Taylorism Today: Modern Management with Sam Falco and MC Moore

Podcast Ep. 146: Taylorism Today: How F.W. Taylor’s Theory Impacts Modern Management with Sam Falco and M.C. Moore

Taylorism Today: Modern Management with Sam Falco and MC Moore
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email

Episode Description:

This week, Dan Neumann is joined by two agile colleagues, Sam Falco and M.C. Moore. In today‚Äôs episode, they are taking a little trip back in time to explore the impact Frederick Winslow Taylor had on modern work. Taylor has been called the father of scientific management and his thinking pervades the way teams work today.

In this episode, the book The Principles of Scientific Management and its principles are explored in comparison to the agile modern ways. You will hear about effectiveness, interactions, trust, productivity, creativity, and accountability, among other valuable concepts that today are seen and approached in significantly different manners as a result of the evolution and progress in this field.

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Key Takeaways

  • The Principles of Scientific Management was written by Frederick Winslow Taylor and published in 1911
    • Taylor had a special disdain for working people that showed in his writings
    • How is Taylorism showing up today in modern management?
      • Overemphasizing agile metrics
      • The use of certain nomenclature
      • Work smarter and harder
      • Productivity depends on the company to manage not the people whoa re actually doing the work
  • What motivates people?
    • The ability to be autonomous about the work
    • To have mastery and purpose
    • Give people the goal and let them figure out the “how”
    • Trust in workers is crucial and they need to be motivated by their managers; if they receive fulfilling work to do, they will have the way to get it done
  • Agility vs. Taylorism
    • Agile considers interactions more important than processes and tools, while in Taylorism the system is all that matters and must be first
    • M.C. Moore shares a real agile example where an individual was very motivated to grow and expand in a company that didn’t offer an opportunity for that at that point, so instead of letting him leave, the organization created a new space for that worker to thrive
    • Decentralizing decision-making down to the level of the agile team is a break away from scientific management
    • Taylorism wants to separate people from decision-making as much as possible, exactly the opposite of what agile teams aim for
    • Companies are supposed to attack the system when it is broken, not to try to manage the individuals
    • It is really hard to be creative when you are being micromanaged
    • Taylorism uses results for accountability while in an agile team; everyone is holding each other accountable for the work as one of the agile principles states: Build projects around motivated individuals, give them the environment, support their needs, and trust them to get the job done
  • How does an agile team manage innovation and new ideas?
    • The biggest challenge in knowledge work is that you are doing something that has never been done before
    • New good ideas should diffuse across the team; that does not mean everyone should be doing the same but they should try them and see if they make sense with each team’s local context

Mentioned in this Episode:

Transcript [This transcript is auto-generated and may not be completely accurate in its depiction of the English language or rules of grammar.]

Intro: [00:03] Welcome to the Agile Coaches’ Corner by AgileThought. The podcast for 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: [00:17] Welcome to this episode of the Agile Coaches’ Corner podcast. I’m your host Dan Neumann. And today I’m joined by two of my AgileThought colleagues, Sam Falco and MC Moore. Thanks for joining today, gentlemen.

Sam Falco: [00:29] You’re welcome.

MC Moore: [00:29] Howdy

Dan Neumann: [00:32] I figured I’d use the more formal gentlemen because we’re taking a little trip back in time today to explore the impact on modern work that a certain man named Frederick Winslow Taylor had. I thought we were going to try and remain just a touch objective.

Sam Falco: [00:48] I’ve read his book. I can’t.

Dan Neumann: [00:52] So Frederick Winslow Taylor has been called the father of scientific management and some of his thinking pervades the way teams work today. So you want to share what you read in his book there, Sam, to get us kicked off. Just a little highlight, our resident historian here.

Sam Falco: [01:11] Yeah. Right. So one of the things historians love to do is go to original sources whenever they can. So I went back to a monograph that he published in 1911 called the principles of scientific management. I think we mentioned this in a previous episode, but scientific management was not the term that he invented for this, Louis Brandeis before he became Supreme court justice coined the term and, and Taylor ran with it. This was supposed to in 1911, I found it very interesting. I had read about Taylor before and knew that he did not care for workers very much, but some of the things that I found the contempt he had for workers was spectacular. Here’s a quote, when he’s talking about pig iron handlers. Now this is the direct quote. Now one of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation, is that he shall be so stupid and phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental makeup, the ox than any other type. And it is full of that kind of just absolute disdain for working people. He uses as an example, a man, he calls Schmidt whose actual name was Henry Knoll. And his contempt for Knoll is obvious the way he inserts just ignorance in this man’s mouth constantly. And the upshot is that Schmidt is encouraged to go from loading 12 tons of pig iron a day to 47. 400% increase in productivity. He is rewarded with 60 cents more an hour. So 60% rough, a rough gain in wages for 400% increase in. And this is typical of Taylor. You’re going to work four times as hard, but you’re going to get a lot less of what you’re putting out. I can’t imagine why workers wouldn’t jump at that opportunity.

Dan Neumann: [03:09] He sounds like a charming human being, all tongue in cheek and MC you had proposed this actually as a topic for us to do some exploration. And I’m kind of curious did the background, why, why did Taylorism peak your interest as far as an exploration for a podcast and for some, some conference talks?

MC Moore: [03:32] Well, thanks, Dan. I think it’s really important. I’ve numbered, I’ve sat it on a number of different webinars. Over time that issues have popped up. People have spoken. It’s really interesting. When people are talking about agility and things like this and you hear talk and, you know, what’s under underpinning that are notions around scientific management. So for me it meant that, Hey, we need to expose this a bit more and actually bring it out into the light, call it out for what it is. And I’m, I’m hoping that over the course of the conversation here, we’ll do it justice and it’ll at least make us all pause and think, think about it.

Dan Neumann: [04:17] What are maybe some examples of the way you see Taylorism showing up in modern management and in the work we do?

MC Moore: [04:25] I think for me one of the ways that it rears its ugly head is in an over-emphasis around agile metrics. I am a big proponent of having metrics and being able to look at the numbers and see what they tell you. But when we get to a point where we’re focused more so on output over outcomes, then that’s a, you know, a warning sign, one of the red flags that we’ve stepped too far. I think things like a nomenclature, you know when you hear people talking about just the word resources, people are people, things are things, but there’s a crossover there. And again, it becomes a red flag. In a previous life. I heard a manager say, let’s add more resources to this agile team and we can get more work done and I’m going, what? So things like that also come up. And I think another way that we can also look at it too, is an overemphasis on skill specialization because we ended up developing people on our agile teams that are I shaped as opposed to T shaped.

Sam Falco: [05:36] Best practices is another phrase we hear frequently. What’s the best part. And that is a direct that’s direct from Taylor. That was Taylor’s. One of his big things was that there were there’s too much diversity in the way people were doing various jobs. And that, that workers were too stupid to figure out what the best thing to do was so a manager needed to figure it out and explain it to the workers explicitly and have them follow the best practice.

Dan Neumann: [06:14] I understand the excitement around this and, and especially when it comes to like beaten up Mr. Taylor again in a little bit, but you know, the Toyota production system and some of those processes where it’s like, you know, the workers, when they figure out a better way, they can make that process known. They can bring that forward as opposed to Frederick Winslow Taylor, the worker’s literally too stupid to figure it out.

Sam Falco: [06:40] Right now, to be fair later in the principles of scientific management, the monograph, he does suggest that workers should be encouraged and incentivized to find improvements, but he hasn’t dealt with the fact that basically his process leads to a work smarter, not harder situation but to work smarter and work harder. Right. the idea is, is you’re going to find a way to get more productivity, but you know, one worker will get a raise because of, they came up with this idea, but everyone else is going to get a pittance. The idea that the productivity, again, belongs to the company to management, not to the people who are actually doing the work. I know I’m trending dangerously close to some Marxism there.

MC Moore: [07:22] Sam, I thought that was an interesting point that you brought out because, you know, for me, kind of one of the fundamental questions that we ask ourselves is, you know, are people intrinsically lazy? You know, and it’s, it’s kind of a yes or no thing, but also embedded with that is that notion of trust. And have we truly progressed beyond scientific management to the point where we trust our people to do the right thing.

Sam Falco: [07:46] Exactly. And there was the theory X, theory Y management was popular in what seventies, eighties. I don’t remember exactly when that became a thing, but the idea was a theory X was that workers need to be motivated by their managers and theory Y was that give people fulfilling work to do, and they will find a way to get it done. You don’t need to supervise people in order to succeed and Daniel pink. I’m going to sub reference. One more thing is Daniel Pink’s work in the, the book whose title I have suddenly forgotten. Drive. The book. Drive, finding that what motivated people, especially in knowledge work situations was the ability to have autonomy around their work to have mastery and to have purpose around their work, rather than being told, here are the metrics you’re going to hit, you better hit them.

Dan Neumann: [08:49] And I apologize for stepping in my colleague, Sam, there, it was the long pause that that threw me and it wasn’t even that long. I was just excited to talk. One of the opportunities I think we have with teams, especially doing creative work. And I think there’ll probably be a chance to critique my choice of words there in a minute, but give people the goal, what the outcome is that we want and let them figure out the how and Scrum teams are an excellent example of don’t just give them a list of tickets that they’re expected to complete within a Sprint, or here’s the task. Here’s the task, here’s the task in detail, but what’s the objective. We want customers to be able to realize this new reality and then get the heck out of the way of the team.

Sam Falco: [09:41] What agile is all about is that first line of the manifesto, the first value statement, individuals and interactions over processes and tools. Taylorism, and this is explicit because this is directly from that monograph in the past, the man has been first in the future. The system must be first, follow the system. The system is all that matters. The individuals do not matter in Taylorism. In a, I think this goes beyond just agility in a 21st century workplace. We see that systems break down that people will drive around a system that they feel is too onerous. People will be resistant to any system if they are subjected to a brutal system. I forget where I read this recently. I think it was Daniel Kaneman’s new book that basically, if people have to endure a terrible system, they are less likely to want to follow any system, whether it works or not, because they’re just so fed up with the whole thing.

Dan Neumann: [10:44] So MC are you seeing places maybe where organizations are doing some different things from, you know, what Taylor was setting up? So you mentioned, hey, we do see resources as a term being used when we’re talking about actual humans, we do see overemphasis on metrics and velocity, maybe as an example, and hyper fixating on that, are you seeing some, some opportunities for organizations that are doing things quite differently? Did you want to highlight?

MC Moore: [11:16] Well, for me, Dan, I think one thing that was really interesting, I saw this one time in the past a company had an individual that was a quality person had a job working in a different area of technology, but was itching to grow and expand themselves. And the company actually reached out. And rather than letting that particular employee leave and move on elsewhere, they said we were going to create an opportunity for you here with a Scrum team that that I was working with at the time. So we, we brought that individual in and actually over time trained that person to be a, you know, a functioning member of the team. And so that, that was a sacrifice because if you look at it in terms of scientific management and efficiency and effectiveness, that person came in with no skills whatsoever, but over time we trained and work with the individual and because they had the right mindset and the company was willing to invest in that person. It was a win-win.

Dan Neumann: [12:19] I love it. And I’ve experienced similar things with companies, helping an individual, try and find something that maybe aligns better with their passion and helping them build up their skillset so that they can function in that level. Sam I’d be curious, I, the phrase about the difference between coherence and consistency is one that I think maybe I’ve mentioned in the past 140 something episodes, but it’s the difference between everybody has to do the same thing the same way, and we have to do things that make sense and aligned for the local context that we’re in. And I’m curious if what your thoughts are around that, especially, you know, whether it’s, it’s maybe more traditional manufacturing, whether it’s software, whether it’s marketing teams that are using agile methods, anything like that.

Sam Falco: [13:10] I think that the biggest challenge in knowledge work is that we’re never doing something we’ve done before. We’ve done something similar, perhaps, but we’re always having to find a new way to get to a new objective. So it’s really hard to say we’re all going to do the same thing. One of the challenges I’ve seen with, for example, scaled programs is someone will say, well, how do we know? How do we how do we know that all the teams are doing things the same way? They don’t need to be doing things the same way? Well, how do we know that new good ideas are being diffused across teams? Now that’s a different question to ask, and I’m not, I’m not specifically addressing your question. I’m sort of going off on a little bit of a tangent when new ideas, when new ways of, of being effective are discovered. Absolutely. We want those to be spread around, but we never want to turn it into a thou shalt team. Justice league is doing it this way. So therefore that has to be the way that teams teen Titans, Avengers, I’m running out of superhero groups to come up with that they should do exactly the same thing. Well, they should try what that other team has done and see if it makes sense again for their local context, but just because it works for one team doing one specific type of work does not mean it’s going to do the same thing for other teams.

MC Moore: [14:41] And Dan I’d like to add one of the things that and this is something that a lot of companies are doing, especially ones that are on their agile journey. Something just as simple as being able to decentralize decision-making down to the level of the agile team, that, that is an actual, you know, a break away from scientific management. So I, I think that that has, you know, that, that shows that a lot more organizations, firms out there recognize that we do need to make a break. And the mere fact that we’re creating agile teams pushing, pushing the decision-making down, you know, I mean, because that, that piece there, it kind of speaks to that the principle number 11 from the agile manifesto, you know, where, where we have self-organizing teams again, that would have been anathema had, had it been to Taylor, you know, to see teams functioning in that way that just never would have had it.

Sam Falco: [15:39] Yeah. There’s a, an anecdote in the book, humanocracy by Gary Hamel. And Michelle’s on Nini. And I’ve mentioned this on the show before, and they’re talking about a manufacturing environment. So it’s a steel working organization where they essentially made each unit responsible for their own profit and loss and ability to team up with other business units. They realized they didn’t know best everywhere. And when one unit realized that their orders were slowing down for something, they did well, let’s go find some other product we can offer and develop that, and then work with other units in the organization to get that, moving that again, different than the idea of, of Taylorism know, the managers know best that people at the top know best. And here’s not exactly what we mean by knowledge work. Yes, there’s definitely skill and expertise and knowledge involved in it, but it’s not what we typically think of. And here is an example where Taylorism was not getting it done, essentially letting go of that centralization actually was more beneficial to this company.

Dan Neumann: [16:46] What you described there, Sam, where people are aware of how their change impacts the profit and loss of a company so that they can then make decisions with other parts of the company about how they can improve. That brings to mind the concepts between behind what’s called the great game of business. And it was essentially just that help people connect to how they move the financial needle and a purpose, right? We want them not just focused on the dollars, but also on the purpose of the organization. How can they better enable the company to realize those and then self-organized to, to really be impactful.

Sam Falco: [17:23] Absolutely. And it goes beyond private industry as well. I have worked with government clients and all of those people are always very keenly aware that they are serving the public, that their purpose is to make things better for their constituents, their citizens. While we were getting straightened out. I mentioned that my wife and I had taken a citizens academy, the Pinellas county, where we live had a, I think it was eight weeks. And you went to each different division of the government services and saw how they did it. And every single one of these people will tell you, oh, here’s how I’m trying to deliver better service for the citizens of Pinellas county for less money. So it’s not just industry. It’s, it’s really anybody who cares about what they’re doing. I believe that’s, most people want to make a difference. They’re going to look at that. And so let them put structures in place. If you need a system, there’s the system, you need a system by which people can improve their own system.

MC Moore: [18:30] Yeah. I agree. Finding, finding ways to empower the employees. Again, it becomes a win-win, you know, satisfaction for the employee and I guess ideally revenue and profits for the company.

Sam Falco: [18:43] Yeah. Can I, can I pull another quote out of Taylor here to show the, the opposite of that is under functional management, the old fashioned single foreman is superseded by eight different men. Each one of whom has his own special duties. Taylor is saying let’s add layers of middle management to separate people from decision-making as much as possible. Exactly the opposite of what you’re, you’re talking about, MC

Dan Neumann: [19:22] And I think we see that type of thinking where when the organization start to think of management or leadership, do you need the specialist in that thing? Do you basically take technicians and promote them? And the farther you up, the better you are at that tactic, or is the organization really looking at creating leaders who can help people become better technicians themselves? And I, I mean, industry, when I was, when I was just a kid, I was, I was doing actual programming, but in order to go up, you had to become an architect, or you had to become a project manager. And either way you stop doing the thing that you were pretty good at for awhile. And you started talking about doing the thing and, and just that gap grows. That’s where you end up with the ivory tower architect who can’t actually implement anything eventually, but they’re still expected to be the expert on the architecture.

Sam Falco: [20:21] Right. that’s just the, the Peter principle writ large, right. Lawrence Peter’s principle that people get promoted until they are no longer competent to do the job they’ve been promoted into. And then they stagnate.

Dan Neumann: [20:33] It’s kind of a bummer. Right? Okay. So we’ve got Taylorism. You’re like, man, I hope I keep getting promoted. He was a schmuck, I wonder. Yes. So principal trainer, and now, hopefully there are some people in our conversation who are doing things other than Taylorism. So I know it’s pervasive in the thinking a lot of it’s still in management school thinking efficiency’s important at certain types of activities, but can it be done in a way that isn’t soul sucking and in dehumanizing the way Taylor really brought himself to the work? So who else who’s, who’s doing better things that we want to highlight here?

MC Moore: [21:21] Well, I think I would say, you know, some of the work that Drucker had put forth and, and it’s a little bit, a little bit older, but it’s still out there. And it’s well recognized was a contradiction a lot of from a lot of the things that Taylor had put forth. So people have recognized that, and even in larger circles are, are making that, that active shift so that, you know, that’s an MBA schools as well. It’s still being taught. And at least that gives us some hope that there’s a more of a break from Taylorism.

Dan Neumann: [21:50] That’s awesome.

Sam Falco: [21:51] I think I see a lot of sort of fledgling attempts, but a lot of people don’t know anything else. This is what they’ve been taught. It’s what they’ve experienced. So even when they think, well, I don’t want to do it the old way. They don’t necessarily know a new way. So they may try to choose, or I’m going to let my team make this decision. And the minute something kind of goes wrong. They swoop into fix the problem probably out of fear and out of really wanting to not let the team suffer any sort of negative consequences. So I think there’s a lot of people out there who really crave something different. I think that’s part of the interest in agile, from non C-suite types, right? Well, we see it from the enterprise level. They’re usually wanting, they’re wanting efficiency they’ll come in and say, we want to make people more efficient. Then we have to explain that that’s a second dairy effect. We don’t want to be efficient before we’re effective. But when you talk to people who are actually doing the work, they just want a better way of working. And even the mid-level managers frequently, who are sometimes vilified as being resistors. It’s not that they’re resisting. It’s just really hard to do that work. They want it, they want to take a new step. They just don’t know how. And you’re asking them to take a step over what they believe is a chasm. And just trust that there’s a glass floor there. That’s going to keep them up.

Dan Neumann: [23:25] And it is because it’s a system. I think one of the quotes we had from Deming is you’ve mannered. You don’t advantage the individual, you attack the system where there’s a problem. And so many people have gotten where they are by managing individuals, managing their tasks, managing for efficiency, as opposed to attacking the system, going, the system’s broken. Here’s how we can adjust the system. And then hopefully that gets us the better outcome we’re looking for. And if it doesn’t, we quickly iterate.

Sam Falco: [23:57] There was a book I read. Yeah. Back in the late nineties called I think it was called orbiting the giant hairball. And it was by someone who’d gone to work for, I think hallmark. And he said that what he’d seen was, you know, he was a very creative person and he was a creative industry, greeting cards. And then, but there were all these policies and policies tended to attract more policies. And that there are people who they live in the hairball, he called it the, basically the, the system and they know how the system operates. And so they want to perpetuate the system because that’s comfortable for them. There are people who just say, that’s it, I’m out of here and the peace out and you never see them again. And then what he was trying to do is try to figure out a way to work where, yeah, there’s that, that hairball, as he called it orbiting, the hairball was just, I want to be where I can do some good. And I want to engage with that when I have to that system. And I want to get around it when I have to. And I want to affect it when I have to. Systems are not inherently bad. They’re only inherently bad when they become this Frankenstein’s monster, something that was created to serve, man, I’m mixing my metaphors. Now Frankenstein’s monster was not created to serve man, but these systems are created to serve humankind, but we end up serving them. You have to do it this way because that’s the way things work. We do that in politics. We do that in business. We do that in all sorts of walks of life.

MC Moore: [25:28] I also think about in terms of the, the micromanagement piece. It’s, it’s really interesting. When you think about those situations in your prior career, where you were micromanaged, you know, where you had that person and they were managing you to that, that level of degree, it’s really hard to be creative. And it’s really hard to put your best self forward when you know that there’s someone that’s kind of covering you and shadowing you and watching every little move that you make in whatever it is that you’re doing.

Sam Falco: [26:03] Yeah. I had a manager who loved to, she just swing by usually first thing in the morning, she’d take a walk around, Hey, what’s working on? This was not an agile organization, what’re you working on. I’m working on this. Anything I can do to help. No, I got it. Okay. And that was it. You wouldn’t hear from her again because she just, she, wasn’t trying to tell you what to do or keep tabs on you. She just wanted to know, is there anything that’s in your way that I can get out of the way? I wouldn’t be surprised if today she were a Scrum Master someplace because she has that mindset of get obstacles out of the way of the people so they can get their job done.

Dan Neumann: [26:41] As you guys were talking, I got to, to thinking about accountability and the challenge of, of what that might look like. Frederick Winslow Taylor used the stopwatch to create accountability. You need to move X tons of pig iron per day. That’s the work standard. You need to create so many widgets per minute per hour, et cetera. So he used the stopwatch for accountability. And I’m curious what your thoughts are about what does accountability look like in a more enlightened type of approach or in, in more modern ways?

MC Moore: [27:17] So that’s a great question, Dan, I think for me when I think about self-managed teams, when we, when we talk about accountability, where within an agile team, we hold one another accountable for the work. We’re all in it together. We’re in it to win together. It’s a much better relationship than having one person that’s sitting in that ivory tower and holding people accountable in that way. I think people know who they can count on and who they can trust and they ask for help. You know, that again, that’s part of that, that learning journey that we’re all on, all of those things go a long way. And it’s a much better position. I think too, with accountability. You can, you can easily get into an adversarial relationship manager to employee, but it’s much more collegial when we’re working all together at the same level on a Scrum team, or we’re an agile team.

Sam Falco: [28:12] And I think that the principles behind the agile manifesto have something to say about this. Build projects around motivated individuals, give them the environment and support they need and trust them to get the job done. Part of the environment they need is here’s where we’re all going. Here’s what we’re trying to accomplish. What is the outcome we’re going for? So clearly articulating the outcome, building that around the people who are motivated to do the work and trust them to get the job done. I think accountability comes out of that. It grows out of that without having to be imposed from the outside. It’s a hard thing for people who are steeped in a Taylorist or a theory X mindset to grasp, but that’s the difference.

Dan Neumann: [28:58] I also, in that mindset, think it’s important for teams to be able to with conviction explained why they made certain choices. For a Scrum team in the Sprint review. For example, to say, here is what we did and here is the why, Hey, we tried to do this. It didn’t work. Here’s, here’s the why behind the try and what we learned from it, not working. I think there is something to be said for the transparency and the ownership of paths that were chosen and why they were chosen and challenges they ran into and very different, like you said, then trying to spin things so that they look good, even when they’re not good.

MC Moore: [29:39] And I think too, it also, because it’s, it’s so much better to talk in terms of the why as, as opposed to because I was told to, or my manager said to do this, it’s, it’s very easy to slide out of those kinds of, you know, the ownership and the accountability in those settings.

Dan Neumann: [29:58] Wonderful. Thank you gentlemen, for exploring Frederick Winslow Taylor, didn’t know him personally, but obviously from some of his writings, it’s like, oh, ooh. And ah, and, but that’s been pervasive in management, you know, undercurrent. So I want to thank you guys for exploring that as well as some alternatives that organizations might consider to maybe a Tayloristic perspective.

Sam Falco: [30:23] My pleasure.

Dan Neumann: [30:25] On our way out here, brief briefly, what are you folks what’s on your continuous learning journey?

Sam Falco: [30:30] Well, I mean, I just read this absolute slog of a monograph by Taylor, those, anybody who is interested in digging through that, you can get it on project Gutenberg by the way. So you don’t have to shell out any money for it. We’ll put a link.

Dan Neumann: [30:43] Awesome. We’ll put a link, absolutely agilethought.com/podcast for the show notes. MC what’s on your journey these days?

MC Moore: [30:52] For me for these days, I’m really interested in the concept of agility and governance, which may have some, you know, tentacles over into the conversation we just had, but I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading several articles and getting different perspectives around the notion of agility and governance.

Dan Neumann: [31:12] I love that. Yeah, very interesting concepts in one where it’s easy to think that they’re, they’re opposites of each other. And for me, I just Ted Lasso count as continuous learning journey. I hope so. Maybe it’ll make me a better coach. It’s, it’s wonderful. There’s especially in season one, there’s some very interesting psychology team building types of things and approaches. So I’m pretty interested in that. So thank you for sharing on Taylorism and thank you for sharing what’s on your continuous learning journey and we’ll look to do it again sometime.

Outro: [31:53] This has been the Agile Coaches’ Corner podcast brought to you by AgileThought. The views, opinions and information expressed in this podcast are solely those of the hosts and the guests, and do not necessarily represent those of AgileThought. Get the show notes and other helpful tips for this episode and other episodes at agilethought.com/podcast.

Stay Up-To-Date