Chapter 4 of Coaching Agile Teams by Lyssa Adkins, discusses the idea that a team, individual, or organization follows a path from a learner, to mastery to a teacher using the Shu Ha Ri metaphor. The concept of Shu Ha Ri represents a continuum of learning. In martial arts or any demonstrable activity, practitioners must learn and practice before they can take the next step forward. Carol Dweck, in her book Mindset, postulated that even the most gifted athletes need an open mindset to succeed in the long run. To progress across the continuum of learning everyone needs to put in the work. I suspect that for many, the Shu state is the hardest to accept because we all want to believe we are special and we are all impatient to meet the prize of mastery.

As coaches, we need to understand that as practitioners grow their understanding of agile (or any other practice)we need to change our approach to how we relate and deliver support. It is way too easy to get stuck in a pattern (some might say a rut) that is successful as a team is learning but is less useful when they start to challenge the rules. I had a conversation with a fellow coach a few weeks ago; they were lamenting that the team they were working with didn’t follow the rules they had taught them. They were still expecting the team to follow their lead rather than adjusting their approach to meet the team’s new reality. The inability to change the approach caused friction that damaged the coach’s relationship with the team. One of the problems I have noticed with less experienced coaches is an addiction to the power of telling people what to do rather than guiding and allowing non-fatal mistakes. 

The author provides a model of coaching styles that mirrors the progression of Shu Ha Ri. Teaching, coaching, and advising are tied together with modeling (walking the walk) and reaching. Teach the learners, then coach as the team becomes proficient, and finally advise when they have reached mastery. The author identifies the transition from a training to a coaching style when the “team starts transforming from compliance to rules to internalization of values.” An important point to remember is that teams are a collection of knowledge levels and a collection of knowledge levels on specific topics. A coach needs to jungle their approach based on individual and topic. After a team begins to adapt to agile I tend to shy away from teaching areas that the team should know and use coaching techniques paring and clean language to generate movement but there is no absolute. Transition to advising comes when the team (or organization) internalizes agile values and principles. A few years ago a mature team wanted to explore test-driven development, we (the team, the Scrum Master, and myself) decided that a more formal workshop approach was in order. They were beginning all the way back at Shu on the TDD topic and teaching made sense to everyone involved. Coaching styles and approaches are an oil painter’s palette to get the right impact you sometimes need to blend colors. While having a coaching plan is important, reading the situation and reacting to context takes precedent.

Tying coaching approaches and styles to agile values and principles is important. Agile has always been more than a set of techniques. Doing a daily Scrum or standup doesn’t make anyone agile. Over the past few years, I have seen more and more practitioners and leaders nod to agile values and principles. They instead insist that adherence to standard processes and techniques is all that is required. As a coach and a guide, this shift reminds me that over failure to establish the right philosophy while a person or team at Shu sets everyone up for failure.

My experiment/focus last week was to reflect on the aggressiveness of my language. The checklist in Chapter 3 was useful to determine whether awareness of how I was using language changed my communication style. I used the checklist and determined that when I stayed aware of the words I was using I could use less assertive language. I did notice that at times I was making a conscious choice of more aggressive and “violent” words. For instance, the phrases work intake and work entry represent the same basic process. The term ‘entry’ reflects a more aggressive and less controlled approach to working – more on that in SPaMCAST 715 (August 6, 2022). During the coming week, I am going to continue focusing on how I am using language. One of my goals is to see whether I can take the lessons learned as a coach into non-coaching situations.

Coaching Agile Teams by Lyssa Adkins (SPaMCAST Amazon affiliate line https://amzn.to/38G0ZD3 – buy a copy) 

Previous Installments

Week 1: Logistics and Introduction – https://bit.ly/3A1aNTe 

Week 2: Will I Be A Good Coach – https://bit.ly/3nzDAHg 

Week 3: Expect High Performance – https://bit.ly/3Rl4fFf 

Week 4: Master Yourself – https://bit.ly/3zL8t2n