect yourself and that work-life balance emotionally, mentally. you aren't kind of aware of, what does it look like to do good self-care and help make sure you're taking care of yourself to deliver good value in the workplace. Share what that means to you and maybe some of the things that you do. Casey (13:21) Yeah, it's so important, right? Like I am also not in the early stages of my career and still learning how to take care of myself and protect myself and, you know, build good boundaries, right? I, yes, yes. So I have good personal routines, right? Like I do yoga, I meditate. I'm a big fan of podcasts and. Scott Dunn (13:31) Hahaha Right. Boundaries is a good word, yes. Casey (13:46) I'm a learner, so I'm always learning. Maybe there's a boundary there too, like how much can you self-improve before it becomes, I don't know, toxic? But when it comes to boundaries, really it's, I start with the relationships, right? Like at work, making sure that my expectations are clear and that of my leadership chain is clear no matter what job I'm in. Scott Dunn (13:47) Hmm. you Casey (14:11) and setting boundaries that are clearly expressed so that I can protect myself and my personal life and that balance, and I can deliver the way that I'm expected to deliver. And that just makes life easier for me. Scott Dunn (14:23) Super, super, super, super. I'm thinking there's a lot of people. I it's a ways back. We cover accommodative and assertive, you know, as far as power styles and the cowl. And what's been fascinating for all these years, most people are all on the accommodative side. When I hear you say something like, hey, the expectations clear or use the word bad, that sounds like someone who has a balance of, no, I'm there for people, but I don't overextend myself to where I no good. Casey (14:23) Thank Scott Dunn (14:50) I burned something like that. So I think that's really great for everyone to hear. It hurt to define the relationship with make sure your expectations are clear for me. And then sometimes, you know, there's someone else that could take that on or might play this role, etc. But sometimes we're so helpful that we overload ourselves and actually don't do good job. We do, you know, average job on a lot of things instead of a job on a few and they could have found maybe someone else. think that's awesome. You said podcasts, there other ways, is that your way of learning? there other things that you, as far as what, for the learning side? Casey (15:26) Yeah, so books are my go-to. I'm somebody who does a lot of highlighting and note taking and flagging in books, because I'm always going back to them. And I love to learn things that are sort of outside of my lane, if you will. It's kind of how I got involved in Agile. I have a business degree in finance, and Agile doesn't really play into that until it does, right? And so I started to like, I'm curious about that, or I'm curious about Six Sigma or those types of things. And so I just sort of go find them and take the nuggets that apply directly to me and put the other ones on the shelf for like when it does apply to me, if you know what I mean. Um, so I just, I'm a learner, so I'm always looking to, to, to learn new things. I'll be frank, podcasts for me, I'm not learning things. I'm entertaining myself. Scott Dunn (16:20) I try, I try to really be focused to get, I like listening, but yeah, the actually applying is not as much. I'm definitely same about I'm a higher. Someone said the difference in studying is the pin. So I'm always like, unless I'm marking it up, am I really digging into this book or, or Kendall? So I'm to hear I'm not alone on that one. So I want to shift a little bit because some of what we've done is leading change. think the conversation we had were around. Casey (16:38) Absolutely. Scott Dunn (16:45) So moving around from just you to the broader culture, how would you describe what a great culture like or feels like? Maybe some of us haven't even been in a great company so they don't know. They can't picture, imagine what that could be like. And you've been to a number of places with different roles. What's good culture, great culture look like in your opinion? Casey (17:06) Yeah, I think that it's gotta be a cliche out there. I'm pretty sure I've seen it on a meme, but good culture is defined by how you feel on Sunday night, right? Like if you're not dreading going into work on Monday, right? Like you probably are in a culture that's a good fit for you because I think culture doesn't have a one size fits all perspective. Like big companies, small companies, different types of work, different groups of people. sort of lend themselves to different kinds of culture. I've been in companies where the culture is great for me and everybody else is miserable. And companies where the culture is great for everybody else and I'm just not a good fit. So I think that in general, good culture is... I talk about it in this like self-awareness perspective. If the culture itself is a little bit self-aware, then it is what they say it is. So if you say your culture is one thing and everybody agrees, including the culture, including the behaviors of what's expected in the environment, if all of those things are aligned, the culture is probably good, even if there are people who aren't good fits for it. I don't know if that answers your question. That's my perspective. Scott Dunn (18:03) Hehehehe That's great. Oh, it's it's better. That one's a good wrap up now. Like that really to me, it's a bit of a mic drop because it's so good. It's simple. But you're right. How you feel on Sunday night? A ton about what's happening with you and the job you have and what's happening around you. Absolutely. And that different like sometimes it is just a fit because a lot of people can be excited about it, but you're bothered by it or might rub you wrong. And I know we've gone through the values in the class as well. I've been at companies where we're absolutely about get stuff done and that's fine. But it's kind of a burnout. I love the very collaborative, but sometimes I'm like, man, I want to get stuff done. I'm getting frustrated that we're like, we really connect and talk a lot. I don't see stuff happening. So you're right. Obviously, you know, some people are sensitive to that. And that last piece about like the behavior. it should be considered. And I do sometimes see like leadership will say something or there'll be things on the walls. But you look around like, yeah, I don't actually think anyone's actually behaving that way. It's like an aspirational vibe about what they want to be, but they're not really doing it. So I think all those lenses are giving are right. And they're simple. Someone can look around and just see what you're saying. And then you make their own calculations of that. Some of the good. Some of that's a bit too. Casey (19:26) Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Scott Dunn (19:32) In the sense like either either change it for the better or You know what I mean? Like I don't want to be the person that's been there seven like this place is terrible What are you doing? What why have you been here 17 years hating it? I don't Casey (19:32) you Yeah, it's really important that we're honest with ourselves as much as our companies are honest with us, right? Like, what do I need from my job? What do I need from my career? And am I at a place that can support that? Scott Dunn (19:45) Good. Yes. Yeah, and and i'll serious in this case. I think there is some point where people I hear them And i'll just straight up. I don't think leadership has any intention to changing in the way you're describing Right. So in the end like so what would you like to do? And it's not even like it's a bad thing really. It's just like that's like It's a bit when you said that part some people are so passionate they forget like Yeah, and you're wrong like you could be wanting this coming to change in a way. It's not who they are or what they're about or you're Found by 80 people who are actually quite good with the way things The fact that you're so passionate doesn't mean you're right. It might just mean this is not a good fit. So don't stay here trying to change everything, which probably wouldn't work anyways if that's, you know, they're comfortable with what are. It's almost like in self-preservation, just say, I just need to exercise my agency and there's not a good guy. What's that song? There Ain't No Good Guy, There Ain't No Bad Guy. It's me and you and we just disagree. You move on to another and they'll be happier somewhere else is what I would think. So I think that's a good perspective. People can get past space about, you know, and agile and all that and then rail against something that's an immovable in some organizations. Casey (21:08) Yeah, being aware of the things that you can control, the things that you can't control, is really the crux of your own sanity, if you will. Scott Dunn (21:16) Yeah, it's a good way of saying it, Yeah, and you can control a lot of that. You can influence it. can influence it. Let me follow up on that because clearly, in my opinion, seems like you've that about bringing about change when you don't necessarily have authority. You can't dictate to some of these folks. What do you think is a key aspect of being successful around influence or people who... I get asked this all the time, how do we influence, how do we manage up, et cetera. What would you prefer as your thoughts on that about influencing others? Casey (21:50) Yeah, I actually listened to a podcast recently about leading without influence. one of the key comments, I guess I am also learning through podcasts, I guess. But one of the comments in the podcast was there are people who lead with a hammer, people who lead with influence. And I kind of love that because I haven't been a people leader in more than a decade. Scott Dunn (21:55) There you go. So they are some good. Casey (22:13) which means I don't have any authority, right? I lead all of my influence. All of my leadership is through influence. And the way that I approach that is I start with. It's a, it's a gooey word, but empathy, understanding the people that I'm talking to and working with and understanding what they need and what their challenges are, and then meeting them where they are. Right. The easiest way to gain influence with. Most people, is to build trust and to build trust, need to build relationships. And so I would say 90 % of my influence comes first from relationships. And probably the other 10 % comes from my ability to stand up and say, I was wrong when I did something wrong or when my perspective was incorrect and when I behaved outside my values, like just owning it up when I'm like, Scott Dunn (22:59) Wow. Casey (23:04) Yeah, I was having a bad day. I apologize. There's a lot of trust that comes from that kind of vulnerability. Scott Dunn (23:11) Yeah, which is not easy to do not easy to do But I've been in meetings where I like I know it like I don't play this year But I like things so in some ways people look at influence about how we phrase things or how we present but you're just saying like look happy build a real relationship Have some humility if you're willing to say we're wrong. So people know you'll also that when you're wrong or made of your core element of strength or something like that. think that's a real nice, everyone, if you think about that, that's not out of any of us to say, you know what, I'm going to try to be more honest and authentic and have some empathy and try to listen. Casey (23:45) Absolutely. It also helps to be able to connect the dots across different people and what they need and the strategy of whatever project you're working on so that you can connect the change to something that is it like what's in it for me, right? So what's in it for the people that you're talking to and being able to connect those things. So it's not just relationships and empathy, right? That's the soft stuff. It's that ability to really critically think about what it is you're driving change for. Scott Dunn (24:08) Mm-hmm. Casey (24:12) and connecting it to how each of these different stakeholders can benefit. Scott Dunn (24:18) Yeah, the part about connecting the dots and this is one thing if I'm ever in a meeting and I feel like I'm not getting it I actually will pause into my head. I'm thinking What is this person's concerns? And if I can't if I can't clear that I'd probably need to ask more questions but for any of us in those meetings just kind of go around through those stakeholders the people sitting around the desk or on the zoom and quick like in a sentence or two what what would be important to them? What are they? What's the win or what's the pain? But if you don't feel like you can articulate, then the good thing is you have to see that asking questions around that is never a problem because they're actually share because you're basically asking them about yourself. Tell me what's important to you. And they would like to share that. And it doesn't hurt to double check that. So I love what you're saying about connected dots. It won't be necessary that they're saying what you're listening and watching. I also watch what they react to. So something might jump out that would be outside of their say their role. but it's about people and there's an aspect that they really do care about how their people feel, not just the, this process is important in terms of our strategy and the technology we're using, but it might come out like, well, all their people would be really excited to put their hands on that new technology too. But they're not gonna say that because that sounds like that's a weak reason to be for a project, but you know it's important to them because they lead those people or that person. So I like what you're saying, connect the dots, think about those perspectives, because the empathy is gonna help them to connect in the dots, right? more is emotional than the logic of that stuff. So think that's great. Really, really great. On this, I believe you're remote, correct? Partially? Okay. ⁓ fully. Okay. Let's talk about that small. It hasn't come up in the last five years, but let's talk remote. So from your experience, it's always a big topic to me. I do care about this. I think we deal with a lot, every company, because some people at least that are remote, or certainly partial remote, Casey (25:45) I am. Fully. Scott Dunn (26:05) What's your thoughts on what to be worried about and what to make that successful? you're seeing more and more almost like these two sides of the aisle, maybe some aspect of demanding people come back. And yet you have a whole generation who can't buy a house. So I'm figuring out where's the balance of remote work. So yeah, your thoughts on remote work, how to make it successful scene. Casey (26:27) Yeah, I mean, I have two different ways I could approach this, right? I have the personal thing that what works for me part, right? But as somebody who is often having these conversations with people who are in various buckets of people who are, know, partially remote, fully remote, fully in the office, that kind of a thing, I find that what I think is less relevant every single day. I for sure feel I have a lot of privilege. Scott Dunn (26:33) Mm-hmm. Casey (26:50) being fully remote. Like that's really cool because it's good for me. I'm at a spot in my career where it makes sense. I'm good at building relationships in lots of different kinds of ways, including through, you know, zoom meetings and that type of thing. But I don't think that there's a right answer. I think that the each company and each team and each group of people need to find what works best for them. and make that happen. I see real benefit to being together, especially when you're early in your career or when you're doing something that you need a whiteboard. I mean, I'm pretty good at Mural. I'm pretty good at using the whiteboard in the Zoom meeting, but there's no replacement for standing at a whiteboard with a bunch of stickies and flowing out process. So I just don't... Scott Dunn (27:33) That's so true. You're so right. Casey (27:40) I don't know that there's a right answer. And I think that different size companies have different complexity of making that decision. And it sort of goes back to that comment we were making before. Like, if it isn't a good fit for you, find something that is. You know, I don't know. That's my thought. That's my thought. Scott Dunn (28:00) Yeah, true. Makes sense. For the folks that are managing or leading these remote work, are things that they do to make that go better in their context. Casey (28:12) Absolutely. are ways to, especially if you have hybrid, it even gets more complex, right? All virtual is the easiest way of virtual, right? Because then everybody's always virtual and you're always on Zoom and you're always on Slack and whatever. That's for sure the easiest way to manage teams that are virtual. When you have that hybrid space, you've got that opportunity to be in a conference room or in a huddle group or in the cafeteria. and on Zoom meetings, and it gets kind of funky, right? Because sometimes you can't hear, or you have those water cooler conversations. The key really is to have what I found is a good working agreement, right? Like, what types of communication are we going to have? How are we going to do that? What happens when we had a really great conversation in the break room? How do we communicate that to the rest of the team who wasn't there? And really just sort of build team trust through a good quality executed working agreement. And sometimes that takes a little bit more effort from the leader or even from every individual, right? But that's part of that culture, right? Scott Dunn (29:16) Right. I think the folks you make me think that's personally in a meeting and it's good that I try to get the groups together in these different locations as they're talking. I can't tell. I talking. I don't know these. I don't know them all that well. So I can't I can't tell by voice yet. If these are different groups are working with each other. The thing is, look, that person's kind of off camera or either they're on camera. They're so far back. Is that is their mouth moving? Is there a delay? I can't tell. So that sets the connection. I'm surprised for me as a more of a relator, how much it becomes a problem like nothing beats in person. So at least get that regularly. get in person. There was another client that saying that very same thing. Like they love it when we all get back together. And so they kind of have their cadence of pulling the whole group better. Could be like you're off site, could be all hands could be, but I think those opportunities to keep connection. I do like remote. I do think you have a good point about depending on the maturity of the career. Some people just know like I know I got to take care of these biopsy that they've noticed other XYZ. So they do too. So if they're new in their career, they may not even catch that I should be probably working. what is this at home on the zoom and in their PJs or something like that. I think it's a good point. Look at those and also the work. The fact that you would take that to the team and say, what do you all think is very empowering. You have an open conversation around what they all think and definitely there's a assumptions that people are making about what it should be, et cetera, but they those explicit and they kind of carry that around with them a little. Right. So that's a yeah, really nice nugget on that. That's everyone for sure. So last thing I'm to add a little bit on the back on leading change. So in this case, it could be remote, could be these other projects that we'll try to adapt. I think you'd say this earlier about there's no company that's not going through this crazy time of change right now. When it comes to change, have you seen something that's helpful, especially if it's a more significant change, you gave some good fundamentals around influence and trust and relationship, empathy, et cetera. Are there other aspects on how that change is rolled out or a process change or the groups that are leading the change that you've seen be like more systemically just successful aside that people might change, but the way we handle change is done this way. That you think there's a tip or two out there that would help out. They're trying to kick off, you know, a new way of working. We're trying to refresh remote policies or how they work, Because a lot of people in the middle of change. Have you seen overarching themes about how this lead that you found have been more successful? Casey (31:57) Yeah, think, gosh, it's the hardest thing, right? Like figuring out a way to roll out change across teams is the most challenging thing that I've ever done. And I've been doing it for a long time. And I'm always learning new ways and new ways not to do things and all that jazz, right? I have this little nugget that I got from a mentor. Scott Dunn (32:11) Hahaha, yeah. Casey (32:24) 20 years ago almost, and he's a motorcycle rider. And when you ride a motorcycle, the thing that you do to go on a corner is to turn your head, right? Turn your head to get to where you're going. And the non-motorcycle sort of connection to that is the what's my plan. And so really understanding what the plan is so that you can very clearly articulate what it is you're doing at each phase of the change. If you're prepping people for change, what's the plan? If you're starting to design a project, what's the plan? And just get really clear with where you're going, what the expectations are, what each individual person's role is, and be explicit about it because we're all dealing with a lot of things coming at us all the time. And if you're leading with kindness and you're saying, okay, your part of this is to simply accept the change. That's not condescending, that's empowering. That tells that person that like, this decision has been made, I gotta get myself there, and this person's here to help me get there. And so just being really clear about it, that's the biggest thing for me that I've seen that is successful. It's hard to do though, because that's a lot of people and a lot of Scott Dunn (33:36) Yeah. Well, yes, that's why it makes it so surprising. Number of times a company has to bring in outside help to get the change because it's not a capability or muscle they really have about how to change ourselves. Right. We execute against what we build or do here really well for help. But but that idea of getting outside the box and thinking different how we can improve, like you said, poke holes and so that's why I like it that there's someone When a company sees someone with your skill set and the way that you're wired and leverages it to say like, we kind of informally have this person like really helping things about because it's commonly not a muscle that they really have. Sometimes they have the awareness they don't, but sometimes they don't the long, really large change initiatives that take a long time and either never really get off the ground or never really where they should have gone or before they kind of just either die on the vine or we just call it, you know, just call it good. They don't draw in. It gets a group above everyone trying to lay change on top of folks instead of incorporate everyone into change and then go through it together. Learning together with someone like you that can connect the dots, connect with people, can bring that about. And think in a way it's really powerful and effective. Yeah, I was going to tease you. don't know if you have anything on that. But you mentioned books, you mentioned podcasts. Do have any favorites that you just would throw out? Classic go to book, current read, current podcast. Casey (35:01) My favorite all time book is a book called Wolf Pack by Abby Wambach. She's a soccer player, she's fantastic, and it's a book about leadership. It's like 70 pages long. It has a set of like four rules. And yeah, it's written from a like, you know, girl power, woman empowerment, leadership empowerment kind of thing, but it's universally adaptable to life, to it doesn't matter what your gender might be. what your job might be, Wolfpack. I can't recommend it enough. And then most recently, I read the let them theory and it's life changing. It's not a new topic, right? It's not a new concept. Of course you should control the things that you should stress about the things that you can control and let the things you can't control go, right? There's lots of different places that that comes up, but Mel Robbins just did a great job, like putting it into stories that you could like directly apply it to your life, or at least for me anyway. And I find myself quoting that book to myself pretty regularly. Yeah. Scott Dunn (36:03) That's a good sign. That's a really good sign. I find myself too. That's I literally will go through something. I start to realize like you've mentioned this book or this thing like three times now in the last few weeks. Like, OK, that's obviously significant. You didn't miss a time. you make another really good point. I really say like at the meta level in some ways, when it impacts you personally and you connect to it personally, it's going to be helpful and relevant in the work you do because you're going to be sharing the expression of who you are. And I say that because some people will go like, here's this top leadership book this year. I'm to read this well-known. And sometimes I'll struggle to just like really pick the book. Even if it is good content, I don't connect to it. I'm not sharing with others. It's not part. It doesn't become a home and gets spread. So I love what you're saying. Casey (36:48) completely agree with that. read, I spent a lot of time last year reading a book called Mind Your Mindset. I don't know if you've read that one. But in theory, it's great. But it's so business focused that like I didn't personally relate to it. And so I had to go find some other book that was less business structured to, to like, bolster that topic. All the words were the same. It's just the storyline really, really changes it for me. So telling stories, right, is the most important thing of how we connect. to the world. Scott Dunn (37:20) Yes, yes, yes. And I believe in that. That's how we're just wired. brains are wired. Story really sticks. And you're making me think like, yeah, those books I recommend the most are more not have a lot of stories, even if it's less directly tied to the work I do. Maybe it's not even technology. It's not even maybe it's not even around business, but it's got stories they do and stick and connect. I love that. So I'll check that out. I have not read Will Peck. I think I've seen it, but now that I know it, pages I'm also enticed to on that. I can get through it. Casey (37:52) It's one hour of your time max. Scott Dunn (37:53) us. If I can't do that over breakfast, then what's going on? Awesome. I appreciate that. This has been great. I think there's a lot of nuggets for folks that are listening. I wouldn't be surprised, by the way, that this could get chopped up into part one, part two. I think we like them. But this is great because I think it's a great part one, part two, given how we kind of split the conversations. And I love the personal aspect on that as well. So thank Thank Casey for the time. It's been wonderful. think I really look forward to people's feedback on this and a lot of takeaways, a lot of that can be, they can try out some of these things very next week in terms of how they show up and who they are and what they're about. There's just a whole lot of good pieces of this that I think are readily possible for so many people. So I really, really appreciate that too as well. I'm on automatic sites. love them. The Builder Backs, they can do something right away with that. And you gave them a lot of Thank you for that. Thank you for your time. I know you have a lot on your plate. for us, but you appreciate it. Hope to see you soon. Thanks Casey. Casey (38:54) Yeah, thanks for having me. Thank you. Scott Dunn (38:57) Woo!

What does it look like to lead a 300-person software org inside a 1,000-person company—and still stay focused on people first? Brendan Wovchko shares what he's learned about leadership, agility, and building a culture that actually works. Overview Brendan Wovchko, CTO at Ramsey Solutions, joins Scott Dunn to talk about what it really takes to lead Agile teams inside a large, fast-moving organization. From developing leadership habits to navigating team dynamics and staying grounded in purpose, this conversation is full of thoughtful takeaways for anyone working at the intersection of people, process, and product. References and resources mentioned in the show: Brendan Wovchko Ramsey Solutions #80: From Struggling to Success: Reviving Agile Teams with Mike Cohn #143: What Still Makes Teams Work (and Win) with Jim York What Is a High-Performing Agile Team? by Mike Cohn Four Quick Ways to Gain or Assess Team Consensus by Mike Cohn Elements of Agile Assessment Join the Agile Mentors Community 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: Scott Dunn is a Certified Enterprise Coach and Scrum Trainer with over 20 years of experience coaching and training companies like NASA, EMC/Dell Technologies, Yahoo!, Technicolor, and eBay to transition to an agile approach using Scrum. Brendan Wovchko is the CTO of Ramsey Solutions and a lifelong student of what it takes to build great software, lead great people, and scale both with purpose. With roots in engineering and startups, he brings decades of hands-on experience in product, leadership, and agile culture—plus a knack for turning big ideas into results that matter.

In this discussion, Ginger Boyll, the Director of Client Experience at Stable Kernel, shares her insights on growing a remote team from 30 to over 100 while maintaining a vibrant workplace culture. She emphasizes the importance of an Agile mindset, trust, and even Dungeons & Dragons in fostering teamwork. The conversation highlights the magical role of psychological safety in collaboration, the challenges of effective communication, and the art of letting others lead. Ginger also delves into balancing personal values with professionalism to prevent burnout.

Real Agile forecasting runs on math, not magic. Brian and Lance dive into Monte Carlo methods, DORA metrics, and how AI is shifting the future of project management. All with a human-first approach that builds better teams, not bigger spreadsheets. Overview In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, Brian Milner and Lance Dacy unpack why Agile teams need to rethink how they forecast work—and why math, not magic, is the real secret.  From the roots of Taylorism to today's Monte Carlo simulations, they explore how to navigate uncertainty with data-driven tools like DORA metrics, flow metrics, and probability theory, while keeping the heart of Agile leadership focused on trust, transparency, and better decision-making. References and resources mentioned in the show: Lance Dacy Free Chapters of Agile Estimating and Planning by Mike Cohn Join the Agile Mentors Community  Mountain Goat Software Certified Scrum and Agile Training Schedule 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.  Lance Dacy is a Certified Scrum Trainer®, Certified Scrum Professional®, Certified ScrumMaster®, and Certified Scrum Product Owner®. Lance brings a great personality and servant's heart to his workshops. He loves seeing people walk away with tangible and practical things they can do with their teams straight away.

What does soccer, soda, and software have in common? According to Jim York—everything. In this episode, he and Brian Milner break down what great teamwork really means, why shared goals matter more than job titles, and how understanding your team’s unique contribution can unlock better flow and results. Overview In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, Brian Milner sits down with veteran Agile coach and trainer Jim York for a deep dive into what makes real teamwork tick. They unpack what separates a group of coworkers from a high-functioning team, explore the role of shared goals in driving motivation, and walk through value stream thinking using vivid analogies from sports and soda cans alike. Whether you're part of a Scrum team or leading cross-functional initiatives, this episode will help you think differently about collaboration, flow, and how teams can work better together. References and resources mentioned in the show: Jim York Jim's Blog Jim's Video Library Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation by James Womack & Daniel Jones Liftoff Vision: Launching Agile Teams and Projects by Diana Larsen & Ainsley Nies GoatBot Join the Agile Mentors Community 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. Jim York is a business owner helping teams discover how to delight their customers. He uses systems thinking, agile and lean to co-create resilient, learning teams. As a coach, he works with his clients to help them grow in directions that matter to them to achieve their goals. Jim is a Certified Agile Coach®️, holding both the Certified Enterprise Coach and Certified Team Coach credentials; Certified Scrum Trainer®️; Agile Fluency®️ facilitator; LeSS Practitioner. In 2007, Jim co-foundered FoxHedge Ltd with his wife, Melissa York. Auto-generated Transcript: Brian Milner (00:00) Welcome in Agile Mentors. We're back here for another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I'm with you as always, Brian Milner. And today I have the very distinguished gentleman, Mr. Jim York with us. Welcome in, Jim. Jim York (00:12) Well, thank you, Brian. Glad to be here. Brian Milner (00:15) Very excited to have Jim with us. We were just chatting before and Jim and I met years ago at a conference. We got introduced by a mutual friend, Mr. Kurt Peterson, who has been on the show. He came on a little bit earlier to talk about Kanban. And just for those people who aren't familiar with Jim, Jim is a co-founder of a company called Fox Hedge. And he has been an Agile coach, a Scrum trainer for quite a while now and I give him the title Luminary, kind of scrum luminary, thought leader, been around doing this for a while. I hope that doesn't sound insulting in any way, Jim, to call you that. Jim York (00:55) Nope, nope, just trying to shine my light and help others shine theirs. So that's what a coach does. So. Brian Milner (01:00) Awesome, Cool, well, we wanted to have Jim on because we had this topic that it's kind of a broad topic, but it's, I think, actually crucial to today's world. And that's just the broad topic of teamwork itself. So I'll start this way, Jim. I want to get your opinion. In today's world, with the changing kind of landscape with AI and everything else that we see that's kind of influencing how we work, has teamwork had its day? Is it time now for something new or is teamwork still the best way to build things? Jim York (01:34) Yeah, well, teams are universal. I think once you get more than one single individual and you get some task that requires more than what one person can do, it's inevitable. We've to work together. And so I don't see that going away. It might change a bit. But in many ways, think the things that we face today are, in many ways, things that we faced before. They might be showing up in a different way, but I think there's some universality. universality to teamwork. Brian Milner (02:03) Yeah, I agree. And so what do we mean by teamwork? Why don't we define that a little bit for everyone? Jim York (02:09) Yeah, I guess we have to step back and start looking at what's a team. If we talk about teamwork, there's this whole expression, teamwork makes the teamwork. So what's a team? And the classic definition of a team is it's a group of individuals working on a shared goal. And so it's kind of like built into the definition, we're working on a shared goal. So teamwork is that combined action. Brian Milner (02:13) Yeah. Yeah. Jim York (02:32) And so that's kind of the general concept. It's, you know, some of the parts, you know, is greater than the whole. And so it's taking that mix of experiences, knowledge, skills, and bringing them together and having that dynamic, that energy, and kind of focusing it in the same direction. You know, that's really what teamwork is about. Brian Milner (02:55) Yeah, it's good to clarify it, because I think the word team gets quite widely used in today's world. you'll hear people describe that, hey, that's my sales team. When you look at it and how they actually work together, there's not really a lot of teaming actually happening. It's just a group of individuals who have the same job and that. that format. I do think you're right. It's important to understand the difference between that kind of a team and what we're talking about here as a team. Jim York (03:25) Yeah, there are different kinds of teams and people in a sales team, even if they're not working with each other, the fact that they have a shared goal does create some sense of team. And there's different teamwork where everybody's providing kind of their unique thing. And then you have, I think like a team in a rowing, when you have like four people in a rowboat. they might have somebody who's steering the boat, you know, but they have the four people holding onto the oars and, you know, they're working at a similar cadence. You can say to a certain degree they're individuals. I don't know if they're fungible. I don't think they're necessarily fungible, but they're working together to accomplish that shared goal. know, the people in rowing, that's different from people on like a soccer team. You know, on a soccer team, you're... You got the whole pitch, you know, you're all over the place and the ball's moving around and there's this kind of coming together and going apart of various team members interacting at different places and at different times throughout the game. You're kind of acting dynamically to where the ball is and where the opponents are and where they are on the field. And so there's this creativity that occurs there that's kind of a different kind of creativity than you might see in a rowing type of competition. Brian Milner (04:18) Yeah. Jim York (04:42) But yeah, I think there are different kinds of teams, but I think that universal theme of being a group of individuals that are having that shared goal, I think that's the thing that's in common. It's not the nature of the work that some people might call agile versus predictive or planned work. mean, the concept of a team is more universal thing. Brian Milner (04:43) Yeah. Yeah. I like the example of kind of the crew, right? Of rowing and stuff. I think that's a good picture because you're right. I mean, it's very subtle, but there's a lot of combined movement. And if one person is off a little bit, it really affects how others are working. I've used the example sometimes in my classes as a contrast to think about like a golf team. You know, like the idea that you have the group of people who, again, I say this in classes. So anyone listening to this who's a golf expert, it really loves golf. Please, email in and tell me if I'm wrong about this. But this is what I say in my classes. You know, if you're on a golf team, it's a group of individuals who are each shooting their own 18 holes. But then at the end of the round, you just total up the score. And if you have the lowest lower score than another team, then you win, right? But it's, When I'm shooting my 18 holes, I'm not necessarily aware of what everyone else on my team has done or what they're doing at the same time. We don't play off each other, right? I don't take the first shot and then they take the second shot. It's all on me to do my best. And then hopefully everyone else has done their best and we just kind of see how it works out at the very last second. Yeah. Jim York (06:17) Yeah, so teams are different. know, teams are definitely different. And I think it's that idea of the shared goal that is the thing that kind of the glue that holds the team together and that shared goal that can be at various levels. I mean, it can be at this grand big picture level. You know, sometimes what's referred to as a product vision, it can be at a more discrete team level. Sometimes that's referred to as, you know, our our unique contribution to the product division. So that would be like our team mission. And then there's maybe, you know, a specific task. And so, you know, we might be working on a specific, very small, discrete task. And, you know, there's a potentially a group of people working on that thing. And, and, and those people have that shared goal of moving that task, you know, through a process to a completion state. And so there's, there's some variability here in the different kind of levels and Hopefully, there's some alignment between those different levels when you're talking about a team. Brian Milner (07:14) All right, so there's some different kinds of teams and it kind of is wide ranging in how we would describe it. There's different configurations, but we have a single purpose. We're working together towards a single purpose. That's kind of our unifying factor there. So then what makes teams work? What's the glue other than our purpose? How do we actually... Combine efforts, how do we play off each other's strengths? How does that happen? Jim York (07:47) Yeah, well, it depends, right? I mean, that's the classic consultant's answer. It depends. How do we play off of each other? If you're in an environment where you've got a known solution to a known problem and you're just executing steps in a plan, those dynamics are pretty well understood. People in that process can be trained to do different types of activities. They can gain experience in that. Brian Milner (07:50) Yeah. Jim York (08:08) That's a fairly predictable kind of process, but then there are others where it's emergent. And so we have to kind of figure it out on the fly as we go. And even those environments where it seems that we've got a pre-existing solution, there is a very clear variable there, and that's people. People show up different every day. I might have had a poor night's sleep, and people might think, well, Jim's normally fairly easy to work with, but wow, today he's... got a short temper or whatever it might be. And so we have to of figure out on the fly how we adapt to those variables. anything that has to do with people, you're going to have some variability. think stepping back, Brian, I think one of the things that is important to kind of understand or get a sense of what part of the system that we want to understand when we're talking about a team and they are dynamics, they actually are fitting within some sort of product ecosystem. And so where are the boundaries of what we mean by our shared purpose, our shared vision within that ecosystem? There's a classic book called Lean Thinking by James and Womack. And there's a really interesting example, simple diagram in the book of a value stream. And it's a value stream of a cola can. And it's kind of fascinating. You kind of see this very simple value stream in there and it starts with aluminum being, well, not the aluminum, but the bauxite actually being mined. And it goes through a reduction mill and then to a smelter. And then it goes through some hot rolling and cold rolling process. And so finally you get basically rolls of sheet aluminum that go to a can maker and the can maker is cutting the cans that are then formed into the cola can. You know, and that can maker is actually the middle of the value stream because all the things I've described so far are upstream. Downstream of the can maker, once they've made the cans, the cans go to a can warehouse somewhere and they sit there until a bottler says, hey, we need some cans because somebody's ordered some cola. And so, you know, the cans make their journey to the bottler and they get filled and then they get... Brian Milner (10:01) Hmm. Jim York (10:17) go to a bottling warehouse and of course there's transportation, there's trucks carrying these empty cans from the can maker to the bottler and then the filled cans from the bottler to the bottler warehouse and then ultimately they go to some wholesale operation and then to a retail store and then you and I perhaps will go into the store and buy a six pack of cola and we go home and we drink the cola. And so you see this very simple kind of journey, this little value stream. from the perspective of the can maker. And so, first time I encountered that value stream, I'm sitting there looking at the can maker and I'm asking myself the classic question that I ask my clients. One of the first questions I ask is, who's your customer? And so for the can maker, it can be very easy to look at that and go, well, it's the bottler because the bottler is the one who places the orders for the cans. So clearly the customer for the can maker is the bottler. Of course from a lean perspective we look further down the stream We were looking at the end of the stream to see you know, what's what's it all for? What's it all for? And if you look at the diagram you get to you know finally to the end of the stream and there's the home where the person's potentially sitting on their couch and enjoying you know that that cola and so you know if you think about all the different steps along the value stream from the mining to the to the smelting to the bottler and Brian Milner (11:17) Ha Yeah. Jim York (11:38) the can maker themselves, the retail store that's selling the cola. The thing that you would ask them that would be the glue that would hold them together for this would be what Diana Larsson and Ainsley Nees call in their lift off book, the product vision. And so the product vision is really kind of what's it all for? And the cool thing about a product vision is it's very concise, it's very succinct and everybody can hold it in their heads very easily because of that. It's typically one sentence. And so I'm going to speculate this because I'm not a, I'm not part of this value stream where Cola makes its journey to people in their homes. But I'm guessing the product vision for all of these various people along the value stream boils down to something along the lines of our customers enjoy a convenient, refreshing beverage. And so the cool thing about that simple statement is that Brian Milner (12:23) Mm-hmm. Jim York (12:28) If you were to go to the mine and ask a miner and say, some of this bauxite that you're mining, in the context of this soda, what's it all for? Now, they're probably mining bauxite for a variety of different customers and a variety of different products. But in the context of this particular value stream, they could look down to the end of the stream and say, it's all about that person sitting on their couch at the end of a long day who simply wants to have a convenient, refreshing beverage. And so that's what you know, this particular product vision is. And so that kind of calls into view a couple of things. One is context is important. So when we're talking about the product, we have to be very specific about what it is that we mean, who is that customer at the end of the stream, and what is the experience that we want them to have. And so this product vision is, as I said, very simple. our customers experience a convenient, refreshing beverage. Now, that makes it simple in terms of this particular value stream, but it also makes us aware that it's very complex for the miners because they've got to deal with competing interests from a whole lot of different customers. And so if they've got limited capacity, they may be trying to figure out, which customer do we satisfy? And so the usefulness of the product vision is being able to go to that mining company and say, do you find value in, do you want to support this activity of creating this experience for this customer with convenient refreshing beverage? And if they buy into that, if they agree with that, that's your leverage, that's your argument. why you should deliver against this value stream versus some other value stream. Now, you don't always win that argument, which is really what life is about, is we're always dealing with trade-offs and we're dealing with different options or opportunities. And so I think that's one aspect of this. But when we talk about the team in the context of a product vision, The team is huge. The team is absolutely huge because it's not just a can maker and the can maker team. It's also the bottler and the bottler team. It's maybe the truckers union that's providing transportation between these different things. the retail store. It's the retail warehouse. All of them potentially have their own concept of team. And in order to create value, it's not just what you do and provide to your next partner on the value stream. You have to really pay attention to the entire value stream because ultimately anything that doesn't come together in the right way at the right in the right place right time It puts it all at risk It puts it all at risk. So I think it's important that we kind of understand the product vision this highest level glue that holds us together and then at a more discrete level look at your team, for example the can maker and What is their unique contribution? In Liftoff, Diana Larsson and Ainsley Niece call this the team mission. And so what is the team's unique contribution to the product vision? And so for the can maker, it's also fairly simple. It's like, we make the cans. And they could flavor that a bit with, they use the latest technology and they use environment. sensitive manufacturing processes, know, they source things using sustainable, you know, approaches and the like. at the team mission level, we're getting a little bit more discreet in terms of what it is that that team is contributing to the greater whole. So think part of this is just kind of stepping back and thinking about what it means to be a team. Brian Milner (16:12) Hmm. Jim York (16:24) You know, are we talking about we're a team that's the collection of all of these things? At times that might be a useful way of thinking about it. At other times we need to kind put our heads down and focus on what our unique contribution is and make sure that we're doing the appropriate job there. Brian Milner (16:24) Hmm. Yeah, this is fascinating because so what I'm hearing is that really we have to expand our thinking a little bit about teams because teaming teams are, know, in one sense, the small group that you're working with on a on a regular basis, but it's there's a larger team concept as well of the entire value stream from end to end. All the people who are contributing, they all are are working towards that ultimate goal of, in your example, someone having a refreshing beverage at the end of their long, day at work? And how often do we actually realize that or look at that? Are the miners really even aware of the fact that they're contributing to that sort of a larger team goal? I think that's a great question. Jim York (17:21) Yeah, that's an excellent point. And what are the implications of either that awareness or lack of awareness? And I think this kind of comes to play when we think about what motivates teams. If all I know is that I'm mining bauxite, that might work for some folks. That's enough motivation. Sometimes people say my paycheck is enough motivation. Brian Milner (17:44) Ha ha. Jim York (17:45) But if you really understand what it's all about, that maybe ties into a bit of self-worth, that I'm a contributing member of society. It could also help you make the right decisions and perform the right actions if you know ultimately what this is gonna lead to. And sometimes that's a calculation that's done in terms of the quality. of the work that you're doing or the output that you're creating. For certain applications, the quality might have certain characteristics where the quality has turned up very, very high in some areas or maybe it's lower in other areas because it's good enough. And if you overbuild quality, you might be introducing some waste because it's not. It's not necessary for the job at hand. In other places, if you deliver below quality, you introduce some risk that the product is not going to be, or the ultimate customer experience is not going to be what it is. I don't know about you, but I've occasionally gotten one of these plastic soda bottles where they've made the plastic so thin for the soda bottle that the liquid is actually needed inside the bottle to maintain the structural integrity of the bottle. Brian Milner (18:54) Yeah. Jim York (18:54) And if I were that customer sitting on the couch at the end of a long hot day, let's imagine it's a white cloth couch and I'm drinking orange soda and I reach over to pick up the soda and my hand, you know, grasping around the soda bottle, all of sudden the soda bottle just collapses in my hand and orange soda goes all over me and the couch and everything else. mean, that's, you know, there's some quality characteristics, some specifications around that. Brian Milner (19:02) Ha ha ha. Jim York (19:18) container that that plastic container that has to integrate well into the rest of the process. It has to work with the bottler and it has to work with the consumer when they're actually using it. So it's understanding the whole can certainly help teams feel a sense of purpose and also can guide that decision making in those actions around it. Brian Milner (19:30) Yeah. Yeah, I think that's an important thing to keep in mind and remember because, you you mentioned, you know, some people would say paycheck is a motivator. And I, you know, I, I kind of subscribe to the Dan Pink kind of motivation philosophy that, know, that, can only do it so far that it is a motivator, but it is a motivator only to a certain point. Beyond that point, we need more. We need more to motivate what we're going to do. Cause you know, there's a million things out there that can give me a paycheck. I could work in a lot of different places, but I've chosen to do what I do for a reason. There's something that fulfills me from doing that, or I prefer it in some way to what my other options might be. I know I've heard people say this in classes before, the idea of how do you have a vision for somebody who builds clothes hangers? We have this talk about vision, this grand design. Big purpose. Well, how do you do that for someone who has clothes hangers? You know, like I get that, you know, there's not everything, every product in the world has, you know, a save the world kind of vision, right? But I think you can, in your example of kind of the mining thing, I think is a good example of this because you can connect it to that ultimate value. And when you connect to that ultimate value, it doesn't that motivate people more to think, hey, I'm helping someone who's had a hard day. I know what that's like. Have a hard day, sit down on your couch and you just want to relax a little bit. Yeah, I want to help that person. Like that, is something that that'll gets me out of bed, you know? Jim York (21:06) Mm-hmm. Yeah, and I think that does require you to think beyond what we often think of as being the team. Because to make it all come together and result in that ultimate product vision, that, you know, the person having the convenient refreshing beverage, in my example, you know, all of those different parts have to come together. And any one of them, if it doesn't happen, you know, that we don't have that value that's realized at the end of the value stream. And so having that connection to what it's really ultimately about is critically important. And understanding where you fit into that and what your value add work is, I think is critically important. And so we talked about like at high level product vision, we talked about this unique contribution of your team like the can maker, and so our team mission, we make the cans. And then we get to the practicalities of the task that's in flight, the work that we're doing right now. And I think that's a critical piece of this puzzle. What is it that's the thing that's being acted upon right now? The work in process or the work in flight. And depending on what the nature of that is, I think that drives a lot of... decisions and one of them is around, you know, who do we need? So who are the actual people, you know, that have the right skills, knowledge, experience in order to do that work? And also it informs our process and so, know, again, that process could be something where it's a known process and we're just, you know, turning the crank or it might be something where we're having to figure it out on the fly. Regardless of the nature of the work, there's going to be a workflow. When we're trying to get something done, the work is going to be flowing through some sort of process. And it's that flow that really intrigues me. we want to look at the flow, especially if speed matters. And why would speed matter? Sometimes speed matters because customers want what we are building yesterday. So they want it as soon as possible. So time to value is often what's considered there. If we're something new that hasn't existed before, sometimes we're also building quickly so we can get it in front of someone to get their reaction to see whether it's fit for purpose. So we might think of that as being time to feedback. But the flow itself is there's the workflow. And so work, the nature of it is a piece of work is something that maybe an individual can go work on. Other times there's a piece of work that requires more than one person to work on. So there's an element of collaboration with that. Even when it's an individual that can work on a piece of work, usually they've received something from somebody that allows them to start that piece of work. And when they're done with that piece of work, they're passing what they've done along to somebody else and that other person is picking up. So even if... there's an ability to work on a discrete task by yourself, there's still an interaction often on the front end of that and the back end of that. So work is still flowing and we have to figure out how to collaborate in such a way that the work that is not being held up in some queue somewhere where we're getting some bottlenecks and that they're constraints. so figuring out how do you enable the work to flow and how do you enable the people to flow? Years ago, I had an opportunity to coach soccer and on my team, I taught them, in addition to like skills, I taught them three concepts. And so the first one was, everybody on the team should know where the ball is. And so it seems pretty obvious, you should know where the ball is. But if you look at this from a team building software perspective, does everybody know where the ball is? You know, what is the work that's in flight and what's the current state of that? I mean, we use information radiators to try to help people understand where the ball is, but often I don't think we use them as effectively as we might. So I'm always challenging teams to figure out, you know, how do you use your communication systems, your information radiators to enable everyone in your ecosystem to understand, you know, what's the work in flight and what is its current state? And why do you need to know that? Brian Milner (24:55) Hmm. Yeah. Jim York (25:24) Well, if you know where the ball is, you can get a sense of what are the things that are in the way of that ball moving forward. So my second rule for the team was know where your obstacles are. And so in a soccer game, you're seeing your opponents. And so you might have a great plan on how you're going to advance the ball from where it is currently down the field towards the goal. But little problem with that. You've got people on the other team trying to keep you from getting there. So you're having to react real time in the moment to those obstacles. And so in addition to everybody on the team knowing where the ball is, everyone on the team needs to know where the obstacles are. And so when you have that information, and again, for a team building software, this is the kind of thing that should be readily available in some sort of information radiator, real time ability to see where the ball is and to see what's in the way. Why is that important? Well, if you know where the ball is and you know where the obstacles are, you can position yourself as a team member to be what I called the help. And so by the help, that's the one or two people on your soccer team that if you're the one with the ball, you know you can pass to them easily. You know, that they are constantly moving around and positioning themselves to be in the place where it's possible for you to get the ball to them. So who are those two people? Well, it changes depending on where the ball is. And so what the team has to do is kind of get a mental mob. Brian Milner (26:41) Ha ha. Jim York (26:47) in their heads of the actual position of people on the field and get a sense of if the ball's here and the obstacles are here, then I should put myself here. Now, it isn't for all the team members to position themselves to be the help because that would be crazy. Just as we see on Agile teams, when somebody picks up a task, the whole team typically doesn't swarm on that task. It would be too many people on the task. Brian Milner (27:06) haha Jim York (27:16) So who shows up to work the task? The right number of people with the right skills and knowledge. So how do they know to come? It's because the work is made visible. And so they come because they see that they're needed. How fast do they come? Ideally, they're there instantly. Now, why might they not be there instantly? Because they might be working on some other tasks. And so if this were to happen in soccer game, you would see the other opponent, you know, they would be... basically scoring goals against you right and left because when you try to pass the ball, you wouldn't have somebody there to receive the ball. So knowing where your help is, if you've got the ball and passing it to that person helps you continue the flow down towards the goal. So if you're not the person who has the ball and you're not one of those two people that are the help currently, What you're doing as another team member is you are. orienting yourself on the field so that you will be the help when it's needed. And so there's this constant movement of people down the field. And where this really brings it home, I'll use this example, and I'm coaching agile teams, is they'll talk about how all their work and stuff, and I'll use the example of the soccer game and the one ball, and they say, now let's imagine you put two balls in flight. Brian Milner (28:16) Hmm, that makes sense, yeah. Jim York (28:36) Can you optimally move those balls down the field towards your opponent's goal? And typically, there is a limit, right? How many balls can you put on the field? Two, three, 15? It's like, yeah, it really drives home the point of limiting the work in process. the teamwork is made more effective and efficient if we have some sense of where the work is, what is the nature of it so that people can come and go, I call this people flow. so we're looking at things like the, well, out of... Brian Milner (29:05) Yeah. Jim York (29:09) out of the concept of open space, the law of mobility. It's like within our organizations, within our teams, can we have people flow to where the work is needed and also have people flow away from the work when they're not needed? And so enabling that autonomy of the individual to be able to go where they need to go in order to optimize the flow is a... Brian Milner (29:13) Yeah, yeah. Jim York (29:34) is a key organizational design problem. Brian Milner (29:37) Yeah, yeah, this is fascinating stuff. mean, I love the analogy with the soccer teams and that I mean, I, that makes sense to me. I love kind of where you're going with this. If people are hearing this and thinking, well, I like to hear more about this stuff. We're going to put links in our show notes back to Jim's site on this because he's got a lot of blog posts. They're kind of around the same theme on this. And we'll link to those specific blog posts for you so that you can find them. But Jim, I want to be respectful of your time and our listeners' time. So thank you so much for taking your time out to share this with us. Jim York (30:08) Well, I've been very pleased to join you, Brian. Thank you for the opportunity. Brian Milner (30:13) Absolutely.

If your team keeps revisiting the same issues over and over again, Groundhog Day-style, this episode is for you. Leadership coach Marsha Acker shares why it happens, how to recognize hidden conversational patterns, and what to do when you feel stuck. Overview In this episode, Brian Milner sits down with executive team coach and author Marsha Acker to unpack one of the most frustrating challenges teams face: circular conversations that never seem to resolve. You know the ones; same issue, different day. Marsha introduces a practical framework, structural dynamics, to help leaders and Scrum Masters decode what’s actually happening beneath the surface of their team’s conversations. From identifying communication patterns to creating space for dissent and inquiry, they explore how to break out of those conversational loops, build psychological safety, and foster real change. Whether you're leading meetings or just stuck in too many of them, this episode will help you shift the dynamic for good. References and resources mentioned in the show: Marsha Acker The Art and Science of Facilitation by Marsha Acker Build Your Model for Leading Change: A guided workbook to catalyze clarity and confidence in leading yourself and others by Marsha Acker #137: Stop Wasting Time with Guests Kate Megaw #94: Connecting Teams and Leadership with Anthony Coppedge Retrospectives Repair Guide Better Retrospectives Join the Agile Mentors Community 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. Marsha Acker is an executive coach, author, and the founder of TeamCatapult, where she helps leadership teams break out of communication ruts and lead real, lasting change. With two decades of experience guiding everyone from startups to Fortune 500s, Marsha specializes in transforming how teams talk, decide, and grow—one conversation at a time. Auto-generated Transcript: Brian Milner (00:00) Welcome back, Agile Mentors. We're back for another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I'm with you as always, Brian Milner. And today I have the honor of having Ms. Marcia Acker with us. So welcome in, Marcia. Marsha Acker (00:12) Hi Brian, it's good to be here. Brian Milner (00:14) Very very happy to have Marcia with us. Marcia is the CEO of a group called Team Catapult and she is a team coach. She does a lot of work with teams and leaders. She's an author. She's a speaker and we wanted to have her come on because of a book that she has out recently called Build Your Model for Leading Change. She also has another book called The Art and Science of Facilitation, which I'm sure is really appealing to a lot of people here as well. You know, as Scrum Masters, if you're a Scrum Master out there, we do a lot of facilitating. So that's probably a really interesting pickup for you also. But we wanted to have Marsha on because we wanted to talk about an issue that I hear a lot about in classes. This is something that I hear a lot of questions around, and it can be a really big source of issues when you think about working together in close, tight units as a team. And that's how teams communicate. kind of the issues and problems that we have with communication amongst teams. So, you know, when we're talking about this, we're talking about teams not listening to each other, not understanding each other, misunderstanding someone's motives, something like that. And one of the things I know that I've seen a lot, I've encountered this a lot, and this is one of the things that I know you talk about quite a bit in your book, is this kind of loop that we get in a little bit, right? We have these conversations where... It just feels like we're stuck in a loop. We're saying the same things over and over again. it's like, I in Groundhog Day? Am I reliving the same thing we just went through? So let's start there and just say, why do you think that that happens? Why do you think that teams have this kind of Groundhog Day effect where you might have these conversations that just kind of keep popping up over and over again? Marsha Acker (01:35) Mm-hmm. It's a great question, Brian. think a number of years ago, I had a background in facilitation, but I got really interested in this particular question because I found not only in my own experience, I had multiple examples that I could give you of conversations that I felt like I'd have with somebody. then we would be, a week or two later, we'd be back talking about the same thing. And I'd think, I, you know, from my perspective, I thought we resolved that. So, so why are we talking about it again? And then I noticed in my work with teams that they would do the same thing. So, you know, I'd be in a session with a team, I'd help them facilitate a decision. They'd make the decision and then I'd be back with them a month later and the same topic would be up. And I'm I just found myself confused. So I think, I think there are many reasons why that happens. But if I were to, If I were to create a theme for that, think there's a couple of big themes that I see play out. I think there are many places on our teams today where we stay at the surface level of the conversation. Like we get super focused on what we're talking about. So whether it's the tool that we're using, the features that are gonna be in the next release, like we get so super focused on it. And then we're hyper. aware of time boxes. So we want to make sure we talk about the thing, get the decision, and we want to do it in 30 minutes or less. I saw a post on LinkedIn the other day where someone was advocating that there shouldn't be any meeting that would need to go past 25 minutes. And I thought, see it really differently because I think while there are places where we absolutely do need to maybe just quickly exchange information or keep things moving along, or we just want to hear briefly from people. I think if we're advocating that every meeting should only take 25 minutes, we are likely going to have those Groundhog Day conversations because it doesn't give us the space to get to the real topic. So I think that's where we spend a lot of time talking about the thing, the topic, and we really don't create enough time to drop down into focus on are we really, there space here for me to share what I really think or do you just want me to show up here in this meeting that you're running? You clearly have maybe your own agenda. You feel like you've already got the decision made. And so you'd really like my role to be to just receive your information and go off and do it. So I think there's a complexity here of Brian Milner (04:27) Yeah. Marsha Acker (04:32) What's the topic we're talking about? Is it the real topic that we need to talk about? Or is there, is it sort of the mask for what we might be able to drop into a deeper conversation to have? Are we being super focused on a time box? And are we creating enough range in our meetings that we've got spaces where we are efficient and fast and very deliberate about the conversation and then other spaces where, you know, those topics that keep returning. They're great places to go, there's data here for us. I think of them as yellow flags. there's something here for us to explore further. So let's take this topic and let's carve out a little bit more time for it. I'm curious what you see. Brian Milner (05:15) Yeah. No, that's a great observation. And I think you're right. It is a frustration. Looking back over my career and looking back through corporate meetings and things I've been a part of, there is frustration with someone who's coming in and not really having a meeting planned and not really having an agenda. But I think there is another kind of side issue there that can cause a lot of misunderstanding about Marsha Acker (05:33) Yeah. Brian Milner (05:44) what we're trying to achieve and that's the purpose. If we're here for a certain topic, I can understand that, but then what is it that's expected of me in this meeting? Am I here to just receive information? Is this a knowledge dump or a status update from someone else? is this, we have an issue and we need to talk through it and fully understand it. Marsha Acker (05:47) Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Brian Milner (06:13) And I think sometimes that's what I've kind of seen is that there's this mismatch of, well, I thought I was here for this. And now it's clear that you don't really want my opinion. You just want to tell me what it is. And so now I'm refocused or the opposite. I thought I was here just to receive information, but now I'm realizing that you really need me to dig in and give you my educated advice on this. Well, I wasn't prepared to do that. Marsha Acker (06:20) Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think this notion, and I see it happen a lot with Agile teams, like somewhere in our professional careers, and I think there's very good reason for, like we get rewarded for, know, from the time we're in very early school all the way through the end of school, we get rewarded for having answers. And then we end up in the workplace and we find ourselves in collaborative spaces. And so I think there's this belief that, you know, someone who's calling the meeting, they will have a little bit of this internal story that if I come with only questions and no solutions, then what value am I adding? Like that's, how am I useful to this organization? I've actually had people say to me, why would this organization hire me to come in and ask other people questions? Brian Milner (07:28) Wow. Marsha Acker (07:29) And so I think that's really, I love giving voice to that because I do think that there's a narrative that sits in our organizations that I, and a little bit of a fear. Like if I come to a meeting and I'm asking people to collaborate or I'm truly asking them open ended questions and I want to hear what they have to say and we're going to listen to, you know, I talk a lot about wanting to create this collective intelligence. And I think it takes a while to access that in a group of people. that it requires us to be able to suspend this idea that we're not adding value if we're asking questions and to reframe our value as helping to tap into a collective. And you can certainly have a point of view or a perspective, but if you're really wanting to tap into that intelligence, then I think it requires something different of us if we're the meeting host or the meeting leader. I think the other thing that will happen too is depending on who's in charge, like senior architects or somebody senior in the team can also get caught in that trap. Like, well, I'm supposed to come with answers. And I think we can come with ideas. But if we're really wanting to collaborate, and then this gets to your point about why are we gathering? Because sometimes I think there will be places where somebody has already made the decision and they're not asking for input on the decision. Brian Milner (08:42) Yeah. Marsha Acker (08:50) but they're wanting to share the decision that's been made and enroll people in the decision that's been made and invite them into collaborating on actually how that's gonna get implemented. But we're not opening this conversation up for what's been decided about architecture, what's been decided about what's going into a release. So I think this clarity and intentionality like you talk about around purpose, why am I here? What do you want from me? It's huge. And I think it's really tied to also some of our thinking about how are we adding value. Brian Milner (09:23) Yeah. The comment about, know, people not feeling like they're adding value if they're just asking questions that, kind of, maybe it's just for my recent experience with coaching and everything, but to me that, that just, it's so contrary, you know, to, to my way of thinking now, I guess I would say in that, you know, when I've been a part of discussion, when I've been part of a meeting, that I've looking back, that I feel like has gone really well. Marsha Acker (09:26) . Mm-hmm. Brian Milner (09:48) Uh, or, or a person that I feel like has really contributed to the meeting. Oftentimes it, it is that person who is asking questions that get us to think in a different way to get us to consider from a different perspective. So, you know, that that's why it feels a little strange to think about it. I agree with you. I agree that that's, you know, the attitude of some people or that's the way they see, you know, how I contribute to a meeting, but it just feels like it's such the opposite of that. That might be the most valuable thing we could do is to get people to see things from a different perspective or consider maybe things they haven't considered about this issue. Marsha Acker (10:25) Yeah, I think it's one of the first mindset shifts in a transition from being a contributor to maybe managing or leading, whether it's you're just leading a team or whether you're leading a whole organization. I think this idea of where does value come from and what's my role in the value creation, it's a shift, I think, for us. I love when people can get to a place of thinking about creating containers in organizations where people get to be their best. And then it does, your thinking does shift from, what's the piece of content that I can contribute to? What's the question that would really unlock different perspectives? And I think the other piece about that is what's the question that would elicit a... I talk about it being opposed, but you know, a contrarian perspective or point of view, because I think that's the other thing that can keep us in these circular conversations is when what we're really thinking doesn't get said. So if I don't feel like I can tell you in the room what I'm really thinking, I'll tell everybody else offline. Brian Milner (11:34) Right. The meeting after the meeting, right? Yeah. Yeah. And that, course, gets to the heart of psychological safety and kind of those dynamics within a team. We started this off talking about kind of this feeling of getting stuck. And so I want to kind of come back to that a little bit and say, I want to ask you, what are some of the causes of that? Why do we find ourselves trapped in these loops? Marsha Acker (11:36) Yes. You Mm. Brian Milner (11:59) that just, know, whatever we decide doesn't actually do anything or we find ourselves right back in the same place. Why do these, what's causing this? Marsha Acker (12:08) Yeah, well, let's play around with a bit of a framework to help us think about what's happening in the conversation. Yeah. So there is a theory of structural dynamics. It comes from work of David Cantor. And what it allows us to do is sort of think about being able to code the conversation that we're happening. And by code, I mean it helps us focus not on the topic. So whatever the topic might be. It doesn't matter. It helps us focus on how we're engaging in that conversation more of the how. And so there are four actions. Everything that we say could actually be coded into one of four actions, which I think is really kind of fascinating. So you just made a move by taking us back and pointing to the topic about stuck conversations, right? So what keeps us stuck? And that's a move because you're pointing in a direction. So moves kind of set direction in the conversation. I could make a new move and say, you know, let's talk about, yeah, where we might meet at a conference sometime, Brian. But that's a totally different topic. So moves set direction in a conversation. The second action is a follow, which gets behind and supports. So I followed your move by saying, yes, that's great. Let's do that. Here's, and then. Brian Milner (13:12) Right. Yeah. Marsha Acker (13:26) And then a bit of a new move from me, let me introduce a language for thinking about that. So you made a move, I followed, and then brought in another move. So now we're starting to, by being able to name actions, we're starting to get a sense of patterns. So there's two more actions, the action of a pose. So a pose offers like really clear pushback. It says, no, hang on, stop. Let's not go off the bridge or. I really disagree with this piece about what you're saying. So it offers a clear pushback or constraint to what's been said. And then the fourth action is a bystand. And a bystand is a morally neutral comment that names what's happening in the conversation. So I could bystand on myself in a conversation and say, you know, I'm really feeling engaged by the dialogue, or I might say I'm really confused. or if we're noticing a pattern, somebody might say, I notice we're getting stuck. So a bystand is a way for people to name what's happening or bridge competing ideas. But the other thing, the benefit of the bystand is that sometimes it also slows down the conversation. So to your question about what gets us stuck, it's really helpful if we can separate. what we're talking about and start to briefly look at how we're talking because what gets us stuck in conversations is when one or more of those actions is missing over the course of time. So we need all four of them to be voiced. One of the biggest problems in our stuck conversations is that a pose goes offline. Not in every team. There will be teams for whom a pose is stronger. But in my experience in American business, for sure, a pose is often the thing that is missing or it goes offline. So the way it will play out, there's a couple of different patterns. One will be what we call serial moving. And those are teams. Like a meeting with serial moving will have lots of fast pace. So somebody says this. then we're talking about this topic, now we're talking about this. And it will, like, you'll have a feeling like we accomplished a lot, but then you walk out at the end of the session and you go. So we talked about, exactly, we talked about this, this and this, and I don't know what we decided. Brian Milner (15:52) What just happened, right? Marsha Acker (15:58) So people that leave those kinds of meetings, they'll have this sort of false sense of, yeah, we got somewhere when we really didn't, we didn't close things out. So serial moving can be a pattern that can keep us stuck because we don't close things. There can be another pattern where there's a lot of move and follow. We call it courteous compliance. Another word for it would just, I forget the other label that we can give to it, but there's the sense that somebody makes a move and everybody else just says, sure, fine. So it's lacking the energy of the dynamics that you would get if the other actions were active and being voiced. And then there's a pattern where we might have too much bystand. So in a team that starts to complain about why did we use this tool or, know, I'm noticing nobody's using Slack or I'm noticing, you know, when we, when something gets posted in Slack, nobody acknowledges it. So if you find yourself in a meeting where, people are sharing a lot of context or perspective, maybe we can, I call it a hall of mirrors. Like we've got lots of perspective, but what's needed is for somebody to really make a move and say, all right, so given that now, what do we want to do about it? So what's really fascinating about those, we can also get locked in a move and a pose, a really strong advocacy or argument. And what's needed in that kind of argument is we need more follow and bystand. But what I find fascinating, so a pattern that I see play out over and over again will be one of two, the serial moving or the courteous compliance. So we've got a lot of moves or we've got move and follow. Brian Milner (17:25) Yeah. Marsha Acker (17:45) And if I'm someone in the meeting that either doesn't feel like my voice is welcomed or that it would be a career limiting move to oppose you, what I'll do is start to use one of the other actions in place of my oppose. So if it's not okay for me to push back and say, Brian, I don't want to talk about that, or I disagree, I think we're going off track, then what I might start doing is just making new moves. Brian Milner (18:02) Hmm. Marsha Acker (18:15) So rather than say to you, hey, Brian, I don't want to do that, you'll be talking about something, and now I'm introducing another topic. Hey, can we talk about where we're going for lunch next week? Or can we talk about the meaning behind that word over there that we were using last week? we don't do it intentionally. It comes for really good reason. Brian Milner (18:36) Right. Marsha Acker (18:39) We will all have our own reasons about why we do or don't do that. But I think some of the greatest work to do in teams is to talk about those four actions, to normalize them, and to invite them. Brian Milner (18:52) I love this. what kind of fascinated me, caught my attention the most about what you were saying is when I saw these, and kind of reading up here and reading through your work prior to our discussion, those four modes, when I read it, the first time it seemed to make sense, move, follow, oppose, bystand. But when I saw bystand, it really did seem, my first initial gut response was, yeah. That makes sense. There are bystanders that are happening in meetings that just do nothing. They just kind of sit back and they're not going to be, you know, they're not going to get in the way of the flow of something. But the way you described it is really fascinating because it's not a passive thing. It is an active participation. Marsha Acker (19:35) Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Actually, if somebody is, well, I love that you're naming that because I get asked that question all the time. So again, American business trends. So if you step into the mind of someone who believes that I'm really only adding value if I'm bringing ideas and the way we would code that would be often you're making moves. So people will tend to value. making moves and opposes because a lot of times that's what the culture values. If you're in an organization that says, bring me problems, bring me solutions, you will find a cultural pattern in there of people showing up and making moves and opposes throughout their whole meeting. It'll be a stuck pattern. It'll be overused actions. But if we think about, so bystand could be questions, asking powerful questions. what's that mean to us falls along the line of bringing inquiry into the conversation. And so it gives us a way to balance advocacy and inquiry. But bystand is, bystand and follow are active. If somebody was not saying anything in the conversation, we wouldn't know, we wouldn't be able to code them because they're not speaking. And those four relate to speech acts. So, We have to speak in order for it to be coded as something. But those people who are sitting back often have some of the best bystands. Like if you were to tap that person on the shoulder and say, hey, I would love to know what you see right now in the conversation, they'd probably be able to tell you. Brian Milner (20:57) Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I love this. And, you know, one of the things we teach in our advanced Scrum Masterclass is having people kind of understand how to deal with conflict in their teams and stuff. And we talk about the Thomas Killman kind of five responses to conflict. And I'm seeing a lot of overlap here in these modes too of, some of these things sound like a certain response to conflict in certain ways as well. But before we run out of time, I want to... Marsha Acker (21:30) Mm. Yeah. Brian Milner (21:43) I want to make sure that we get to, if we're in this situation, what are some steps, what are some things we can do to break that chain and not just have the same conversation again next week. Marsha Acker (21:48) Yeah. Yeah. So I would love for people to just think about using those four actions, especially if you work with a team on a fairly frequent basis, right? You will likely, even as I describe those, you will likely start to be able to identify what's the pattern that might be showing up. So I think the first step is can you identify or create a hypothesis for yourself about what might our structural pattern be? So do I hear like really clear poses? You know, do we make a lot of moves? So if you can find the actions that are predominant in your conversation, that's really the first step. And then the second step, there are a couple of different things to counteract each of them. So if move is really strong and it's coming from certain people, designing your facilitated session or even inviting participants to other participants to be the ones to make the move. So inviting others to speak first is one way to do it. limiting the number of moves that people can make. So sometimes if I'm working with a team that has that pattern, I'll give them some kind of, I'll give them a poker chip or I'll give them a card that says move on it. And I will limit everybody to one move per meeting. So structurally, I'm asking people to start to constrain their own moves. And then asking them to then step into, know, if somebody makes a move, staying with it long enough. as, so as a facilitator, you might say, if you noticed that you've got multiple moves on the table, you might just say, Hey, we've got four topics. This, this, this, and this, which is the one that we want to dive into first. So that's another way of just prompting a group to follow a move that they've made. And I think if you're noticing, you don't have a pose. You. chances are that is not going to come naturally. So I think you've really got to design questions that surface it. asking for what are the risks or who sees this differently. A lot of times if I'm leading a session, I will ask people, where did I get it wrong or what do I have wrong? Brian Milner (23:47) Yeah. Marsha Acker (24:12) What am I missing? What might I not be seen? So those are all ways for me to prompt. And I think if you've got some hierarchy in the room or differentials about that, that's really got to come from the person who's sort of holding some of that positional power maybe. Brian Milner (24:29) Yeah, I love that because there's there's sort of a maybe it's an American culture thing. I don't know. But but I know in the business world I've experienced if you call a meeting if it's your meeting there there's sort of an expectation that you're in control, you know, you know, it feels like there's there's sort of a you're not invited to say something like, what am I missing? Marsha Acker (24:52) Yeah. Yep. Brian Milner (24:53) because that's sort of admitting that you weren't prepared for this meeting. But I agree completely with you, that's not really the case. It's just saying, I can't know everything, so what don't I know about this, I should. Marsha Acker (25:09) Yeah. And it's hard. That can be a hard question. And I often say to people, don't ask the question. Don't elicit a pose if you're not really ready to hear it. It can be hard when somebody says, I think it's a two-ee. I totally disagree with the direction that we're going. Because if I, as the person who's asked the question and now receiving that feedback, If it starts to show on my face or I disconnect from it, what's gonna happen is that gets registered across everybody in that room. And that'll be the last time anybody steps up to answer that kind of question. Brian Milner (25:36) Right. Yeah, I love as well when you were talking about, you know, the actions and maybe having tokens or stuff for people to have actions. think I don't, I'm sure this is maybe part of the intention of this as well, but I love the side effect of that, that yes, I'm limiting people who would be controlling to not, not take control of the entire meeting, but once they've spent theirs, now I'm in a situation where the people who maybe wouldn't be those people that would normally step up. They're the only ones who have that ability left. So you have that side benefit of I'm kind of making space for the quieter voices in this group to have a chance to speak up. And I think that's a really important thing in these kind of meetings too. Marsha Acker (26:35) Yeah, when we find ourselves in stuck patterns, there will be very good reason for, or the Groundhog Day conversation. There will be a pattern to the structure of that conversation that keeps repeating itself. And a lot of times what will be happening is somebody will make a move and very often the person that follows them will be the same person every time. So if Marsha speaks and then Brian follows and that's a pattern that gets set up. every single time. All it does is reinforce me to make more moves because I know you're going to be right behind me. And then over time, we're really unconscious, I think about it, as a structural pattern. But the rest of the team will start to fall back and be like, well, they seem to have it. There's no need. No need. So yes, what we're trying to do is change the behavior by looking at structure and finding ways to invite it. Brian Milner (27:34) That's awesome. This is fascinating. I want to be respectful of your time and everyone's time listening, I could go on for another hour in this conversation. This is just really fascinating stuff for me. And I want to point out to everyone again, if this is fascinating to you, we're going to put all the links to this stuff in our show notes so that you can easily just click on that and find it. But just to call it out again. Marsha Acker (27:41) You Brian Milner (27:55) Marcia has a couple of books out there that are in this topic area that could be really useful to you. One is the art and science of facilitation. And the one that I kind of took a deep dive into is called Build Your Model for Leading Change, which by the way, there's a subtitle of this, a guided workbook to catalyze clarity and confidence and leading yourself and others. And I just, would underline the workbook. Right? Because I think it's true. It is something to kind of work your way through. And it's not just a beach read. Yeah. Yeah. Marsha Acker (28:27) No, it's not. I like to think of it as a Sunday morning, maybe with a cup of coffee and a little bit of quiet space. Brian Milner (28:36) Yeah, love that. I love that picture. Well, Marsha, I can't thank you enough. You know, we've been kind of trading schedules and trying to align this to get Marsha on for a while. And, you know, when that kind of thing happens, for whatever reason, it always seems to be like, when the person comes on, it's like, wow, that was worth it. I'm really, really glad we went through that because this was a great conversation. So thanks so much. Thanks so much for sharing your research and wisdom here on this. Marsha Acker (28:56) I appreciate it. Brian Milner (29:02) and for coming on the show. Marsha Acker (29:04) Thank you for having me. It was great.

Brian Milner shares innovative ways to revamp team retrospectives, transforming them from mundane checks to dynamic discussions. He emphasizes the power of creativity and structure, suggesting diverse formats to keep engagement high. Discover techniques like the five whys to uncover deep insights and tackle root issues effectively. The conversation also introduces exciting themes that resonate with team members, ensuring every retrospective is impactful and geared towards real improvements.

What do Spotify, Google Meet, and your expense report tool have in common? They could all delight your users—if you design for more than just function. In this episode, Dr. Nesrine Changuel breaks down the emotional motivators that transform average products into unforgettable ones. Overview What separates a good product from a great one? According to Dr. Nesrine Changuel, it's not just meeting functional needs—it's creating emotional delight. In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, Brian Milner sits down with Nesrine, a former product leader at Google, Spotify, and Microsoft, to explore how emotional connection is the secret sauce behind the world’s most beloved products. They dive into Nesrine’s “Delight Framework,” reveal how seemingly mundane tools (like time-tracking software or toothbrush apps!) can create joy, and explain why delight isn’t a nice-to-have—it’s a competitive edge. Whether you're a product owner, product manager, or just want to build better user experiences, this episode will change how you think about your backlog forever. References and resources mentioned in the show: Dr. Nesrine Changuel Product Delight by Dr. Nesrine Changuel Blog: What is a Product? by Mike Cohn #116: Turning Weird User Actions into Big Wins with Gojko Adzic #124: How to Avoid Common Product Team Pitfalls with David Pereira Join the Agile Mentors Community 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. Dr. Nesrine Changuel is a product coach, advisor, and speaker with over a decade of senior product management experience at Google, Spotify, and Microsoft, where she led major consumer products like Chrome, Meet, Spotify, and Skype. She holds a Master’s in Electrical Engineering and a PhD in Media Processing and Telecommunications and is based in Paris. Auto-generated Transcript: Brian Milner (00:00) Welcome back Agile Mentors. We're back for another episode of the Agile Mentors podcast. I'm with you as always Brian Milner and today I have a very special guest with me. I have Dr. Nesrine Changuel with me. Welcome in Nesrine. Nesrine (00:14) Hi, Brian. Thanks for having me. Brian Milner (00:16) I'm very excited to have Nesreen with us. I think this is going to be a really, really great episode for all of you product owners out there or product specialists, anybody who works in the product area. I think you're going to find this really interesting and you're going to want to bookmark this one. Maybe even come back to this a little bit. Nesreen is a coach, a speaker, particularly in the product area. She has previously worked at Google. She's worked at Spotify, at Microsoft, so no stranger to large enterprise, very high profile products that she's worked on in the past. She has a book coming out in May, so look for this book. It's called Product Delight. And that's really what we're going to be focusing on here is the concept of eliciting or generating kind of an emotional response to our product. I guess I'll start by, did you stumble upon this? What drew your interest to people's emotional response to products? Nesrine (01:19) Yes, so maybe I can share the story how I came to this topic and how I became so vocal about it. So in addition to being a product manager and leader over the last decade, I was always and I always enjoyed being a speaker. So I always wanted to go on stage and share insight. This is probably coming from my research background, because when I used to be a researcher, I traveled the world to go and present my research work and When I became a product manager, I kept this habit with me. So I always been on stage and I spoke about different topics like product discovery, product operation, different topics. Until one day I got reached out by a conference organizer and he said, Hey, Nisri, we want you on stage, but we have an idea for a topic for you. I'm not that used. Usually I come up with idea myself, but I said, okay, what do want me to talk about? And he said, Hey, Nusreen, you have been working for Spotify, for Microsoft, for Google Chrome and Google Meet, and we all admire those products and we consider them very successful products. What if you come and tell us what's the common thing that probably is there any common thing that made those products successful? Being an insider, being within those company, could you share with us something that you consider in common between those products? To be honest with you, I found it challenging at the same time interesting as an exercise. I was not, by the way, able at that time to answer the question, what's in common? So I sat down and I did the exercise myself and I started to think what was really in common? What made Skype Skype? What made Spotify Spotify and those Google products so successful? And I came to the following conclusion. I found that what made those products so successful is that they don't only solve for functional needs, but they also solve for emotional needs. So when we use a particular product, we use it for a certain functional need, but we also use it for an emotional need. And without even knowing that I have been doing it for more than 12 years, I came to the conclusion that, my God, during all those years, I have been focusing so much into users need from both angle, functional and emotional. So I came on stage and I spoke about that topic and from that day, I started to give it a name. I'm calling it emotional connection. I'm calling it product delight. And I'm here to share more about it as well. Brian Milner (03:50) That's awesome, yeah. I mean, I think we do hear a lot and we focus a lot on that functional kind of need, the way you differentiate there. think that's a good differentiation, functional and emotional kind of needs or motivators there. yeah, I mean, I've always heard, know, kind of that kind of general product advice is, you know, find the things that... people really, really have as huge needs, the things they would pay someone to do for them. And that's the key to success is finding those huge needs. But we're actually going beyond that to say, yeah, those are important. It's not to say that we should skip that, but it's when there's the emotional connection to a feature or to something that we do that really the light bulb kind of comes on for our customers. Is that kind of what your research is leading to? Nesrine (04:40) you're getting it right. Don't get me wrong. Of course you have to honor the functional needs and serve the functional feature, but the delight or the emotional connection happens when you go beyond exactly how you said it. Let me explain. If you serve only functional needs, you know what you get? You get satisfied users because they are asking for something and they are satisfied about what they are receiving. Now, Brian Milner (04:41) Okay, okay. Haha. Nesrine (05:05) If you surprise them by going beyond, by anticipating their need, by exceeding their expectation, you're not only satisfying them, you're surprising them in a positive way and delight is the combination of surprise and joy. Actually, the theoretical definition of delight is a combination of two emotions, surprise and joy. So going beyond, anticipate need and exceed expectation. is what we should aim for in addition to the functional needs. Brian Milner (05:35) That's awesome. Yeah, I use this example sometimes in, we use this example in the agile world to talk about, you know, the part of the agile manifesto that says customer collaboration over contract negotiation. And, you know, there's an example I use from my past where I used to work at a company that was very contract driven. And, you know, the thing that I always used to kind of take away from that was the very best we could ever do or hope to do. was to meet our customers' expectations. We could never, ever exceed it because we were only doing exactly what they told us to do. So I think this is a really important distinction here to make that just meeting the customer's needs, just meeting the minimal customer satisfaction bar, that's not going to keep you with loyal customers. That's not going to have repeat customers, or they're not going to tell their friends about, you know. That product did exactly what I hoped it would do. But it didn't really surprise me. It didn't really go beyond that. I know you talked about, because I've read your blog and a little bit of the discussion about this. So I know you talk about in the blog kind of the connection to Kano analysis. And I've always thought that's a really great way to try to determine things to target and go after. So talk to us a little bit about that, about Kano analysis and kind of what that uncovers and how that connects to what your research has shown. Nesrine (06:51) Yes. I love Kano by the way. I, I mean, that's one of the framework I have been considering throughout most of my product career. But this framework comes with a limitation and let me explain. So first of all, for those who are not very familiar with Kano, Kano is a visualization or categorization, let's call it. It's a categorization framework that allows to categorize features among different categories. One of them is must have. So these are the things that absolutely have to be in the product. Other that are performances, which are the more you have, the more satisfied users are, the less they less satisfied they are. And of course there are the delighters and delighters are those feature that when they are in the product, users are surprisingly happy. And when they are not, are not even the satisfaction is not even impacted. So the limitation of Kano is that it doesn't tell you how to achieve delight. Let me explain. I think we live in a world that everyone agree that we should delight our users. I mean, this, this concept is now globalized and everyone is talking about delighting users. The issue is that we don't know how to delight them. So we know category, there's a category that called delight, but we don't know how to. So the, the framework that I'm introducing and I'm calling it the delight framework is the framework that allows to first identify. So it's usually, represented into three steps. The first step is to start by identifying the emotional and functional motivators. So let me give you an example. I've been working at Spotify for about four years and as a Spotify user, imagine yourself, you are a Spotify user. You do have, of course, functional motivators. What could be the functional motivators? Listening to music, listening to podcasts, maybe listening to an audiobook. So all those are functional motivators. Now, what could be the emotional motivators as a Spotify user? It could be feeling less lonely. It could be feeling more productive because when you're working you need to listen to something. It could be about changing your mood. It could be about feeling connected. So all those are emotional motivators that drive users to use a product like Spotify. So what I encourage every product manager or every product team to do at first is to dig into identifying, of course, the functional need. And everyone is good, by the way, in identifying the functional needs. But also, while doing that exercise, pay attention to what could be the emotional motivators. So that's step number one is about listing the functional and the emotional motivators. Once you have those, Now we get to the second part of the framework, which is look at your backlog. And I guess you have a very busy backlog and take those features one by one and see for this particular feature, which motivator am I solving for among the functional ones and among the emotional ones as well. So the delight grid, for example, is a visualization tool that I came and created in order to allow product teams to visualize their backlog and see how many of my features are only solving for functional motivators. In that case, we call that category low delight. How many of my features are only solving for emotional motivators? These are very rare, but the best example I would call is, for example, I'm having an Apple watch and one month ago it was New Year Eve and at midnight I get fireworks popping out of my Brian Milner (10:35) Ha Nesrine (10:36) Apple watch and it was a happy new year there's nothing functional in there but it's all about creating some smile I call this surface delight and then how many of your features are solving for both functional and emotional motivators and I call this deep delight so maybe I deviated a bit from your question compared to canoe but it's actually about adding this dimension of connecting features to the real motivators of the users. Brian Milner (11:07) No, maybe a little bit, but you connected it to where we end up going anyway. So I think that's a great connection there. And by the way, for anyone listening, we'll link to all of this so that you can find this and follow up. But I like that differentiation between surface delight and deep delight. I know some of the examples that I've heard used kind of frequently in looking at Kano analysis and kind of trying to find those delighters. And that is kind of the area that it specifies there in Canoe, right? You're trying to find those things that are not expected, but when people find that they're there, they like that it's there, but they don't expect it's there. So if it's not there, there's no negative response that it's not there, but there's a positive response if it's there because they like seeing it. And my boss, Mike Cohn, tells this story about this Nesrine (11:59) Yes. Brian Milner (12:03) There's a hotel in California that became famous because at the pool, they have a phone that's by the pool that's the Popsicle Hotline. And you can pick up the phone and you can order a Popsicle to be brought to the pool. And it's the kind of thing where you're not going to go search for a hotel. Does this hotel have a Popsicle Hotline? I'm only going to stay at hotels with Popsicle Hotlines. It's not that kind of a normal feature. It's a delight feature because when you see it and you find out it's there, it's like, that's really cool. And it can be the kind of thing that says, yeah, I want to search that hotel out again next time I'm in this area because I really thought that was a nice little attention to detail and it was fun. But I think what I'm hearing from you is that might be more of what we would classify as a surface delight. It's not really meeting a deep need. Nesrine (12:35) Yes. Brian Milner (12:56) But it's fun, it's exciting, it's not expected, but it doesn't really cross that threshold into, but it also meets kind of functional delights. Is that kind of what you're saying there? Okay. Okay. Nesrine (13:08) Yes, actually I heard about that hotel story just to tell you how much viral it went. It came to me. So actually you get it correct that I consider that as surface delight and I have nothing against by the way, surface delight. You can add surface delight. The issue is you can end up doing only surface delight and that's not enough. So the idea is to do a combination and I do have two stories to share with you just to compliment on this hotel story. One is personal and one is professional. Brian Milner (13:21) Yeah. Okay. Nesrine (13:37) The personal one just happened to me a month ago. I went to Sweden and I went to Stockholm. That's where I worked for eight years. And I went there for business and I decided to meet some friends and some ex-colleagues. So we all gathered and went to a restaurant, a very nice restaurant in Sweden. And came the time where we had to say goodbye and to pay. And I guess you can feel it immediately when it's about paying and we are a large group and you start to get that anxiety about who's paying what and what did I order? What did I drink? What? I mean, I honestly hate that moment, especially in a large group where you don't necessarily have a lot of affinity with us. Like, should we split in 10? Should we pay each one paying its piece anyway? So that was a moment of frustration, of anxiety. Brian Milner (14:09) right. Yeah. Nesrine (14:28) And I loved how the restaurant solved it for it. You know how they solve for it? I mean, maybe it exists in the U.S., but for me, that's something I never seen before. The waiter came with a QR code on a piece of paper and you scan the QR code. And when you scan your QR code, you get the list of items that got purchased by the table. And all you have is to pick, and that happens automatically real time. Everyone is picking at the same time. You pick the things from the list and you pay. for the things that you order. You can even tip on the bottom. You can give feedback. Everything happened on that QR code. And you can guess how much that anxiety could be removed. So that's the personal story I wanted to share. The second story, which is more professional, I want to share how we try to improve experience at Google Chrome. So I've been the product manager at Google Chrome. Brian Milner (15:13) Yeah. Nesrine (15:25) And we started from the observation that people do have plenty of open tabs. I guess you are one of them, especially on mobile. Like on mobile, you go and check how many open tabs you do have on Chrome and you realize that they are have, we realized at least out of numbers, out of data that people do have plenty of open tabs. So it started as Brian Milner (15:32) You Nesrine (15:47) technical issue. Of course, the more tab you have, the heavier the app is, the slower the app could be, et cetera. So we wanted to reduce the number of unnecessary open tabs in Chrome. So we interviewed users and we started to check with them, why do they even leave their tabs open? So some of them leave tabs because they consider them as a reminder. I mean, if tab is open, it means that you need to finish a task there. Some people really leave tabs just for ignorance. mean, they moved from a tab to another and they completely forget about them. Actually, we realized that the fact of leaving tab open, the reason for leaving tab could be completely different from a person to another. And the other interesting observation, and when I say identify emotional motivators, you will realize that people feel a bit ashamed when they show to us that they do have plenty of open tabs. Some of them would say, sorry, I usually don't even have so many open tabs. It's only now. And I'm like, it's okay. But the point is, if you have this mindset of trying to track the emotional insight from your users, you will take note. And the note was anxiety, feeling ashamed, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And that was in introduction for in... Brian Milner (16:42) You Yeah, right. Nesrine (17:04) improving the tab management experience later on in Chrome. Brian Milner (17:07) That's actually a really good parallel, though. I think that's a good example because it reminds me, too, even going back, I remember one of the things, and I'm going way back here, but I remember one of the things about Gmail that was kind of a selling point initially was the concept there of you don't have to worry about maintaining an inbox. keep all your mails and search. And you can search through your mails and find whatever it is. And I remember prior to that, most people would use something like Outlook or something like that to have their mail, there was always this constant struggle of, I've got to keep it down. I've got to delete things. I've got to categorize things. And Google had this different approach of, don't worry about it. Just leave it. And that's a good, I think, example as well of kind of that emotional response of, Nesrine (17:48) Yes. Brian Milner (17:56) Gosh, I'm kind of anxious. I feel bad that my inbox is so big. And I know that's bad, but Google comes along and says, don't worry about it. You're not bad. It's OK. Yeah. Nesrine (18:05) Yeah, yeah. And by the way, I think Gmail is filled with plenty of deep delight features. One of them I can quickly highlight is, you know, when you send an email, we're saying attached file and the file is not there. And when you try to hit send, you get that pop up like a be careful or like a mind, there is no attached file inside. These are for me like very attached to the fact that You don't want to feel ashamed. You don't want to look stupid later on saying, Hey, sorry, I forgot the file. Here's the file. That's, that's a great example. And the other example that come to mind again in Gmail, you know, that smart compose when you're trying to answer an email and you can just hit tab, tab, tab to complete the sentence. I mean, the functional need is to write an email. The emotional need is to get it in a relaxed way. And the combination would allow for something like. Brian Milner (18:49) Yeah. Nesrine (19:00) Smart Compose. Brian Milner (19:01) That's awesome. Yeah, so I guess that leads to the question though, when we're talking about something like Spotify, mean, music intrinsically is emotional anyway, right? It's something that you have an emotional connection to and you feel a certain way when you hear music. But if my product is a, I don't know, expense reporting software, right? Nesrine (19:23) Mm-hmm. Brian Milner (19:25) I can just hear people out there kind of asking, know, and kind of thinking to themselves, yeah, but my product, right, my product is not that kind of, it doesn't elicit that kind of emotional response in people the same way music would. So does this apply to me as well? So how would you answer those people who feel like my products might be a little bit more bland or boring and don't really intrinsically have an emotional connection to them? Nesrine (19:47) Mm-hmm. So my answer is that if your product is boring, then it's even more priority now to focus on emotional connection. But let me elaborate. So that's one of the reflections that came to my mind while writing the book. So while writing the book, I wanted the book to be a storytelling book. So I was writing a lot of my stories, stories from Skype at the time, Spotify and all the Google product. But at some point I said, hey, hey, Nisreen, you need to get more insight from other people and other experiences. So I get to interview product leaders from completely different industries and completely different domain. I interviewed leaders from B2B like Atlassian or Intuit and so many other companies that I don't have so much insight from. I even interviewed people from hardware, like I interviewed someone from Dyson and I was, hey, what makes Dyson so emotionally attractive for me? Cause I love my Dyson vacuum cleaner. But let me get to your point because when I interviewed someone from Intuit, that person told me something super interesting. She told me that at some point she was working at a tool called Tsheet. And Tsheet is a tool that allows you to enter your time report. There is nothing more boring than that. I think I'm picking the one that you're looking for here because it's, it's as a user. The only reason I would use this tool is to report my time so I can get paid. Brian Milner (21:06) Hmm. Right. Yeah. Nesrine (21:19) There is nothing exciting, nothing emotional. And what I got out of that product leader who used to be the head of product at the time, she told me that they were completely aware about the fact that the product is not that attractive. And instead of living with that observation, they did all what they could do to make it even more attractive. So they added some fun. They made the messaging less aggressive and less about enter your time. report but rather into more playful and even the images are more playful. When you press the enter time report you get the congratulation and some confetti if needed. So they explicitly turned and that's a strategy. They turned that boring moment into something even more attractive and they had to do that otherwise the experience will keep on becoming more more boring and the perception of users toward the product will be even less, more and more gray, I would say. Brian Milner (22:22) Yeah, yeah, just that little dopamine kind of kick, right? Just that little bit of chemical reaction in your brain can make a huge difference. That's awesome. That's a great story and a great answer to that question. So I'm curious, we're talking about trying to find these things and trying to see, your matrix here, it thinks about the emotional motivators, the functional motivators, and trying to find those things that kind of cross both planes. Nesrine (22:24) Yep. Brian Milner (22:52) How do you verify at the end? Because if you're lining your features up and think, I think this solves this emotional thing. I think this solves this functional thing. Is there a way to follow up to ensure that it actually is doing that? How do you follow up to make sure it's really doing what you thought it would do? Nesrine (23:09) Yes, so let's imagine you did the exercise well, you filled in the delight grade and you observed that you do have plenty of low delights, which is most of the cases by the way. The very first thing I recommend is to see opportunities for moving or transforming these features into deep delight. And in the book, for example, I talk about the nine delighters. Nine delighters are ways that could be sometimes cheap even to introduce. in order to make those low delight features into more deep delight. This could be, for example, through personalization. We love when the features are personalized, and that's one of the reasons, for example, why Spotify is so successful, is through features like Discover Weekly or RAPT or these kinds of super personalization related features. It could be through seasonality. That's, for me, the cheapest and the most delightful feature you can or aspect of feature you can add to your product. So for example, when I worked at Google Meet, I've been working at the background replace features. So we have been, of course, introducing static image. We have been introducing video backgrounds as well. But from time to time, we always use seasonality to introduce what we call seasonal background. So when it's Easter, we introduce Easter background. When it's Christmas, we introduce Christmas background. Guess what? Even like for Olympic game, we introduce Olympic game background. When it's the Earth Day, we introduced Earth Day background. So there is always an opportunity to introduce some seasonality to the product. And guess what? We relate to those, especially if the product is global. We relate like last, when was it? Like last Wednesday. It was the new year, the Chinese new year. And I was checking when is exactly the exact date for the new year, the Chinese new day. And I put that and you know what happened in Chrome? It got these dragons and those like the celebration within the product, like within Chrome. These of course are surface delight, but you know what? Why not? You see? So there are some tools. Some of them are not that... Brian Milner (25:17) Right. Nesrine (25:22) expensive to introduce to the product. Some would require a bit more thoughtful and thought into it, but there are ways that I detail in the book in order to introduce more delight. And then if you want to validate through metrics, and I guess that's your question where it's heading to, then the good news, and that's something that I discovered recently because there's been a study that was conducted by McKinsey. And you know what they studied? They studied the impact of emotional connection on product adoption. So they actually studied over, I don't know how many industries die, like tourism, IT, energy, whatever. And they interviewed more than 100,000 users or whatever. So the conclusion that they found out of that very interesting study is that emotionally connected users will get you more twice as more revenue, twice as more referral, and twice as more retention compared to satisfied users. I'm not talking about the non-satisfied. So if you take two groups of users, those that you satisfy their needs and those that you go beyond and they are emotionally connected, those that are emotionally connected get you twice revenue, referral and retention. Brian Milner (26:19) Hmm. Nesrine (26:43) So this is just to highlight that for people who say, no, but this is the cherry on the top. This is just like the extra. It's not the extra, it's the way to stand out. I don't know any company that is standing out nowadays without investing into emotional connection, none. Brian Milner (26:54) Yeah. That's a really good point. Yeah, I mean, the example that comes to my mind when you talked about seasonality and other things like that, know, I love my, you know, they're not a sponsor, Oral-B toothbrush, you know, the electronic toothbrush, and you know, there's an app with it and it keeps track of, you know, did you get all the areas of your teeth and did you hold it there long enough and... One of the things I always love about it is when it gets to December, the opening screen when you open up the app starts having snowfall. It's kind of a funny little emotional response, but you look at that and you think, that's cool. Yeah, it is kind of that season where now it's time to get ready for Christmas and it's that special. It's only this month that it's going to be like that. It's going to go away at the end of the month. Nesrine (27:45) Yes. Brian Milner (27:49) feel little sad when it's gone, it's back to normal. But it's such a silly little thing. Does that make any difference in really brushing my teeth at all? Does it change how well I brush my Not really. It's just a fun little thing that when it pops up there. And think how little that took from someone to do that. It's a little animation that they just pop up on a loading screen. But that little tiny bit, think, again, maybe a little bit surface. Nesrine (28:10) Yes. Brian Milner (28:16) but it takes something that would have been routine. It takes something that would have been kind of boring otherwise, and it just added a little bit of fun to it, you know? And I think you're right, that emotional connection is really, really important in situations like that, yeah. Nesrine (28:21) Yes. Yes. Yes, yeah. And the thing that I'm very vocal about nowadays is the fact that this emotional connection is actually not a new topic. It's something that has been extremely popular among marketers. For example, if you think about the best marketing campaign, they are all very emotional. The most successful marketing campaign are. If you think about designers, there are plenty of resources about emotional design. There is a great book by Don Norman. It was called emotional design. Aaron Walter as well wrote something called Designing for Emotion. But you know, the problem is that among engineers and among product manager, we don't talk that much about that. And you know what happened when we are not informed about this topic? There is a gap between the language of marketers, designers, and the engineers and product manager. And that gap doesn't allow things to succeed. I'm trying to educate the engineers and the product world towards this well-known domain outside of the product in order to have this consistency and start making real impactful products. Brian Milner (29:40) Yeah, yeah, this is such a really deep topic and it just encourages me, think, even more to recommend the book there. It's not out yet, time of this recording it's not out, but it's going to be in May of 2025. That's when this book is coming out. And I know it's gonna have a lot of really good information in it. Again, the book is gonna be called Product Delight. by Nesrine Changuel, Dr. Nesrine Changuel. I should make sure I say that. But I really appreciate you coming on because this is fascinating stuff. And I think the product managers, the product owners that are listening here are going to find this really fascinating. So I appreciate you sharing your time and your insights with us, Nesrine. Nesrine (30:26) Thank you, it's my pleasure. I love talking about this topic. Brian Milner (30:29) Ha