This session (synopsis below) was a collaborative discussion that was based on system modelling/causal loop diagram (CLD). Additional system variable where identified in the session and are listed below:
External expectations: Government mandates (and telegraphed expectations of WFH length), peer timelines publicly communicated.
Candidate’s cost of living is also a constraint on Worker’s inevitability to agree to lower pay and increase the risk of low loyalty
Working with the assumption of a segment of the offer market being able to wait it out and only accept an offer if this one is either very much needed on the short term, or very attractive on the long term
Cash Sustainability aka ability to wait it out
Security concerns often regulatory….
Desire to rather invest time in other areas of their lives like education of side business or rethinking their offer (exp: testing it on the market)
Long-term attractiveness of the job offer to them which would push them to take it
Daily rate reduction
During these tough times, with so much uncertainty and things in flux, JOB SECURITY is on minds of many people. We have to face that:
The economy is not in its best shape and we are not sure when it will bounce back
Going back to the office may not be feasible any time soon
Many companies froze hiring. Some, had to let go of many consultants (and employees)
The job market is saturated and there is more supply (of talent), than demand
“Distance/Commute time to work” is no longer a factor for employees
Quality of screening by staffing firms at its lowest (with rare exceptions)
Compensation range is no longer impacted by cost of living (of employees, consultants)
For companies, there is no need to be limited by local markets, while looking for best talent (since everyone works virtually)
Interviewing is 100% virtual, both for F/T and consulting roles. 100% virtual interviewing (yes/no decisions) is not the same as in-person/close human interaction interviewing (only then followed by remote work)
Are work seekers being urged to accept sub-optimal offers?
Are work seekers being presented with a completely new spectrum of great working opportunities?
Are companies running the risk of getting a “great deal”, while hiring at lower rate, to only later realize that they have miscalculated long-term?
Do companies need to rethink organizational and team design, communication/reporting strategies, to adjust to current realities. Should it impact their current/future hiring strategies? How should people (job seekers adjust)?
Additional Upcoming LeSS Training (group discount: group_disc):
“Many organisations are so focused on delivering features that they tend to forget the outcome or business impact one wants to accomplish. The acronym MVP is frequently used in a context of a fully working application or minimal set of features where one forgets to truly validate assumptions. PO’s are writing detailed user stories but not always following up on the business impact of it all. At the same time you see business leaders in the organizations disconnect from the delivery process.
Let’s see how we can do things differently!
A cocktail of different models that put business outcomes at the center. A different way to look at so-called product backlogs, stepping away from a flat list of items. This cocktail is one of many LeSS experiments you could try and some things to avoid.”
What is Undone Department?
“Undone department—This department, ideally, does not exist.
Unfortunately, sometimes the teams are not yet able to create a true shippable increment every Sprint. This is reflected by their “Definition of Done” not being equal to “Potentially Shippable.” The difference between them is called Undone Work. Someone needs to do this Undone Work, and a common “solution” is to create separate groups that pick up the “undone work”—the undone department. More on this in the Definition of Done chapter.
Undone departments such as test, QA, architecture, or business analysis groups should never exist in the smaller LeSS framework groups; rather they should be integrated into the teams from the start. On the other hand, we unfortunately still frequently see an operations or production undone department in LeSS adoptions, as they often cross organizational boundaries.
A goal in every LeSS adoption is to remove the undone department. How long will this take? The answer is highly dependent on how fast the organization improves its capability.” – from the 3rd LeSS book (Large Scale Scrum: More with LeSS)
“Bad scaling is one of the biggest ‘agile problems’ of modern days for companies.
Bad scaling is one of the three (the other two are : “agile tools” mania and falling a victim to big consultancies’ industrial model [see/play Dave Snowen’s view here:
Bad scaling comes in the form of trivializing agility at is core, weakening agile roles, plagiarizing and relabeling someone else’s experiments and calling them ‘operating models’, copy-pasting Scrum and Scrum roles into Fractal Geometry that look great on paper.
Are there better ways to work? Probably not, if the ultimate goal is to relabel existing enterprise complexity with fancy agile terminology and then call it “enterprise scaling”. But there could be better ways to work if an ultimate goal is to simplify existing complexity (de-scale), and by doing so, improve your chances to scale agile ways of working (e.g. do Scrum, by more than one team, working for the same Product Owner, on the same product, out of the same backlog).
In this session, Gene will expose some classic pitfalls of bad scaling and will recommend how, more good things could be done with less stuff,…how things could be done better, using Large Scale Scrum (LeSS).”