Podcast Ep. 15: Quincy Jordan on Cultural Debt

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email

Episode Description:

In this week’s episode of Agile Coaches’ Corner, Dan Neumann welcomes back a return guest—Quincy Jordan! Quincy is a Principal Transformation Consultant and has been with AgileThought for about one year. Prior to AgileThought, Quincy was the Transformation Lead for Pivotal’s Atlanta Office, where he consulted with clients to help them reach enterprise scale. Quincy also served as a Principal Consultant and Agile Coach at SCRUMstudy.com for over six years.

Today, they’re going to be exploring the topic of cultural debt — which, much like financial debt, comes at a cost and must be paid back over time. Quincy explains, in detail, what cultural debt is and what needs to happen to avoid it. He also provides examples from organizations who have experienced cultural debt, so you don’t have to make the same mistakes.


Listen on Google Play Music


Key Takeaways

  • What is cultural debt?
    • If you don’t modify the culture as you roll out changes, bad habits and behaviors within the organization begin to build over time
    • Eventually, these bad behaviors that occur can ultimately negatively affect business outcomes
    • It can become a severe problem that can become difficult to unravel down the line
  • Some examples of cultural debt:
    • If leaders take something away from middle management without giving a replacement, communication begins to deteriorate
    • If a leader isolates themselves and does not support a collaborative culture, you won’t achieve the needed level of transparency within your team and the culture starts breaking down
    • An organization focused more on “burning hours” rather than delivering value can cause the culture to suffer and hinder productivity
  • What needs to happen to avoid cultural debt:
    • The cultural change that happens at the leadership level also needs to happen at the team level
    • The leaders need to empower the teams, and the teams need to take risks to be more self-directed
    • Leaders need to make sure they do not become siloed
    • Leaders need to support a collaborative culture and be a part of it also
    • Strategically build trust and transparency
  • A change Quincy sees at the leadership level that really helps to address cultural debt:
    • Making the shift from annual budgets to iterative investments



Mentioned in this Episode:



Quincy Jordan’s Book Pick:


Like what you heard? Check out our podcast page for more episodes full of interesting discussions, agile insights, and helpful resources.



Intro: [00:03] Welcome to Agile Coaches’ Corner by AgileThought, the podcast of practitioners and leaders seeking advice to refine the way they work and pave the path to better outcomes. Now here’s your host, coach and agile expert, Dan Neumann.

Dan Neumann: [00:16]  Welcome to this episode of Agile Coaches’ Corner. I am your host Dan Neumann and our goal here is to bring you agile topics in an approachable way. As always, if you have a topic you want us to discuss, email it to us at podcast@agilethoughts.com or you can tweet it with a #AgileThoughtPodcast. And as always the views you’re going to hear on this are depending of myself and the other participants and not necessarily those of AgileThought or other organizations or individuals. And with that I’m happy to get the thoughts and opinions of Quincy Jordan again today. And we’re going to be exploring cultural debt, which much like a financial debt it brings with it a cost that has to be paid back over time. And so we’re going to explore that here. Welcome Quincy.

Quincy Jordan: [01:07]  Hey Dan, welcome. Thank you for having me here today.

Dan Neumann: [01:10]  So what got you thinking about cultural debt? And maybe you can relate it either to technical debt, which is a term that’s maybe much more common in the industry or to financial that by way of analogy.

Quincy Jordan: [01:21]  Sure. So yeah, I look at cultural debt as, um, it’s really like the big payback. It’s, uh, there’s, there’s an old song out there called the big payback and it just reminds me of this scenario. Um, so you mentioned about technical debt and a lot of folks, uh, in the it domain are very familiar with technical debt. They know what it is, they know the problems that it causes. But what tends to get overlooked is the cultural debt that tends to build, um, in particular during transformations of many sorts be it agile transformation or other transformations. But there’s a certain level of, uh, cultural changes that should accompany, uh, other changes that are, that are taking place. Uh, be it, there’s a rollout of a new application, there’s a rollout of new process. So be it those things really affect the culture or really the culture affects, affects those things. And if you don’t modify the culture, then those things are starting to build over time and you really kind of have behaviors and bad habits that will continue and ultimately they will affect the business outcomes, which as we know is really what we’re going after is making sure that we’re, we’re getting the right business outcomes.

Dan Neumann: [02:49]  Sure. The agile manifesto, of course it has four values in it of valuing people and interactions and working software. And you know, now going into a place where you might be in an organization that really has a very different set of values. And so we’re trying to have more ads or trying to respond to our customers. We’re trying to get actual working software more valuable than having comprehensive documentation. And those things are at odds with each other. And so is that the cultural that you’re referring to is the, the current state of affairs that’s making it more challenging maybe to respond in a more agile way?

Quincy Jordan: [03:32]  Correct. Yeah. So let’s say for example, in some agile transformations, leadership may say, okay, well I don’t want to see any more Gantt chart, so let’s not have any more Gantt charts. So they take away the Gantt charts, but then they don’t replace it with anything. All right? So if you take something away, especially from like middle management and you don’t replace it, guess what? We’re creatures of habit. So we’re going to refer back to the things that we do. And what you may find in some instances is you’ll find individuals using Gantt charts and then they take the Gantt charts and just, you know, reinterpret the information differently. Um, so that they can make it look like, oh, okay, well I’m no longer using Gantt charts, but they really still are. Uh, and so instead of those Gantt charts. They really need to replace those with roadmaps and if they don’t, I mean there are other things they can replace them with too, but roadmaps tend to be some of the better, um, one of the better tools to use. Um, but if they don’t, then just consider how much time and effort is being spent on putting information into something that’s not, uh, that’s not in the culture that the leadership is saying that they want. Uh, and then they’ll, they’re taking that information and try to make it look like what they think leadership wants. So it’s like a complete facade and just a total waste of time, um, in a lot of energy being spent on something that really could be better spent a different way.

Dan Neumann: [05:06]  What you alluded to there, it brought to mind that it really depends kind of where the transformation is coming from, whether it’s a grass roots bottom up, where often I see teams that will, maybe they’ve moved to a physical board with posted notes and they’re, they’re using Scrum and they have all that nice analog activity and then they maybe create the Gantt chart because that’s what leadership expects or the alternative on those top down transformations where leadership is asking for maybe a different artifact or different insight. And down at the team level, there’s the refactoring or the, the mashing up of other types of visualizations or data too. Only put it in the form those leadership folks want. And I guess like, yeah, I can see it coming from either way. Most often I see it at the team level starting to change in leadership still expects high confidence, Gantt chart style or plans that don’t change looking forward.

Quincy Jordan: [06:09]  Sure. And, and there’s so it’s interesting that, that you mentioned it that way because, uh, so I find it on both ends and in what I mean by that is okay, on the side of leadership, sometimes there was a culture of, um, there’s a hippo culture. All right, so, you know, the highest paid person in the room, uh, and when decisions are being made, um, everyone is being asked but everyone’s really kind of looking towards this person over here that they kind of feel like ultimately whatever they say, this is what we’re going to end up doing. Um, and so that is, that’s the cultural change that’s needed to happen at the leadership level, but it also needs to happen at the team level because if the team is going to start having autonomy, all right, then the team also has to become used to, we can’t rely on receiving direction from this individual. We need to make decisions based on priorities that have been set, you know, for business reasons, but they don’t need to, they need to get out of that habit, out of that culture of looking to leadership to tell them what to do. And if they don’t, that’s one of the things, you know, another one of those cultural debts that just kind of builds up over time and they’re not acting in an autonomous way. They’re not making decisions as they should as a team. Um, they’re really stalling in between meetings with leadership to figure out, okay, well we’re really just kind of kind of wait until we meet with them again for them to tell us what we need to do in that, you know, by itself as a problem.

Dan Neumann: [08:01]  What you bring to mind for me is that the Cynefin model, which is a sense making framework where you have some simple things, you have complicated things and then you have complex and chaotic and this change is one of those things that falls into the complex domain and you’ve got changes on both sides. You can’t simply come in with here’s the path we’re going to take to become agile or start doing agile and you know, kind of go straight through it and uh, traditional plan driven approach. So we’re really looking at changes on both sides. The leadership team, like you were alluding to, oh, making fewer decisions or trying to empower the teams and then the teams also taking some of that risk to start being more self-directed and aligning with the vision instead of waiting for those plans. So yeah, definitely changes at multiple levels then when you’re talking about coaching.

Quincy Jordan: [08:58]  Correct? Yeah. And the longer that continues, the harder is to make that change. Just like any other, you know, debt that builds up, you know, just the longer you wait, the more the teams continue to be accustomed to that. The more the leadership was accustomed to that, the more documentation is now being centered around that. Uh, there are just many things that continue and become worse and the worse it becomes, the harder it is to change it.

Dan Neumann: [09:29]  You’d alluded to some of the roadmaps versus Gantt charts so Gantt Chart, a highly specific kind of segmented way of looking at the future roadmaps with less determinism to them, but you still have a sense for how things are going. You talked about the hippo culture, the highest paid person’s opinion driving things versus setting a vision and having teams aligned with that. What other types of change do you see at the leadership level that really helped to address cultural debt?

Quincy Jordan: [09:59]  Uh, so one of the things that is a huge one and it’s huge in every agile transformation, every agile, uh, ecosystem that has reached the leadership level in that budgeting funding. Like how are we going to fund investments? And most companies are used to an annual budget, um, because they have quarterly reports that if they are publicly traded company, they have public, um, quarterly reports that they have to get out to shareholders and annual reports and, and so forth. Uh, and as we know, that becomes a big challenge in an agile ecosystems. So, uh, making that shift from annual budgets to iterative investments, uh, becomes a big thing. And so if, if they don’t make that shift, just like the rest of it. They’re pushing that, um, back and piling on top of it and piling on top of it. And then they start, you know, really becoming frustrated with, okay, this agile stuff is, I mean, it kind of works, but finances aren’t really working out quite right and they don’t know how to view it. Um, but yeah, that, that’s another area. There are some of the areas that we are probably going to talk about as well, but that’s, that’s a really huge one for leadership.

Dan Neumann: [11:28]  Yeah, the phrase follow the money. So leadership may have compensation set up in a very particular way to hurt, hit certain milestones. The way projects are funded is set up in a fairly deterministic way. If you’re a publicly traded company, that gets into some very interesting dynamics with quarterly reporting. And in fact for folks been listening to several of the podcasts where we ask what people are reading at the end, Age of Agile keeps coming up. And really the tension that’s set up between quarterly annual reporting and the behavior or misbehavior that can create within companies to hit certain targets is really a challenge for moving towards a more responsive, more agile, more adaptive way of working as a company and as a culture. So some really challenging problems there.

Quincy Jordan: [12:23]  Yeah, it really is. It’s um, well that, that may be a podcast for another time, but it’s, uh, it, it definitely affects a lot of things. It’s a whole mindset. It’s a whole psyche, around, um, you know, viewing things differently, really putting value where value should be and not doing things just for the sake of hitting certain milestones that, you know, quite frankly, are generally just some made up stuff that a lot of people come up with. And saying, you know, these are the dates and you know, these are things that are important and what are they based on? You know, they’re not really based on much of anything. Just something someone said.

Dan Neumann: [13:08]  I like a framework from over in the Netherlands, I believe. Don’t quote me on that, but it was really looking at moving beyond some of the traditional approaches to budgeting. So one of the simple things that really resonated with me from a budgeting and a finance standpoint is you have your, your budget, how much money can you spend? Let’s just say it’s $1 million. You have your forecast of where you’re going to come in. Maybe you’re trending towards it costing 800,000 or 1.2 million, but that’s your actual forecast. And then you have a target for where you’re coming in. So ideally you might have something like a budget of $1 million, a target of 900,000 and then you’re trending either a little bit above or below that target, but not exceeding your budget. And you can make much richer decisions if you separate those three numbers. And the framework that was socializing that was implemented was beyond budgeting and really helping big companies address some of these really tricky financial problems that are inherent in just the way they’re set up. Publicly traded large companies, rigorous budget processes. And I really thought that was pretty valuable insight.

Quincy Jordan: [14:27]  Yeah. And there’s a whole culture around that, you know, if that’s the culture in that particular organization and uh, and again, the longer they allow the culture to dictate those finances being viewed that way and have that perspective really the worst it’s going to get, you know, and it, and it goes, you know, again, just back to, it’s that big payback.

Dan Neumann: [15:05]  So it’s a big payback. We talked about the forecasting, the budgeting, decision making. And you are also, when we were talking before alluding to kind of the availability of these leaders. So a lot of times I’ve been in companies where we do want participation from somebody in leadership, but they’re consumed with whatever other meetings are going on or other activities. Can you address that?

Quincy Jordan: [15:30]  Sure. So it’s another one of those areas. Um, you know, it’s, it’s interesting that, so doing enterprise transformations, you know, a lot of times I’ll see where senior leadership says, Hey, look, you know, this is what we want to do. We’re going to go agile, we’re going to become agile. Um, and so they hear about, you know, the collaboration and, you know, um, people who are over processing tools and you know, all the things, you know, the manifesto and so forth that you mentioned earlier. Uh, and then those same leaders go off into like an office somewhere and they are siloed. You know, they’re operating, you know, by themselves. They’re not really collaborating, communicating with, uh, you know, any of the teams and so forth. Um, you know, maybe a couple of times, you know, once every two weeks or something, or once a month or whatever the case. But the point is they themselves become a silo while they’re trying to break down silos and it’s, um, it’s a bit of insanity that goes on, uh, when that’s happening. But they have to very intentionally and strategically make sure that they themselves do not become a siloed leader and that they are not only supporting a collaborative culture, but they are interacting and being part of that collaborative culture. And if they don’t, then here’s what some of the ripple effect looks like for that. So if they don’t do that and they’re not helping that culture to happen, then you start having, you don’t really achieve the level of transparency within the team that you should when you don’t have that level of transparency within the team that you should, you now, start running into folks that start switching into CYA mode. And when he starts switching into CYA mode, now they’re no longer looking at the performance of the team. They’re now looking at individual performance. And so they then become more focused on themselves. And not looking at the team. This culture just starts breaking down and they are not having really the collaborative culture that they should and some of that is just because the leader or leaders of that culture becomes siloed themselves while saying that they’re trying to have an agile ecosystem.

Dan Neumann: [18:18]  The leadership by example, when somebody says we value transparency but then they go in the room and closed the door for every conversation or there’s simply nowhere to be found when they’re advocating for a collaborative culture. It really does send a message about what’s actually valued versus what statements are valued.

Quincy Jordan: [18:39]  It does. It absolutely does.

Dan Neumann: [18:42]  You touched on the CYA communication, which is a pattern that’s not foreign. I think to people that have been in technology for any period of time or maybe even in any organization for awhile when it’s not safe to share bad news and I think for leadership really changing from a judging the information he got, so, oh, I see that we are off track from a time standpoint or off track from a budget standpoint. That’s bad. To, oh, I see we’re off track from a time or a budget standpoint. I’m curious about that. What’s driving that? What factors are at play? Asking a lot more questions than jumping in and evaluating. Cause if teams are being told to be transparent and then they get smacked when they are transparent, you’re not going to get that behavior very long. And most of the team’s just silly and doesn’t learn from pain. And so that, that mindset for leadership to me is crucial.

Quincy Jordan: [19:45]  Yeah. And it’s interesting. So some of that goes back to, you know, making sure there are proper roadmaps in place, making sure that leadership knows what to expect, um, to look for and how to recognize whether or not, uh, teams are doing what they should do. Uh, because when, when you don’t have that and, and it’s different in different organizations. So I’ll, I’ll give an example of one organization that I was working with and they were so hours focus, it was beyond ridiculous. Um, and I just kept thinking like, man, you know, people can’t focus on value because literally every day towards the end of the day, did you burn your hours? Did you burn your hours? Did you burn your hours? And the only thing I could think of at the time was, why aren’t you asking was value delivered? Why aren’t you asking, have you, um, you know, how are you progressing with your commitment towards the value that we know needs to be delivered? Uh, because they can burn hours all day long. And it, and it caused that culture that they want it to have a healthy, agile environment. But the culture was to focus on hours burned. And, and in that particular situation, I said, okay, let’s just run an experiment here. All right, here’s the experiment. Everyone gets credit for a full week. Let’s just start there. Yeah. From, from this point, for the rest of the experiment, we’ll do this for at least one sprint, which there were two sprints. No one has to focus on hours. Everyone’s going to get credit for their hours. Now let’s just focus on the value. And it made a big, big difference for them. But that was only with, you know, a couple of teams, but their culture was centered around hours. Now you could ask, well, why was there a culture centered around hours? Because there were still a reason for that as well. In that particular culture was one where they were, they had a disproportionate number of contractors on teams, so at least 70 to 80% of their teams were made up of contractors and only a couple of FTEs per team. That by itself was causing a tremendous amount of cultural debt because over time you had team members who their priorities were really not for the team. Their priorities were for the organization that, um, or the vendor that they really represented. Uh, and so, and so I’ll just kind of add to this. There was one particular individual who, uh, wasn’t really doing a great job. Um, but he was a contractor. He represented one of the vendors on one of those teams and he actually got promoted because the vendor didn’t know any better. And so once he got promoted, his performance actually went down within the team and that level of, uh, cultural debt so to speak in that case, just powerful and even more it’s like, it’s like the cultural interest rate went through the roof all of a sudden. Um, but yeah, I mean those things I’m hopefully that wasn’t too much of a rabbit trail there. But uh, yeah, those, those things, I mean they, they impact teams, they impact the leadership. They, they impact the whole.

Dan Neumann: [23:42]  Yeah. And we a lot of times I think we count hours because it’s easy to count and it’s so much harder to count. Have I actually delivered value that gets into I’ve built some stuff. Am I able to release it to production, which we’ve got a couple episodes that we’ve recorded on DevOps. So really putting in place the infrastructure, the mechanics, the mindset to be able to release software frequently and until we can substitute something else for hours, we can get stuck with the dysfunctions that come with hours counting. It’s really easy. We can look at how many hours a developer works and we can add those up. If we are contracting for outside talent, the folks in the purchasing department, they know how to look at a contract, see how many hours are in there. You can see the total cost. So they can pretty quickly calculate a dollars per hour average as if they were purchasing to fungible widgets. Things that can easily be replaced. And they can also then put in place traditional milestones, different types of metrics that are going to drive potentially very non-agile or very undesirable behaviors as we try to collaborate and deliver value. So it’s very much a systems view of how all these different parts work together. And then HR factors start to come in a team versus individual reviews. So yeah, let’s shift from, we’ve talked leadership and we’ve talked about teams, but these things are all happening within this bigger bubble of the organization.

Quincy Jordan: [25:17]  Absolutely. Yeah. So you mentioned about HR. Uh, and so you know, many of us have seen this at this point, you know, at at one time Scrum Master for example, it was only a role. There were no organizations that hired Scrum Masters. You hired developers or in some cases even project managers and, and then they ended up playing the Scrum Master role. Now there are some organizations that have made that shift and I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing. I know, you know, there are those out there that would disagree with it, but, um, I don’t really think this, you know, really a bad thing to have something like this Scrum Master as a position, you know, per se. Um, but the point is when you change what a team looks like and you change how individuals are going to be reviewed in terms of like performance reviews and those kinds of things, well there’s a whole set of HR practices that need to follow that. And if you don’t follow that, again, you’re going to run into a cultural debt situation. Um, so then, you know, you’re running into a situation where, uh, maybe folks aren’t being as transparent as they should be with their teammates because, uh, of how performance reviews are being done. And you know, in quite frankly, if you have a Scrum team and if the team succeeds as a team and they fail as a team, I don’t know why, why are you having individual performance reviews for that team? Because if the team is going to be judged on the team success or failure, then that probably should follow that. Um, but there’s a whole host of HR, you know, practices and tools and things that have to be changed and if they’re not changed that causes a lot of problems for HR, which affects, you know, it really flies under the radar quite a bit, but it affects, um, a lot of the organization.

Dan Neumann: [27:26]  You touched on something I wanted to amplify, which was the Scrum Master in Scrum is just a role. It’s not a title in an HR org where you have to come up with a pay scale and a career path. That said, I’ve seen it happen where the organization does put in place the title of Scrum Master, but then if it isn’t obvious how that fits in with somebody’s career path and okay, so maybe I become a Scrum Master, then do I become a coach and if I become a coach then have I officially topped out in my career within this organization? Right? Do you need to then move laterally or down to kind of pick up a, a path that’s maybe more lucrative or has more esteem to it in the future? And so again, speaking back to that Cynefin model and the complexity, you can set up the role, you could set up a pay scale for it if, I’m sorry, you can set up the job title and the pay scale for it if you so choose. But that brings in a lot of other human dynamics that are much harder to predict how that’s going to evolve.

Quincy Jordan: [28:31]  Yeah, and I’ve actually seen that too. And part of what I’ve seen is where there are folks who are very talented folks. They’re very good Scrum Masters and they have shared with me, hey Quincy, I don’t really see any trajectory for this from a career standpoint, so I really want to get out of this position because I don’t see where I can go from here. They’re, they’re really good at it and they enjoy it. But, you know, just like anyone else, you know, they would like to see that there is some career path and where that could lead them to be an, uh, I think at where, I think at the point where the agile journey is in terms of from a historical standpoint, um, in a more all encompassing standpoint, uh, at least in the US. And, you know, in general, I really don’t think anyone’s quite figured that part out yet. I think it’s still evolving, you know, at this time because, uh, you know, the agile journey for so many organizations, you know, it’s, it’s along the way. It’s not towards the end, it’s not necessarily even towards the middle, but it’s not at the beginning either. Um, and I just think things have not quite evolved enough where across the board people know what career paths you know should look like for a lot of the um, traditional so to speak Scrum roles in particular.

Dan Neumann: [30:06]  Yeah. You touched on something there which I think is important for us to address as we get towards the close of the podcast and that is that there are a lot of tricky questions and a lot of them don’t have specific answers and I don’t know that it’s reasonable to expect them to have specific answers. You know, there’s, there are a bunch of agile frameworks out there, a lot of them with scaling where I feel like they give the impression if you just buy this, you follow this model, you bring them the right truck load of consultants, then you can be agile. And it’s really important for organizations to be introspective. Look at the reasons HR traditionally has annual reviews and policies and processes for hiring and firing. We want to make sure that those decisions are equitable. We want to make sure that as best we can, bias is eliminated so that certain demographics are not over or underrepresented or not getting a fair chance to succeed in the industry. So we have to really look at what’s the desire to put those current processes in place. And as we start to explore how they impact an organization’s agility, make sure that we are not allowing the reasons those are in place to creep back in and become a problem again.

Quincy Jordan: [31:24]  Correct. And you know, it’s interesting with that also because, so like the two things within cultural debt that will go exponential the quickest in half, the most negative impact is cultural debt of lack of trust and cultural debt, with a lack of transparency. When those two things start piling up from a debt standpoint and things are not being done to strategically and it has to be strategic, various to treat strategically making sure that the transparency is there, that the trust is there, that teams feel safe, not just psychological safety but there is, there’s an environment you know to help uh, that safety stay protected when you don’t have those things, that cultural debt is just going to build and build and build and become such a severe problem that it’s very difficult to unravel. You know, down the line.

Dan Neumann: [32:28]  I think you gave a couple of good questions then as a bit of a litmus test as people are looking at what changes they want to make, which would be how might this affect trust within the organization and how it affect transparency. So maybe that is the takeaway.

Quincy Jordan: [32:43]  Absolutely. That’s good. Yup.

Dan Neumann: [32:46]  I wanted to check with you on what you’ve been reading and I also want to share one of the books that came to mind for me. It’s an old book, but as we were talking about culture, I thought it was an appropriate one too to look back on it. I’m actually just now flipping to see exactly what the copyright on this one is. It’s called the Reengineering Alternative and it’s by a man named William Schneider and it’s a plan for making your current culture work and it’s a 1994 book. I guess at this point it sounds fairly dated, but it really breaks cultures down into a quadrant of sorts where one type is collaboration controls and other than there’s competence and cultivation and each of these approaches when you start looking at agility or each of these cultures, when you look at agility, will have some things that they do naturally. Maybe they’re great at customer collaboration, but they’re not great at imposing new practices or if your control. We can make you do new practices all day. You think military, it’s control. Uh, team empowerment might be harder. And so, uh, it’s an interesting book if people can find a physical copy of it. It’s not out on Ebook, but you really look at what the culture is. And then that can help inform your strategy for making that culture work for you as you pursue agility and in each of those four approaches. So that’s one that came to mind for me. It’s a book I’ll need to reread and reference again.

Quincy Jordan: [34:12]  Oh yeah, that’s nice. I haven’t actually read that one yet, but I’ll have to have to make sure I get a hold of that and take a look at it. Um, I’ve still been looking at the Age of Agile. Um, it’s, um, it’s been a very impressionable, you know, book, you know, for me, um, it’s, uh, I don’t know if I’ll just say it’s eye opening, but it’s more, it’s a, it’s a lot of validating and confirming for me. Um, and it’s always good, you know, to see, you know, others that are, you know, highly regarded or you know, whatever in a particular space that shares certain views that you may share. Um, so, um, the age of agile has been really good. One of the specific areas in there that has stood out to me as well is, you know, autonomy and alignment, you know, uh, uh, and you know, that those two particular things working together and being so important, um, between the team level and leadership and, and so forth and even within both really to to a degree. Um, but those things, you know, have been really important in that particular book. Um, I’ve been taking a look at lately.

Dan Neumann: [35:25]  Yeah, I think using the phrase validating for the Age of Agile for me, that has also been the case. Steven Denning does a really nice job of weaving the narrative together and for agilists or people who maybe think they might be crazy and you know, for having these thoughts and wondering where things are going and seeing the tensions and company, they start reading Steven’s book, Age of Agile and Oh, nope. Not Crazy. It’s actually a thing. He does a great job of making it really clear. So I’ve enjoyed, um, the parts of that I’ve read too. I haven’t quite finished it yet, but that’s on my list. Well. I do want to thank you, Quincy again for joining us. We’ll look forward to talking again in the future.

Quincy Jordan: [36:07]  All right. Thanks for having me.

Outro: [36:13] This has been the Agile Coaches’ Corner podcast brought to you by AgileThought. Get the show notes and other helpful tips from this episode and other episodes at agilethouhgt.com/podcast.


Stay Up-To-Date