On the occasion of a School Of PO meetup, I’m offering, with the help of Nicolas, a questioning training session. It’s more of a facilitation, coaching, and analysis session than anything else. The objective, probably pretentious, is to lead the people concerned to ask (themselves) better questions. A “better” question is one that could bring better understanding of the situation, a better attitude, and better attention, through personal reflection and a first possible commitment through an action whose form can emerge according to the context.

For this, I propose a first approach that I’ve tried to deduce from my behaviors and analyses. We’ll call it the alpha approach, not in the primary sense of roped climbing, but first attempt, to be redefined, completed, specified, corrected. Alpha as in subject to plenty of improvements.

Following the School of PO meetup, I confirm the Alpha nature of this first workshop, I'm completing this article during the week with some additions/modifications

Observation: gesture/framework, means/purpose

I observe that questions too often focus on the gesture: exactly how should it be done; and that they don’t focus enough on the framework: a space in which we can do things in many different ways, thus leaving it to each person to do their best precisely. We therefore first distinguish the gesture: a single way of doing things, reduced freedom; from the framework: a space that allows many ways of doing things. A bit like a closed question that only leaves the choice between yes or no, and an open question that leaves space for a much richer answer.

I also observe that questions far too often focus on the means rather than the purpose. How to cross the bridge? Why be agile? But whether it’s the bridge or agile, it’s certainly not the purpose. These questions must be asked, but by each person, to themselves, it’s essential to be one’s own analyst. But the dynamic I wish to trigger through questions, or if I wish to provoke this introspection, this emergence, I must question the meaning, not the means.

We could ask people to note their questions and place them in a two-dimensional matrix, gesture/framework, means/purpose.

The idea of this training is to bring questions back towards more framework and more purpose (meaning). First by finding the purpose if it’s not apparent, then by defining a framework that allows a gesture to emerge (but not be predefined) and be tried.

The means and the gesture are close, it’s not easy to untangle them. The gesture remains an act, a means is broader, it can be a set of acts. What we’re trying to detect is whether a means is a target. “We’re trying to go faster”. “Faster” is the target yet it’s only a means. Or if a means is already posed as an answer. “By going faster, would we succeed?”. “Faster” is the gesture here: the means of action, the act. It’s in this case that I call it a gesture. We want to avoid these two cases: the gesture (as an answer), and the means (as a target).

Example

Nicolas asks me:

What makes inter-team decision-making agile?

Context is needed. Nicolas is a product owner and I am the agile coach in this role. He needs support, leverage, understanding, in his not-so-simple environment.

In my eyes, his question is quite bottom-left on the matrix mentioned earlier. We sense that “a decision must be made”. That’s the gesture. It’s the act. There aren’t thirty-six ways to do it: “a decision must be made”. We could say there are a thousand ways to make a decision, but in the stated question, decision-making is not being questioned, is not questioned itself. It gives me the impression of being an already established gesture. We’re only talking about a means as a target: being agile. Agile is never the purpose, just a means.

I would like to reverse things and move towards a broader framework of possible answers that are oriented towards a purpose, while limiting ourselves to a safe space to try: that is, quite limited.

For this, I base myself on well-known mechanisms that are quite simple to implement, even if the exercise can prove risky in its implementation, we never know if we’ll get through it.

I question Nicolas to find the purpose.

Like a five whys or the six handshakes, I explore the scope to understand what Nicolas is looking for. I could draw a tree of possibilities that I explore. For Nicolas to feel comfortable and understood, I take up as many of his words as possible, I don’t substitute them with mine.

• “Why do you want inter-team decision-making to be agile?” “Because today inter-team decision-making doesn’t work, or doesn’t happen”.
• “Why doesn’t inter-team decision-making work?” “Well, let’s say it happens too late, not at the right time”.
• “Why don’t decisions happen or take place at the wrong time?” “Because everyone pursues their objectives without taking dependencies into account since everything will be integrated at the end, with the problems we know”.
• “Why does everyone pursue their objectives without taking others, dependencies into account?” “Because everyone has personal objectives and not group ones”.
• “Why does everyone have personal objectives and not group ones?” “Because we have a project vision and not a product vision”.

When I think I’ve found one of the purposes, I formulate a question without judgment

A judgment would make the question too personal. It’s not about good or bad, it’s about creating a space that leaves room for emergence. For this, I use, as indicated in the book change your question, change your life, I use “we” or “one”, and especially not “I”, or “he/they”, which would already designate part of the answer. I go back to the discovered purpose, or chosen one (if there are several…).

“How can we have a product vision?”

I make emergence possible, but as in a laboratory, I wish to observe them: I work through trials.

I wanted to open the framework to leave maximum space for possibilities, for emergence. But I wish to make this emergence visible to generate a feeling of progress, a factual observation of success or failure, validated learning; and I wish to make this step-by-step approach understood. For this, if I wanted a framework with space for answers, I seek a space limited enough to conduct our answer trials: I will ask for a limit in duration or in improvement.

“How could we have a first aligned product vision within the month?”

This is the question I ask Nicolas, the product owner, or that I suggest he ask himself to his work group around the product. Rather than questioning agile decision-making.