Westrum Breakdown Series: The Messenger
DevOps is a culture, not a role or technology. What is culture? Culture may be many things, but we define culture as the practices of the people. In the research of high-performing cultures, some specific traits and behaviors predict high performance. Characteristics and behaviors that nurture high trust and prioritize information flow are critical.
Through the work of DevOps Research and Assessment (DORA), Nicole Forsgren, and many others, we know that a generative culture as described by Dr. Westrum in A Typology of Organizational Cultures predicts high-performance. This series will break down Westrum’s typology and explain practical actions to improve our culture and outcomes.
Handling the Messenger
How we respond to messengers will determine if we enhance trust and the free flow of information, whether a messenger is the bearer of bad news, a red-flag raiser, or an overly ambitious squeaky wheel. What we don’t want to do is punish or ignore the messenger. It’s now prevalent for leaders to make attempts at encouraging feedback. You’ve probably been in more than a few all-hands meetings where employees submit problems to be addressed. The problem here is that these problems are often only given lip service by leaders. The result is a facade of interest and engagement—a grand gesture with no substance.
Organizations that respond by training the messenger outperform their counterparts who do not. It may seem obvious that this is often a problem with managers or those in “leadership” roles. Less obvious is the issue when messengers are shot or ignored in day-to-day and peer-to-peer situations. We’ll touch on both.
You might say, “But… they’re annoying and wrong!” or “They’re wasting my time. They should know this!” Right or wrong, annoying or graceful, it doesn’t matter. Our response should fit the same profile. No matter what our role is, our response must increase trust and the free flow of information.
Training might be formal, informal, coaching, or just letting someone run an experiment. After all, empiricism is the root of Agility.
How To Train a Messenger in Three Scenarios
Every interaction we experience is an opportunity to generate trust, cooperation, and growth. Leaders, by title or not, must be alert to this fact. Our goals:
- Encourage messengers to increase the free flow of information.
- Show messengers how to nurture trust.
- Demonstrate to messengers leveraging cooperation.
Valid Problem Without a Proposed Solution
Remove the phrase “I don’t want to hear any more problems, I want solutions” and its variants from all situations. No matter the intention, this is a dismissive response. It comes off as saying, “If you aren’t smart enough to solve the problem, you don’t deserve my attention.” It also deflects your responsibility in solving the problem. Consider the possibility that dismissive and deflective behaviors may be ways to express defensiveness. And defensiveness may provide some insight into latent insecurities.
While this response might be most visible when given by folks in leadership roles, I’ve also heard it parroted by my peers. Some even see this as a desirable behavior to drive a “solution-oriented” mindset.
We work in teams because interesting problems require cooperative problem-solving. If that weren’t the case, we would set up Adam Smith’s pin factory for every situation.
Here are responses that can increase trust and free-flowing information:
“That sounds similar to a problem Liz solved before. Let me schedule a meeting for you two to brainstorm. Her experience might help.”
“Let’s analyze the nature of the problem together for a few minutes. Yeah, I don’t know what the solution should be either, but it seems cross-functional and organizational. I’ll schedule a meeting with you and a few others to storm out ideas.”
“It sounds like we could solve this problem if we had skills in ML/AI. Does that interest you?”
“Awesome, please spend 2 hours every day taking a course on our learning platform. I know this will reduce your time spent on sprint work. It’s worth it.“
All of these responses show interest in the problem, the solution, and critically the messenger. It’s our job to lead the way to solutions, not have answers to every problem or demand that those who raise issues also have answers.
Wrong and Vocal
One of the more challenging situations to come away with a generative result is the case where the messenger’s analysis of the problem or solution is wrong, maybe even toxic to the culture you are attempting to nurture. Yet, the messenger is vocal.
Here’s an example:
Sr. Dev Dan: “Hi Aaron, I’d like to talk about the sprint backlog free for all. I think we could increase our efficiency if we could stick to our specializations.”
Agile Leader: “Thanks, Dan. You’re right. We would get more features out the door faster. At least in the short term. My goal isn’t to maximize short-term delivery metrics. Do you feel any pressure to get more features out?”
Sr. Dev Dan: “Well, no. It’s just frustrating that Liz keeps taking backend tasks just because I haven’t finished what I’m working on. She’s supposed to be the frontend dev. So then, I have to struggle through front-end work. I’m here to be a backend developer.”
Agile Leader: “I see how that would be frustrating. And, you’re right. I hired you so the whole team would benefit from your backend expertise. We use this process to help each other grow. The next time Liz starts up on a back-end task, I’d like you to offer her help for a couple of hours after you finish your task. Will you try that?”
Sr. Dev Dan: “Oh, yeah. I can do that.”
Agile Leader: “Thank you. I also know that front-end work isn’t your passion or comfort zone. And while you’re getting to know our front-end framework, it’s going to be a slog. Once you get over that hump, I believe doing the occasional front-end task will help you grow as a backend developer. See what the other side is doing and how you can work together. Do whatever you need to make it over the tough part of the curve. What can I do to help?”
Sr. Dev Dan: “That’s a fair point. If you’re serious about this, I’ll use my 20% time to power up learning the framework. And maybe pair up on frontend work rather than struggling through it.”
Agile Leader: “Perfect! Thanks for wanting to talk about this with me. Let’s talk again next week to see if it’s working out.”
At Merely, we’ve had many conversations that follow this general arch. We all know that our teammates are intelligent and capable people who will openly share objections. Most of these conversations happen as a group in a retrospective because the team self-manages (self-organizes). Whenever someone brings something up that isn’t working for them, the result is either coaching or an experiment. The example above illustrates both.
We need to be genuinely interested in the problem, a solution, and the messenger.
Peer-to-Peer
Leaders often don’t need to ignore or shoot messengers in power-oriented and bureaucratic cultures after they’ve done it enough times. It becomes so embedded in the culture that people will protect those who seem oblivious to the danger. Leaders who create these cultures effectively and silently delegate this toxic behavior by exploiting the good nature of those they presume to lead. They might not know that’s what they’re doing, or they might. It doesn’t matter to us because we aren’t in a position of moral authority to judge their intentions.
In these cases, we only have two options. We can leave, or we run experiments to see what works. That’s a personal choice. If we’re going to stay and run experiments, we need to be open with those who come to us with their ideas for change. Talk through what’s been tried by others and how it went. The key is to find examples of leadership acting. Specifically when they make changes. Analyze those situations and find something that’s different.
Sometimes, you have to find a way to spark change that makes it look like the toxic leader’s idea. If that’s a dealbreaker, go back to the first of the two choices: plan your exit.
Maybe, you can quietly make a little walled-off garden where everyone inside trains messengers. Not ideal, but it could be transformative for those on the inside. A place to practice and learn while you all work toward broader reforms or exits. The critical thing is not to be a party to the culture you would like to see change.
No matter the situation or our role, we must always show interest in the problem, a solution, and the messenger. When we do, we validate the messenger and our leadership.
Connect with Us
We’d love to hear from you on our social channels. Have you ever been the messenger? What happened, and how did it go?
Follow us and tell us all about it!
