I am definitely not an agile coach, I am an agent provocateur. I participate in missions in which I thrive, I can touch what I love with my finger. And I wanted to write that what I loved was inter-action.

This is certainly not the positioning defended by the idealized image of the agile coach: non-intrusive and intellectual thinker, listening, who evolves ideas without disrupting them. To say that this is me, that this is what I love, that this is what I believe in, would be a big hypocrisy.

I don’t like the low posture of the agile coach, I am for emancipation, as in extreme programming, a posture that makes you grow, emancipation, mine and that of others.

I don’t want to observe, I want to act, trigger, provoke action and the action of others. I love the dynamic of interaction with individuals.

I don’t like the silence and submission of listening: I want people to be able to express themselves, loudly, and I also want to shout what I know. Because yes, I have opinions, knowledge, experience, I know things, and therefore I make mistakes. The one who doesn’t know, doesn’t say, never makes mistakes. That’s not my case. Since I make mistakes, I change my plans (of action) rather than follow my beliefs or my readings. I base myself on experience, on lived reality.

These interactions, these changes, disrupt inertia, I must protect people, protect myself, move forward with them; not forget them for having wanted too much not to disturb them (or disturb the established order). I collaborate with others, I am not in an ivory tower. In action, I perceive the chemistry that diffuses through my body like a drug; in action we feel the mountain moving, minds freeing themselves, the rebirth of the cooperation of the species. I respect everyone’s intelligence by telling them what I think as equals. Interactions, individuals, changes, I am operational and not in incantation or any other specification that doesn’t get wet.

I love feeling the energy flows.

I, I, I, it’s an egocentric text but “we” is only the sum of the “I"s.

I am Peter Grant, I am Gordon Ramsay, I am definitely not an agile coach.

I feel this is a beautiful blunder, but I wanted to write this.

Written while listening to “Noir désir - 666667”

Someone writes to me

In my opinion:

• I have always challenged received ideas (otherwise I would have been happy in the conformist waterfall cycle!)
• agile coaching is founded on human relationships, therefore on interaction
• the low posture, called strategic low posture by Paul Watzlawick, precisely aims for emancipation, because by putting the other in a high position, we make them an actor rather than a simple executor of good advice.
• you oppose observing and acting, yet for me, we observe to lead (therefore into action) or make act. In both cases, it’s not thought alone, but thought before action.
• Agility is greatly inspired by systemics, which is founded on interactions. The dynamic of interactions with individuals is the first value of the manifesto. Does someone who doesn’t do this have any connection with agility?
• You don’t like the silence of listening. Yet, it is very powerful for emancipation and setting in motion
• You equate listening with submission. You want to shout what you know. But if nobody listens to you, what will that serve?
• You place the agile coach in an ivory tower, who doesn’t collaborate . Collaboration is also in the manifesto, and since coaching means accompanying, the ivory tower cannot be their home.

Yes, I also know people who call themselves agile coaches and who have neither the qualities, nor the posture nor the skills. When I encounter them, I sometimes don’t want to be associated with what they are and proclaim. However, that doesn’t disgust me from wanting to carry the messages of agility. As for the title, I don’t really care about it. Besides, what’s important is the congruence you convey, even in your article!

I respond:

I don’t think I oppose observing and acting. I say that both are needed. And not necessarily thought before action. Because before action sometimes thought runs in circles. “No plan survives first contact with the enemy” Von Moltke.

Naturally when I say that I don’t like the silence of listening it’s when it is constant, without its alter-ego: action, involvement, risk. But naturally the silence of listening is part of the game. If nobody listens to me, at least I will have shouted once and I will feel better. Good if their home is not the ivory tower. Come on, get out!

We agree on the substance, I have no doubt. I thank you for these pertinent questions.

I am also told

>I don’t like the silence and submission of listening

I don’t like submission either pablo. but I believe that listening makes the other grow if it is empathic (not sympathetic eh? you know the difference yes?). it gives them space (which often is lacking in a non-liberated structure). In nvc [Nonviolent Communication, pablo’s note], there is certainly the posture of empathic listening, in addition to self-empathy, and authentic expression. That’s surely the one you prefer, if I read you correctly. :-)

Thanks for your little feedback.

On twitter, it’s chattering

Thanks to all. Pierre, you may be right, I don’t know. I don’t believe we can distinguish things so clearly, as always it depends on the context, the moment. For Alexandre, yes I think so otherwise I would have stopped long ago! And I believe that we must not trust appearances, it’s not because I advocate involvement, action, that I force people to do anything. In no way do I mandate, constrain, force. Never. We never lead people or a company where it doesn’t want to go, that doesn’t work and that doesn’t interest me especially. I think this commitment is rather a mark of respect, we are equals, I am with them in action. Contrary to appearances therefore: the coach’s posture seems to me much more haughty, and also much more damaging for the entourage. So yes this “good” that you describe is only possible because it is very often shared.