Interview: The human factor in agile transformations

Agile transformation is currently a topic that is on everyone's lips. Many companies are talking about their successful transformations. Nevertheless, one essential point often remains unspoken: people and their psyche. This is Christian Schmidt’s opinion, who has accompanied many change projects in companies as an independent organizational developer.

In doing so, he has experienced the fine line between successful transformation and “agile theater”¹. In this interview, he tells us how he uses a systemic-psychodynamic approach to guide his clients toward the human side of agile transformation — the key to success.

About Christian Schmidt: He started his career as a computer scientist in 2005 and worked for many years in software development as well as a manager and consultant in a global consulting firm. Later, as a manager in the industrial area, he was in charge of many projects related to digitizing production processes before starting his own business. He is pursuing his passion for organizational development as a freelance coach and consultant and supporting his clients' agile transformation projects with the same enthusiasm he felt as a manager during change initiatives.

Bei Bei: A large number of companies are currently undergoing agile transformations. Christian, you have been working in this field for many years. What does the term "agile transformation" mean to you?

Christian: On the surface, agile transformation is just a change process in the working model. The roots of agility lie in software development: At the beginning of this century, people were looking for a remedy for major problems associated with conventional methods: thick books were written over months, defining in advance what the software had to do. Developers then programmed everything behind closed doors and often had to fill in gaps of technical specifications on their own. Finally, when the software was handed over to the client years later, it was often no longer needed or simply did the wrong thing.

This description is somewhat pointed, but basically it captures the problem that the Agile Manifesto² sought to solve: We skip the thick books and, as programmers, we work closer with our clients and get faster and more frequent feedback from them. This makes the development of software faster and more effective for the clients, which means less waste and effort.

Bei Bei: And this approach to software development has been transferred to businesses in general?

Christian: Exactly, Agile transformation in general transfers these fast cycles, customer proximity, and the idea of continuous learning to other activities within a company. Technically speaking, it's about new processes, roles, and tools. However, I am convinced that  what needs  attention is what’s happening underneath the  formal surface: Basically, transformation is just a change project that aims to encourage people to behave differently. And with that, we dive into the depths of behavioural psychology and the wonderful and complex topic of “human beings.” Since Sigmund Freud, we have known that humans are guided mainly by the unconscious. That is why transformation always encounters resistance that cannot be explained rationally. After all, humans are not purely rational beings. Those who fail to take this into account, run into the risk of failing in an agile transformation just as they would do in any other change project.

Bei Bei: As a computer scientist, you originally come from a very rational world. How did you discover organizational development for yourself?

Christian: I gained a lot of practical management experience in the manufacturing industry and found change projects to be a fascinating challenge. I see myself as a theoretically informed practitioner and, in addition to the training as a systemic coach, I also completed a qualification in group analysis. In the case of group analysis, I am less interested in the therapeutic aspect than in understanding the psychological processes in groups.  My goal is to deal with conflicts in teamwork in a sustainable and effective way.

Bei Bei: Our readers are for sure very interested to learn more about how you apply your expertise in your consulting work. Can you give us an example?

Christian: Of course. Some time ago, I received a customer inquiry: A large insurance company was in the process of implementing an agile transformation in a division with over a hundred employees spread across the globe. They have a change team in place, which is making plans and running trainings about the new way of working. This was the inquiry I received: "Actually, the agile teams are running rather smoothly. But there is one team that is not functioning at all. The product owner is acting like a feudal lord. She drives the developers in an almost dictatorial manner, which constantly leads to conflicts. Christian, can you do some conflict mediation?" That was my starting point.

Bei Bei: At first glance, that doesn't sound unusual.

Christian: Exactly. So, I went there with an open mind and conducted conflict mediation using standard methods: We worked on soft skills such as giving feedback, discussed Schulz von Thun's communication square³, etc. But none of that helped in the long run! After ending the workshops and seeing some initial successes, the team fell back into old patterns of conflict weeks later. It slowly dawned on me that there might be something rotten behind this transformation and that there was some kind of “skeleton in the closet”.

The identified ‘problem team’ was perhaps just an unconscious battle field for a larger conflict.

It's like biomechanics in sports: If your knee hurts, it's not always the knee's fault. Maybe you wear bad footwear or something is jammed in your hip. You can't solve the problem with knee surgery; you have to get to the root cause! The same principle applies for organizations, it's never individuals alone who are to be blamed for conflicts, but rather the interpersonal relationships which are dysfunctional.

Bei Bei: How did you get to the bottom of the problem?

Christian: I took a systemic-psychodynamic approach: The systemic idea is already pretty well known: Systemic thinking consultants never use one-sided explanations that blame the problem on individuals. Instead, they know that there are always circular dependencies and feedback loops. That's why they always look at the relationships between people.

The psychodynamic perspective is probably less known: This approach takes into account that teams always consist of real people, who bring their entire psyche to work. And every psyche leads an unconscious life of its own. Usually, we only partially reflect the influence of our past, expectations, and experiences. But our rationality, with all its numbers, data, and facts, is only the tip of the iceberg, the visible part above the water surface. Beneath the surface lurks a huge mountain of unconscious values, feelings, and fears. When two such human icebergs collide, there is a huge crash beneath the surface! And things get even wilder when many of these individual icebergs collide in teams at the same time.

The iceberg image stands for subtle feelings and thoughts hidden beneath the surface

The iceberg image is a simplification. In contrast, the model developed by the German-Jewish psychoanalyst Siegmund H. Foulkes goes much deeper in theory. Foulkes fled Nazi Germany and co-founded group analysis in England. He developed the Matrix model. To understand this concept, imagine a group of people in which every conscious and unconscious communication is a separate thread between them. The Matrix is a web of questions and the corresponding answers, such as: What do you think about the others? What do you think of the spoken and unspoken opinions of the past? What is allowed or a taboo in our group? And so on.

Everyone also brings their individual history and cultural background to the Matrix.

The Matrix of an organization then resembles a huge carpet that has often been woven for decades. That means no team works in a vacuum, but is literally entangled in the Matrix of their organization. And this must be taken into account when trying to explain situations that do not appear rational. The reasoning that lies dormant in the unconscious comes to light through the Matrix.

Bei Bei: How were you able to apply this approach in your client's case?

Christian: Initially, the developers felt bossed around and disrespected by the product owner. Now, it does not suffice to look at the problem from one side and call the product owner stubborn or the development team oversensitive. Instead, I investigated the Matrix that had been woven in the past: This department to which the product owner belongs had cooperated with its software supplier in a hierarchical relationship for decades: The business departments were at the top level in their role as customers. And the software development teams were at the bottom as suppliers. Moreover, they actually belonged to two different companies. So, the product owner was a real customer and the development team is the supplier. And this happened in a market situation where the supplier’s business was almost completely dependent on this one major customer, while the customer was existentially dependent on the supplier's specialists.

Bei Bei: That sounds like a thorny construct of a Matrix woven over many years.

Christian: Right. Their long-term relationship produced a double dependency that could lead to unconscious aggression. This aggression then might find its way into everyday collaboration.

Bei Bei: And why did this aggression manifest itself only in one of many teams?

Christian: Good question! This might be explained by the omega position according to Raoul Schindler's model⁴ of rank dynamics.

In a group of people, there is often a dynamic that makes everyone go along with the group, but one person takes the omega position and goes against the Alpha the leader of the group. This person is not a bad person, but rather takes on an important role for the team.

In a group of people, there is often a dynamic that makes everyone go along with the group, but one person takes the omega position and goes against the Alpha the leader of the group. This person is not a bad person, but rather takes on an important role for the team. Often, the role chooses the person, not the other way around! Or the person is unconsciously pushed into the role by the group. In my example, I developed the hypothesis that the “problem team” acted as a proxy for the other teams’ conflicts. If that team had been removed from the organization, the conflicts of the other teams would certainly have intensified.

Bei Bei: Were you able to bring up this topic at all? Because consultants are usually expected to make rapid progress, not to open up a huge can of worms.

Christian: At this point, as consultants, we must abandon our delusions of omnipotence and become humble. Our dilemma is that we are always a target for dismissal if we become inconvenient for our client. If one presents a hypothesis such as the “double dependency aggression” too assertively, one can quickly lose trust. And as a consultant, I don't see myself as the sole possessor of truth to confront my client with. I first have to test my hypothesis - for example, with workshops or by setting the whole system in motion in some other way. If I unmask the company's self-image too early, I provoke the “immune system” - which means the organization's defences. Sometimes a hypothesis is so painful that the organization cannot tolerate it, even with the best will in the world.

Bei Bei: That sounds challenging. How did you proceed?

Christian: Instead of confronting them, I continued to work with them to improve the relationships and results. Albert Camus appropriately stated, “The consultant creates opportunities for chance.” Unfortunately, as consultants, we are not magicians and must proceed patiently. One part of the problem was the management’s expectation: The transformation was supposed to make the client’s and the supplier’s employees work together on an equal footing. However, people will only take the new directive seriously if the management on both sides sets a good example. If the management authentically embodies the new way of working by themselves, change is possible. That was one of the success factors during my collaboration with the client.

Bei Bei: How did this project change you?

Christian: That's again a very good question! I have noticed that I became more humble. It is not always possible for me to understand everything and draw the right conclusions. When I was a software developer: I had to solve complicated  technical problems. But working with people, on the other hand, is complex - especially in groups. Anyone who feels absolutely confident, when working with groups, is probably deceiving themselves.

Bei Bei: If an agile coach or organizational developer asked you for three advice for agile transformations, what would you say?

Christian: Off the top of my head, I would offer the following suggestions:

1. Conduct an honest self-assessment: How much time and energy have you, as a change agent, recently spent explaining methods and processes to people? In other words, how much time do you spend at the top of the iceberg above the water surface? And on the other side, how often did you hold personal conversations to find out how people are feeling emotionally about the change process? In other words, to get an understanding of what is happening below the surface. And if looking under the surface does not account for at least a third of your time, I would be very concerned about your impact on the transformation. When you encounter situations that cannot be solved objectively and schematically, you need courage to go deeper. However, managers don't usually learn this and prefer to remain “objective”.

2. Remember that agile transformation is a lengthy cultural change. And it can only succeed if leadership sets a consistent example and gets the team on board. For example, if decisions are no longer made in steering committees in the new world, leadership must learn to stop having a say in  everything.

3. As a consultant, you should always seek external supervision. Even with more than one consultant working on a project, it is impossible to maintain an unbiased outside perspective over the long term. As consultants, we will benefit from regular exchanges with an external supervisor.

   
   

Bei Bei: Christian, thank you very much for the candid conversation and for giving us a glimpse beneath the surface!

Reach out to Christian Schmidt at www.canau.de

Christian's book recommendations:

• Edgar Schein: Humble Consulting: How to Provide Real Help Faster. – The title already hints at the attitude recommended by the consultants here. I largely share this attitude.

• Martin Lüdemann et al.: Systemisch-psychodynamische Organisationsberatung: Konzepte und Anwendungen. – I very much value the author as my partner and consider the book to be an excellent introduction to the systemic-psychodynamic approach.

• John Kotter: Our Iceberg Is Melting: Changing and Succeeding Under Any Conditions. – Although the book is somewhat older, it remains a highly entertaining parable that provides a vivid introduction to change processes in general.

---

^1. Agile theater: superficial or inauthentic application of agile methods, in which agile practices and terminology are used, but the underlying principles and values are not truly lived. It is a kind of pseudo-agility, in which the outer form is preserved, but the inner transformation is missing.

^2.  https://agilemanifesto.org/

^3. The communication square von Schulz von Thun (German): https://www.schulz-von-thun.de/die-modelle/das-kommunikationsquadrat

^4. Rank dynamics model by Raoul Schindler (German): https://dieprojektmanager.com/rangdynamik-modell/