Mike Lyons explains why agile teams work better when managers set boundaries instead of controlling people. A lighted intersection needs a cop; a roundabout lets traffic flow on its own. The shift from command to constraint increases throughput, cuts costs, and gives people ownership of their work.
One of the crucial shifts you need to make as a project manager when you're running an agile project is the shift from managing people to managing systems. And if you come from a traditional project management background, you might believe that your job as a PM is to call all the shots and make sure everyone's following the plan. But in agile environments, that approach isn't very effective. Instead, what you need to do as an agile project manager is to create an environment where people are able to self manage within boundaries. When we do that, when we shift our focus from the actions of the people on the project to the system the project is operating in, two things begin to happen. One, we begin to take psychological ownership of our system and focus on improving it. And two, we foster an environment where the people on the project can bring their brains to work every day and solve the gnarliest of problems. Oh, gnarly. A great metaphor for this is looking at two systems that you probably see regularly for managing traffic. Consider the traditional lighted traffic intersection and a roundabout. Now, both of these systems have the same maximize the flow of traffic, prevent collisions, and be cost effective. But we have some very different assumptions that are built into these two systems. But what are some of the assumptions around the lighted traffic intersection? Well, one is that people can't really be trusted. So we need to centralize control and tell you when you can go, when you can stop, when you can turn, etc. It's the traditional built in assumption that people need to be told what to do. So we build comprehensive rules around what to do and what not to do. What are some assumptions about the roundabout? Well, it's that people are responsible for their own safety and they can use their own judgment and they're looking out for each other. And to support this idea of the roundabout, we really only have one rule. Give the right away to the people that are in the circle. It's a very simple system. We've established a shared value that you want to get through the intersection. We trust you to figure out how to do it, and we've removed the unnecessary red tape so that traffic can flow freely. So which of these two systems do you think is more effective? Well, it turns out we have lots of data on this. When it comes to the flow of traffic, the roundabout is a continuous flow through the whole system. It has a higher throughput. What about safety? Well, the data shows the roundabout has roughly 95% fewer serious collisions. And which of them costs less? Well, it's the roundabout again, you don't have to build up all the lighting infrastructure and everything else. But which approach feels safer, better, more comfortable to you? Well, depending on who you ask, you're going to get different answers. But if you ask someone in the United States, for example, they're probably going to say the lighted traffic intersection. That's because that's what their accustomed to. If you ask someone who's from Europe, they might say the roundabout because they're more prevalent there. So when we think about the lighted traffic intersection, that's a metaphor for control and compliance. We're trying to control and make sure the cars on the road are following the rules that we have in place. The roundabout, there are much fewer rules really. No centralized control telling you what to do. It's about trust. Trust that you want to get through the traffic intersection safely and then giving you the autonomy and freedom to make a judgment call about when it's safe to enter. We've created an environment where people are able to self manage within boundaries. So what's the bumper sticker here? See what I did there? Bumper sticker. The comparison between an intricately managed approach like the traffic lights and a self managing system like the roundabout. It will feel awkward at first, but that should be expected as you shift your project management perspectives from managing people to managing the system. So what does this look like in practice? What are some examples of decentralized management? Consider moving from centralized iv every tower planning to decentralized planning with shared goals. Assigning work to team members to team members. Pulling and taking accountability for their own work, inspecting work for accuracy to shared definition of done with automated testing. Meeting the requirements to meeting the mission outcomes one time planning and design to continuous planning and experimentation. Measuring cost, scope, schedule and resource allocation to measuring the system. Things like quality, lead time, predictability, sustainability. Now as we close this out, think about your current project management approach. What areas of it operate like a lighted traffic intersection where you as the project manager try to control everything. But what would it look like instead if you let people self manage in those areas? And what are the minimal constraints that you might need to put in place to let that be effective. So consider these things as you begin to manage the system and not the people. Remember, your role is to set up an environment where work can thrive, not to direct every action.
