Khai Ng.IT PMO | IT Project Manager| TTGROUPHanoi, Viet Nam
I think your question is about "The difference in accountability of a member in traditional hierarchical vs. un-hierarchical project team (eg. Scrum development team)", right?. If then I think the accountability of a member will be diffirent in (1) type of work he/she has to do and his/her authorization and (2) who he/she has to report to. When team is built in hierarchial format, then each member will have a specific role (associated with expertise and the authorization) and with a defined reporting line so normally he/she must be responsible for work package related to his/her expertise and authorization and has to report work status and work result to upper level. Conversely, in un-hierarchical team, as we see Scrum Development Team, no specific role and members will collaboratively own work and report work status to team via Standing up Meetting for example. In my opinion, any team can be self-managed and it is not depended on team structure but on the authority given by company leaders
...
1 reply by Thomas Walenta
Feb 21, 2019 6:47 AM
Thomas Walenta
...
Thanks for your reply, Nguyen.
I agree with your differentiation, though also in self-organized teams like Scrum there might be defined roles and therefor accountabilities (e.g. product owner, scrum master, tester etc).
Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Feb 20, 2019 9:55 PM
Replying to Khai Ng.
...
I think your question is about "The difference in accountability of a member in traditional hierarchical vs. un-hierarchical project team (eg. Scrum development team)", right?. If then I think the accountability of a member will be diffirent in (1) type of work he/she has to do and his/her authorization and (2) who he/she has to report to. When team is built in hierarchial format, then each member will have a specific role (associated with expertise and the authorization) and with a defined reporting line so normally he/she must be responsible for work package related to his/her expertise and authorization and has to report work status and work result to upper level. Conversely, in un-hierarchical team, as we see Scrum Development Team, no specific role and members will collaboratively own work and report work status to team via Standing up Meetting for example. In my opinion, any team can be self-managed and it is not depended on team structure but on the authority given by company leaders
Thanks for your reply, Nguyen.
I agree with your differentiation, though also in self-organized teams like Scrum there might be defined roles and therefor accountabilities (e.g. product owner, scrum master, tester etc). Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Feb 20, 2019 6:09 PM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
Thomas -
It's not that there aren't individual goals in agile teams, but we don't place those ahead of the team's goals. One would hope the two can be aligned - for example, gaining mastery over a particular technology may help the team deliver faster or with better quality.
Kiron
Kiron, thanks.
If I understand you right, could I say that the team goals are rather product or value oriented while the individual goals are more to improve their value to the team? Saving Changes...
It's not that there aren't individual goals in agile teams, but we don't place those ahead of the team's goals. One would hope the two can be aligned - for example, gaining mastery over a particular technology may help the team deliver faster or with better quality.
Kiron
Definitely the former, but the latter would be just one subset of individual goals. We still want team members to achieve all of their personal goals but it is finding that healthy balance between what's best for the team and what's best for the individual.
For example, it might be best for the team if a long time member remains for perpetuity but that team member might wish to learn about a new product or service and want to join a different team at some point in time. To increase alignment between these goals of persistence of knowledge within the team and helping someone "leave the nest", the veteran might pair up with some junior team members over a period of time to transfer as much knowledge as possible so that the eventual transition goes smoothly.
Thomas:
You might want to follow and search on this site for Johanna Rothman. She has some sage advice and some new books on all aspects of the practice of Agile and lean methods for teams in this space. I'd suggest that how one teams forms and norms is not necessarily the way it should/could be done. Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Wade HarshmanScrum Master| GDITIndianapolis, In, United States
Thomas, thanks for the article. I hope it's ok if I respond here instead of on LinkedIn. Based on some different teams I've been on (granted different degrees of autonomy), I'd have to be very clear that a "self-managing" team succeeds or fails as a team. There's no shifting blame. There's no "I didn't finish my task because she didn't deliver the data I needed" type excuses.
Excuses are rarely welcome in any organization, but in a strict hierarchy the blame flows up and down. In the example above, one team member was waiting for data, either from another team member or someone outside the team. At some point, that issue gets escalated, and it's now the manager's responsibility to get that data. Now it's the manager's fault that the task wasn't completed. Perhaps the managers can't resolve the issue and they escalate it to the director level. Now it's the director's fault. And when the VP decides to blame someone, she'll blame the director, who will either take the heat or yell at the manager, etc.
A truly autonomous team can't point fingers and shift blame. The team failed to deliver. They need to work together to identify and resolve issues quickly so they can fulfill their commitments.
Conversely, that team doesn't have to give anyone else credit. They share success. Saving Changes...
