I have been in many, many sprint meetings in many, many companies. I’ve never heard those words, or anything like it. I’ve heard explicit “we can’t do X because that’s Y’s thing” stuff, but never a request for a grown up.
I’ve also heard “We need to reach out to X team for Y clarification.” But never deferring a decision because nobody with relevant authority is in the room.
If someone feels like they are in a situation where they feel like they do non-nonsensical, ritualistic stuff, I highly suggest to say no and either bring it up or leave or potentially both. I think companies and teams sometimes do things that no longer or currently don’t serve a purpose. In such a situation it’s worth bringing it up. If the response ends up being hand-wavy or just in general isn’t addressing the actual issue at hand then draw your conclusions. It can be a sign that it’s time to move on.
I’ve certainly seen a couple of those kinds of meetings. I am not talking about any kinds of sprints or stand-ups that make sense, but they shouldn’t be just rituals that you just do because you always did them, because then they are a waste of everyone’s time and some companies or teams really do seem immature here. There isn’t that one golden one size fits all rule and it doesn’t make sense to pretend there is. Sometimes it makes sense to do your bi-weekly sprints and daily stand-ups or whatever, sometimes it doesn’t. It’s also completely okay to just try stuff and see how it goes. And actually they do work pretty well in many situations, just please don’t do meetings when you don’t know what for. There’s no point in that. If your reason is just to see each other, check up and so on. That’s a perfectly valid point as well. But if it’s an annoyance to everyone you either should do it differently or stop it all together. It’s wasted time, or maybe even worse to some. If it’s that static rigid thing, how can you possibly call it agile?
I agree with the other posts here about not being sure what that “we’re gonna need a grown-up for that”. I mean sure, sometimes you need a person or something else to make a decision. That’s okay. But I’d assume that a team has some level of independence, else why would it be its own team?
First, I never heard the business side referred to as grown-ups in my whole damn life. I don’t think that’s a thing outside the author’s specific experience. At least I have it isn’t.
Second, the things mentioned as “minor” autonomy, like language/stack choice, are not that minor. Being able to expand/replace workers is not a minor concern to business at all, it’s a big deal, often considered essential for business continuity.
And lastly, some of the other things mentioned as minor autonomy, like monitors and editors, well, there’s a lot of places where even having a say on that is a fight. Which might explain why so many developers might still see this as an expression of autonomy.
I have been in many, many sprint meetings in many, many companies. I’ve never heard those words, or anything like it. I’ve heard explicit “we can’t do X because that’s Y’s thing” stuff, but never a request for a grown up.
I’ve also heard “We need to reach out to X team for Y clarification.” But never deferring a decision because nobody with relevant authority is in the room.
If someone feels like they are in a situation where they feel like they do non-nonsensical, ritualistic stuff, I highly suggest to say no and either bring it up or leave or potentially both. I think companies and teams sometimes do things that no longer or currently don’t serve a purpose. In such a situation it’s worth bringing it up. If the response ends up being hand-wavy or just in general isn’t addressing the actual issue at hand then draw your conclusions. It can be a sign that it’s time to move on.
I’ve certainly seen a couple of those kinds of meetings. I am not talking about any kinds of sprints or stand-ups that make sense, but they shouldn’t be just rituals that you just do because you always did them, because then they are a waste of everyone’s time and some companies or teams really do seem immature here. There isn’t that one golden one size fits all rule and it doesn’t make sense to pretend there is. Sometimes it makes sense to do your bi-weekly sprints and daily stand-ups or whatever, sometimes it doesn’t. It’s also completely okay to just try stuff and see how it goes. And actually they do work pretty well in many situations, just please don’t do meetings when you don’t know what for. There’s no point in that. If your reason is just to see each other, check up and so on. That’s a perfectly valid point as well. But if it’s an annoyance to everyone you either should do it differently or stop it all together. It’s wasted time, or maybe even worse to some. If it’s that static rigid thing, how can you possibly call it agile?
I agree with the other posts here about not being sure what that “we’re gonna need a grown-up for that”. I mean sure, sometimes you need a person or something else to make a decision. That’s okay. But I’d assume that a team has some level of independence, else why would it be its own team?
This was a look into a bizarre world where sprint teams don’t have the authority to do their work.
First, I never heard the business side referred to as grown-ups in my whole damn life. I don’t think that’s a thing outside the author’s specific experience. At least I have it isn’t.
Second, the things mentioned as “minor” autonomy, like language/stack choice, are not that minor. Being able to expand/replace workers is not a minor concern to business at all, it’s a big deal, often considered essential for business continuity.
And lastly, some of the other things mentioned as minor autonomy, like monitors and editors, well, there’s a lot of places where even having a say on that is a fight. Which might explain why so many developers might still see this as an expression of autonomy.