Blaming People: It's Cheaper Than Fixing the System (Molly Graham's Waterline Model) | AA268

Most "people problems" are structural problems wearing a human face mask.

Product Manager Brian and Enterprise Business Agility Leader Om dissect Molly Graham's Waterline Model! Listen or watch as we debate whether this framework is the most actionable restatement of systems thinking in decades or just Deming in a wetsuit. Stick around to the end and you'll know exactly where your org skips diagnosis and jumps straight to blame.

Other issues discussed are:

• Why leaders default to firing individuals instead of fixing broken role definitions
• The four-level diagnostic (structure, dynamics, interpersonal, individual) most managers ignore
• How overlapping ownership and conflicting goals manufacture "personality clashes"
• Why changing what you reward is harder than writing new process documentation
• The coaching judgment no framework can teach you: when to stop snorkeling and dive
• A practical test: ask three people their goals and see if any answers match

For product managers, agile coaches, and tech leaders tired of watching teams churn through good people.

#SystemsThinking #Leadership #TeamDysfunction

Molly Graham, Lenny's Newsletter, W Edwards Deming, National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS), The Waterline Model

LINKS
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@arguingagile
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/362QvYORmtZRKAeTAE57v3
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/agile-podcast/id1568557596

INTRO MUSIC
Toronto Is My Beat
By Whitewolf (Source: https://ccmixter.org/files/whitewolf225/60181)
CC BY 4.0 DEED (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en)

Transcript

0:00

Molly Graham's waterline model is the cleanest leadership writing the year. There only four models structure dynamics interpersonal and individual. And there's only one rule. One rule. It's simple rule. just says snorkel before you scuba check the system before you blame the person. It's right. It's useful. And it's W. Edwards Deming in a wetsuit. And I actually love it. The metaphor is borrowed. And Graham says so. She credits wilderness school. She learned it from. And what she brings is the coaching judgment about when to go deeper. And that's the one thing that no framework can help you with if there's anything told me by BCG consultants world over is I just need good for a good two by two framework Welcome back to Arguing Agile. And this is your first time. Welcome. I'm your host product manager Brian Orlando and this is my co -host or enterprise agility leader and the duke of the deep dive, Mr. Om Patel. So first time like subscribe. if this is not your first time, also like subscribe because every like and subscribe helps the channel and helps give an angel its wings. That's right. Ohm just called this year's best leadership post quote Deming wetsuit. And could dig into that but we're not. We're just to skip right over is slippery when wet but we're skip right it. And that's not contradiction. So we're to take this whole episode and we're to deep dive level level top to bottom through this article where we talk about the structure and dynamics and interpersonal and individual, all levels by the end this episode, you'll be able to run the diagnosis yourself. You will spot the level where your org always skips ahead and you'll able tell difference between the part of this that can copy from blog. And the piece where your coaching judgment is required and that what muscle you actually to build internally to get You'll able to tell next tier All right. hopefully you're looking forward to, you know, finding out why the wetsuit is slippery when wet. before we dove in level by level, we to start with the rule that orders this whole article. OK, it's single most important useful leadership instruction of the year. That's what Ohm has claimed. It's four words. Snorkle before you scuba. let me show screen the [UH] image from the article which will link Oh, OK. show the the Molly Graham waterline model on screen here so everyone can see it So can see top water, you've got your boat that represents your team across the water. other side is goals. The very immediate lowest level under the water is the structure. And then each level water it must be very heavily salinated water because these levels don't mix. So its structure first level. Then deeper is dynamics. Then deep is interpersonal, then the deepest level is individual. Yeah, so far I model say, mean, this great because she's got those lines delineating, delineating different different layers and strata. But in real life, we know that not be case. Right. In real life, it is kind of important. know, it's like continuous Brownian motion across the four layers. That's right. That's right. And that's makes our job lot harder. so that's the model. Very simple It comes from this article How to debug team that isn't working That was released in Lenny's newsletter. But it's a, it's just the Molly Graham article re retweeted by [UH] Lenny. Right. so Deming said the system, not worker in 1986 And Graham Graham gave us this snorkel metaphor, right? Brought forward from her experiences many, years later. And that's, that's kind what we're going talk about. So the story before you scuba start top always is the direct citation from this article. Right? then the four levels is another citation. me can find any I'm going to put this back on screen just so people can see it here top. It has citation says what's going on below the surface that makes things harder than they should be. Where they're showing surface like, oh, team is the boat and the goals are over here the off the horizon whatever. And says, well, model gives four places look in order. And comes with memorable rule of thumb. Snorkle before you scuba start top. Always snorkeling means checking the shared system first. Goals, roles, and decision making before diagnosing personalities oh boy. let me make this away because oh boy have I got a slide for you? Oh, let's see it. So yeah, me show you here the steel man to what's being said here is listen Om... If you're saying framework is sabotaging you, just build bit of better framework you just haven't spent enough time build framework. just do all planning front and then do coding next then do all the QA and then you know, that that would be single take. Believe not, doesn't sound like cynical take of you just didn't build framework. Right? Well ,[UH] this stage goes to pretty much most frameworks I've come across my career basically. Right? Yeah. Whenever those frameworks are not implemented the way they were intended to, this is the fallback. You just didn't do right. Yeah, you're not holding right. Yeah, exactly. You're only right And then other one like the practitioner version this is a use metaphor beats correct one that nobody touches, which is, mean, there's some wisdom this one is listen, just do like you metaphor. It's not great, but like you know, hey people use it. Just, just, just get over it think it's means to an end type situation. Like if it really helps you, then great. If it doesn't find this plenty others. A metaphor that people use beats a framework that people only nod at. Like I feel that there's there's been shots fired at every BCG consultant. You know, mean like every every like big four consultant ever right now is cringing right now to say hey, like your framework is great everything like scientifically, academically, metaphorically, spiritually. Yeah. Physically, financially. It's been long time [UH] like it's great. It's great. Yeah. But like everyone's using metaphor that's all we really need. know, hey, here's waterline here on top it. What's happening just under surface? Oh, the system is, you know, messing everybody up. I'm all simplicity and you know, relationship, right. Meaning that people can relate to metaphors if can do that. Great. don't need to necessarily have complex framework for them. yeah, mean other thing in the article is like systems thinking not new. Like the first level under water of what's going systems. Nothing in there is new. mean like Deming was all about systems. It's just, it's just blaming people is much easier. than having to deal with. Oh, let's analyze system. Let's get our people there to figure out, know, maybe let's get our developers there figure out what's it. know, Lord forbid we actually get our, know, top minds there figure what's actually going on with our interpersonal. Yeah, crazy it is crazy. think in many ways when you look this and say, was 86 when came up with this? he fought the same thing. We're fighting now, know, kind swimming upstream basically. mean, yeah. It's like people don't believe it and they'll find million excuses to kind of poo that away. And that's still the case today. Right? Only now the water mudtier. If you're going go with the same metaphor that you know the water lot muddier now because are so many other frameworks floating around. And you just get lost and bump them. What hooked on this article is one the first things hey, you set clear goals. You know, the leaders set clear goals. They come in timelines are slipping. Execution is messy and you have the same conversation over over again. Oh, what's going on? know goals will slip. This team doesn't seem be working well together. You know, is it this person? We just need better execution. And and and you, you basically come team and say oh, this person just isn't getting it. think we need to, you know, it might be person problem. It might a people problem. And that's the first layer. That's kind stuck out me is you're seeing. seeing this diagram where your team is sailboat top water and goals over here the right out on horizon. And that's all see from far away as leadership. But that's like that. it's most deceptive picture because of The first level here, we have this little scuba guy and the structure like structure is all the TLD systems around your team all people team, know, not any to get a we'll into the deeper levels in later sections podcast. Right. So this picture at level one structure shows bunch of keywords. These are like ingredients recipe. There's just no other, you know, instructions. just says here are all things should use. Right Or not use. But these the these are the factors that impact you at this level. So role goals expectations, vision, clarity, and that elusive one org design that seem have not much to do with. But you know it's at the crux it. I think the org design factor here speaks directly to the structural element this. It's directly responsible for lot the evils that are there, but it's also one that most people can't really do much about by themselves. Right? Grassroot movements start at team level and even at like coach level, but they don't have much traction the structure level in this metaphor because they're by themselves and it's bottom up rather than top down. So talked about this before in some podcasts, but I think this level is where people get stuck for the most part. they would be[UH] snorkeling a long, time before they dive in any deeper. Yeah, here [UH] which is pretty good. start the top. Always snorkeling means checking the shared system. First goals, roles, and decision making. Before start like they have quote diagnosing personalities, which feel we're to, if to boil this whole section down to one thing like that's good one. Like, hey, check systems first. See if something isn't awry. I don't say awry very often like that. I like throw there occasionally. And then if we're go into some takeaways here, hey, Stop hunting for the newest framework and start using the four level order that you'll actually remember. Name all four levels before diagnosing anything. Ask, is this system issue or person issue? First, every time I would, ask how this be system issue before it is a personal issue because to dove down through those layers. Yeah. Before get to a person individually. mean quite far actually because of individuals the very bottom level and then force yourself to rule out those top levels before get down and say well this is just the ohm just can't cut it Brian just can't cut it. Like before get that level, which is where most people jump straight to immediately plan one. Yeah, right. Yeah. Yeah. Right. And then they're doomed to repeat that sentiment some months later. Right. that's, mean, I think about lot of hostile toxic teams whatever that been in leadership groups where they jump straight into oh, this this person just can't cut then they recycle that person. They bring in new person. They go through them over over over again. And you know, those teams that are revolving doors managers who just leaders, those seem to like keep washing out people under them. I think about this they go straight to the lowest level because those leaders are lost. I think. Yeah. And they only operate at one level. Right. Diagnose that out loud and ask, are we sure that this is an issue with person and not with any these other levels as we move through them. I think that that would probably help. Right? what do you think? So when someone hands you a new framework that's clearly an old idea repackaged. Does repackaging bug you like it bugs me like I mean this one bugged me before I actually read into it gave chance. And then I came around to it but I don't like repackaging of old ideas. And then like without without attribution. Right. Of the original. Yes. What's happening here? Demi wetsuit. Right? Yeah. So does it bug you or do you just take win because like people are actually using it enjoying it. Like let us know comments. So But it's only useful if you actually start where tells start at the top above waterline and then push down through all levels from very top level And that is the one place that leaders never want look first. Right? They're looking for quick fixes. structure. I know we just kind of dipped into structure but we're going talk about structure So now we're going to snorkel first at the top level just below surface. That's where the structure is. most what your manager will call a people problem is actually a structure problem like wearing a people problem[UH] a face mask what was that movie where they all were the president's masks and like rob the bank. remember I'm talking about? Here's 80s movie. Yeah, can't remember. all were more like Reagan mass. Yeah, remember that. wasn't heat I don't think was heat. I remember name the movie. I don't remember anyway. Let us know comments. So nobody knows what they own. The goals don't match the roles overlap. Oh boy. Yeah, this going on. structure is, is it really people problem or the structure of the org is to blame? Graham says it's structural problem wearing a human face. Said if I had, if I had automatically assumed people were the problem, I would have fired the whole team and started over again. And before get into discussion, been there [UH] I've seen that happen for sure. And then few months later come back. No, really haven't moved needle. Just got different people that you can move around. So it's this[UH] your your your game is no better off. You're just playing the same chess game on a different board. Or how about this one? How about this one? we [UH] recycle whole team. We got an all new people and now we're to pick choose people and blame them failure and recycle individual people. And we don't like wipe out the whole team. We just like wipe out people on team one by one by one as we blame them. I was team once [UH] like team once that I was there. was there for long time too. was there like [UH] twelve, 18 months. was there long time where they did this once they wiped out whole team team. And then slowly they're like this developer, they never seem to get something can do. then they would like wipe that person out. And then this program manager, they don't seem be like on top things. And then usually what would happen is they do this multiple times for these roles, know rather than like the worst case of what I'm describing would be some leader come in say oh we don't see progress we're expecting. We're wipe the whole team out and just get whole new team reboot the whole thing. living through that experience is like it gives me an appreciation for this structural level. to cut end my story way in the diagram here where has roles and expectations and goals. All those missing. Like the roles were just we just need developer. Oh, we see someone develop. What does develop mean? does it mean create unified data models across all data sources? Does like basically a software engineer the skill set of a data engineer. Yeah. And a data modeler. That's we're looking for. Well, now you're looking for a very specific thing, but didn't, you didn't hone your job description in to look for that. And also the program changes vision and high level goals every three months. Great. So the so if change vision high level goals, you may have to change your expectations and the role descriptions of the people you need carry that work out. So so what was good three months ago may be completely insufficient for the new world. We're going towards three months later and now we're blaming people because our goals changed never had clarity the first place. this was 18 months my life. says sounds like joke on paper or on podcast form or whatever. Yeah [UM] But you know, inside [UH] I'm crying. Yes, I can definitely relate. It's like on this model, you know, the person in charge, captain, don't know if captains on boats[UH] they're captain. They would simply say we're not going there anymore. going over here. But I'm to tell you, so just kind of go along your merry way. yeah. And if don't get there, it's your fault. So we'll throw over the, know overboard. like it. Yeah, crazy. I like it. in the structural category, hey, this, oh, this person just not strong enough. Like understand you're saying it's structural thing, but listen, if this person was strong enough, they could punch us through all this vision and goals stuff you're talking about. OK, should. need a stronger performer, a stronger executor Om] some or more operations skills. That's, that's they're going say. funny is I have the, I have listed as that's what the cynic will say. in this world where offshore everything, You know, what's this is so much easier do. That person just not strong enough. Just go, go find somebody else, maybe from a different staff or company like [UH] the academic here is going be the least helpful. Believe not, because they're say, most these issues traced back to systemic broken structures. So just fix your structures. Whatever that means. Right. Especially these organizations where you have a founder who started the company and now the company like 200 people and they're still not having let go. And the founders completely under. How how can I say this nicely they're completely overwhelmed, overwhelmed in all these, all these like listen, they were just good at like cold calling people and kind whipping their team like or mix of two. Right. And now, well, the system that you set up is really sabotaging us. So we need fix the system. And they're saying what you talking about? my system worked great by the way up until now. Yeah, right. Yeah. So that's what fall behind. Right. I've been here. started the company five years ago whatever and it's working great. So go away. It's not my system. And then the the the day day practitioner listening this podcast will say you just didn't clarify the roles. Like when hired people, when you expanded company whatever, like you didn't clarify these roles. didn't was not clarity of job descriptions and like clarity like where your job ended and my job began. Like you didn't, you didn't spend time So didn't write a good enough prompts on So that's basically the argument I'm making right now is like didn't, you didn't prompt hard enough. one grinds my gears because lot times I see. Yeah, because the JD's it will This have apparently seemingly clear sort of roles and responsibilities. But then at the very end they'll wrap it all up and say and other newsdays as sign and to take the whippings as as I as I designate as out basically. Yeah It's crazy. It's crazy So this whole bling game thing It gives you corresponding results. Let's just say that. Right. Because you're still at that first level trying to look under. Well, you're, you know, your snowfalls now kind of starting to take water. And you're like, oh, well, we don't talk about my snorkel. Yeah, don't talk about that. That's right. if we're go to our stance on this one the person just isn't strong enough. It usually means I never clarify what job was the first place. just said your job to do everything. Right And I'm going I'm going to grade you on whether or not my perception is that you did good enough while quote doing everything. Right. And that really is, mean, there's lot people living by this tenant right here legitimately living by it and and being stressed Yeah, absolutely agree The, the other ones here are The structure is cheapest thing to fix. mean, you think structure, what is structure? Some processes? It's the cheapest, but it's also in practice hardest fix. Sure people, people come in with entrenched, you know, interests. Right? That's, that's an interesting one because it's the hardest fix. Why? Because like theoretically system should be, you should document the system though. Or least like high level principles that drive the system. You know, you should be able to do that. But in order document that, you're probably talking bunch people that are going give guarded answers This is where all falls apart. I get that. But like think about waterline model here here here the first level directly under water where your boat is. Right. And it's structure level. And I'm saying it's the easiest solve. It's the easiest. Like single these goals, roles, expectations, clarity, vision or design. Those are things that can, you can write down. fact, have podcasts other we have podcast on roles specifically. but we know have one goals and vision. We had bunch podcasts on org design like one cohesive podcasts design but we've had tons of Clarity. had leadership podcast about repeating yourself. So like that, we haven't had one expectations. But basically the more this stuff document write down and keep in one centralized place. What happens is that opens you, you meaning leadership, right It opens you up to scrutiny and questions. Yes, a lot of leadership is not OK with that. So I get when you're saying it's hard. But from my perspective, I'm this is like what product management function for. Like here's the teams. Here's what that team owns and here's the goals that team. get clarity from listening all that out loud and documenting like here's what this team owns meaning their responsibilities, their accountabilities. And then the product manager should give you the vision. And then the organizers just bunch of the fiefdoms of all the different product folks and what they own stuff like that with their engineering manager on. So like from my perspective, It's difficult meaning like nobody's really trained in this stuff. So it's kind of hard it's all kind shared between teams. Yeah, but it's the closest to the surface. If you can't do this, I don't see how get down to the interpersonal individual levels which is the most difficult part. and part that most organizations don't even ever get to. I think most organizations will get the structure and they'll get dynamic dynamics they'll never get deeper than that Yeah, think that's fair point It's interesting. say the structure is the easiest solve. But in practice, that's where lot people tend to do lot snorkeling. It's hard to break through that. And that's because people that you're trying to convince they should change way they work are the very people that are, you know interested in protecting their interests and way they work. And that's the difficulty. If you're leader within the company looking to change all this that we're talking about today, you'd do lot worse than to start with the mirror and say, what can I do to change and then try to influence people, your peers, to your left and right ,and say what can they do if you start there then have people underneath that that can help. Then yes, you can easily navigate through this. But that's rare. let's talk about what we can do here. So the person isn't strong enough. That means I never clarified what their job was. Right mean straightforward. That's, that's mirror right there. Right? It's me, not them. Yeah. Oh, they're not strong enough. I didn't know they expected that not. know. Did you put it distinctly their job description and then make them accountable for it aka responsible for it and empower them to actually own this process. Or did you say, you're accountable this thing now. if mess up, I'll come down make real decision. Like, is there lot that going on? Because I've been lot shops where they tell you like oh that's part job but also you got to run all decisions by me. Yeah. You can be my eyes ears but I'll be voice and brain. Right? So you're just yes man. Yes woman. Yeah. the other sections because I think the diagnostic here that you can employ is coaching. You're not laying out a framework I know like the Spotify model whatever nonsense we're talk about. Like that's not what's happening here. Like the first level structure is like that the coach comes in starts asking questions to understand structure which may not be written down. And the coach may not be familiar with it they might be coming in the outside and they like most likely they are coming from outside. Yeah. Especially you're bold enough get help. External help. Yeah. Right. So before judging the rower, check whether anyone has told boat where to go. Oh boy, this is such deep one just looking the simple model that boat going from left right how you know everyone's aligned? That's we're going, right? You don't. Yeah, No, don't. Again, this where come back to. This easiest solve is like you can write goals down. You can have leader post the goals in a central place and keep updating them. know, just like the old project management, you know, project plan like but this is like a leader being accountable for like this. These goals. And they're changing the leadership high level goals every week like the project plan. Just like a project manager changing the project plan every week. It signals you the person funding project whatever. Like there's big problem. The goal shouldn't be slipping every week and should be revisiting them every week. That's little ridiculous. mean like whatever time period every two weeks, every three weeks why does this timeline keep slipping? Same goals. Like why goals keep changing? It's little, it's little, little odd I thin former, I could forgive little better than latter. Like you know, because yeah, why is the timeline changing? Well, we're change scope, right? We have four people outside for while or you know we had pandemic whatever. But yeah, the latter someone say well we're going this direction south you know west whatever is. Right. And then someone changes mind. You're not quite we're to change direction now. But why didn't we get there? because changed direction, you know, so don't troublemaker. just do I say. yeah, but what say changes depending on your mood or the day or the wind or whether it's raining or whether knee hurts or whether you know mean. But these leaders, I'll say that quotes, These leaders will [UH] will say, well, this what I get paid. That's right. This is the shiny pennies. So I'm making these decisions. You have to follow. So what get paid? The media bucks! Yes[UH] so the takeaway here, stop evaluating the person inside a broken roll and start fixing the role and then reevaluate their performance once you fix a role and clarified with them. This is, this like a[UH] H .R. one that you'll get. Where's, my SHRM people? Sure Yeah. Thanks for coming podcast They're they're too busy firing people. So the steps here ask each person what numbers they own. Compare the answers between people. And a mismatch means you have structural problem and then you re clarify before you make any kind of people decisions. mean that that's what think that the SHRM people people would say that Brian is good idea [UH] mean in reality they won't say that they'll be like Brian just whatever boss tells you and then keep job. That's a that's right. So try this when you get back to work on Monday. So try asking three people on struggling team separately to describe their goal and what they own. And if the answers don't line up, Then you found problem before their boss can find scapegot. So if you can if you can try it, you can ask. Do we all agree what this team is responsible for? That's what I want end right there. this board's going somewhere, but not where you want it. Yikes. to Yikes man. Check Raj. So what do you think? So what's the most expensive people problem you watch a company solve by firing someone. Let's know comments if you are a brave individual The fix is not doc, it's a mirror we love talking about mirrors podcast. so structure is what's written down. Right? That's what said whole structure section podcast. It's not written down. Write down. It's scary to write down if you're leader because then you might be held to that standard. Oh my goodness. So the next level dynamics is what people are actually experiencing. Okay your team isn't slow because they're scared. They're slow because moving fast got punished last time People behave rationally inside the system that you build. And then if the results are bad, the system is sending signal in this next section, Graham argues that a dynamics problem isn't a process gap. It's a mirror. Mm And and Graham is calling you out to look mirror. Look in the mirror. Oh, man. Whatever see [UH] the answer is [UH] just [UH] break mirror and get new mirror. Yeah, guess know, in a nutshell, she's saying it requires hard look mirror to see how your behavior, you meaning the leader or the behavior of those above you is causing people to respond. So what are the behaviors that they eliciting because of what you're doing plus what you're rewarding possibly. Right. in the article Graham says dynamics problems show up when teen's behavior makes sense given environment, even the results are exactly what you don't want. And then the mirror line I mentioned about looking mirror. It requires hard look at mirror and how your behavior or behavior of those above you is causing people to respond. Right to, pause here and I want to pull up the section of the article that talks about dynamics. There is dynamics. So the next layer down from structure is dynamics. Inside of dynamics here we have norms and culture communication decision making and accountability. So lot this people will just lump into the[UM] banner of culture. I think. Yeah, you're right. I think culture is just a subcomponent of all that. Right People often say things like, culture so hard change. Right. But you're not trying change culture. The culture is is a lagging indicator. It is what emanates from changing behaviors and norms. Right. It's not something can change. So you know, I like that she's got these other things there. Decision making accountability norms etc. Right. Communication and so on. I like that changing the rules of the interaction is key. Changing rules where people understand what they are driving toward, which is coming from that structure thing just talked about you know, and then rewarding what is expected of them, which is that whole thing around like norms. Right? You communicate what's important and then reward those behaviors that can go both ways kind like this double edged sword thing. So if you're not rewarding the right behavior, you're going to get whatever is that you are rewarding. If you're rewarding loyalty. Great. If you're rewarding just simply clock watching, that's what you'll get. The other thing sticks out this dynamics swim lane here is decision making accountability the right a lot of organizations. Those are divorced. like for example, yeah, the product manager should be doing both those. Right. For whole product line or I mean don't, if you don't have that position like that then then the single threaded leader or the team could team team rep. They be doing both those things like that. Like the product. we're using like straight Scrum, the product owner on team should be doing the decision making and should have accountability like the engineering manager shouldn't be running the individual engineers on the team to say like how come you guys are doing X and not Y. Like we have decision making apparatus. Yeah, it's product owner. They should be the single threaded leader. And that's the system that we laid out and are using. but I've been many organizations that have the shadow backlog where know my engineering manager says, you work for me on paper not the product owners. So I'm going ask to do whatever. Yeah. And now we're making that water a little more murky. Exactly. That's word was thinking about. Murky waters new. The new Demi wetsuit and murky waters. it's you messing with this water level to make things worse for everybody basically is what saying. And at point making things worse for everyone let's move on to my favorite category the team has process problem [UM] it's just a process problem with that team. OK, listen, it's accountability. The accountability it sounds like I'm being flippant. But also, I've been on these scenes where the engineering manager or the engineering lead just comes and pull somebody off middle sprint and like uses them for their secret project for two three days. And often does that happen And then act surprised when you, the product owner whatever, is pushing back to say hey, I need my guy. Oh, listen, you have process problem that you didn't push back hard enough. That's, that's like it's so it's, it's cynical that don't give credence. But also, it happens so often. Yeah. Yeah. More often not the behavior rational given the signal. The academic here is listen, with problem. Yeah. Yeah. Right. course. Yeah. corner. That's right. And then hey, change what you reward and you'll get behavior you want. That's practitioner here is if the engineering manager owns all the quote resources. they're one that rewards their bad behavior. of course, like you've to change that managing relationship. OK, So you're saying completely top bottom restructure org is what you're saying. Mr. Mrs. Practitioner, that's go over well. Yeah, right. Exactly. Yeah. been known for such long, time. Right? Skinner proposed it's this way back 1938 people do what's rewarded. But the same time, yeah, we, we don't really are we debating Skinnerian tactics podcast because I listen the rhythms. I'll do whole podcast on Skinnerian and Pavlovian and psychology. But I'm going to tell right now, don't think anybody would be interested in listening it. But I agree with I am 100 percent down for talking about rat studies and dog studies and talking about, oh this is totally people. like is it people? think it's dogs rats. don't think it's people. think it's dogs rats. And you're guessing that because dogs rats it, people do it too[UH] But corporate America, that guess is somewhat real because they do do I do this because that's you're expected. right. Can we be positive for second? about a process problem is usually leadership is punishing the very thing that it claims to want. That's, that's, that's, what normally hear process problem. So here what springs mind is, know, all the rules that exist in organizations like this is how you do things, especially in orbs that still gosh 2026 still have PMOs. this is what should do. This how you should work. Right. And they follow that to tee because they don't, they're punished. Oh, say that I was going agree you say they do fall out tee until they're under some kind stress or deadline or whatever. And then all that stuff gets thrown out. Quality is thrown out Roadmaps get thrown out. Whatever gets thrown out. Project plans get thrown out. whatever refactor with. What's word for you? Baseline That's right. Yeah like all stuff gets thrown out until somebody from leadership presses you. Oh, three weeks [UH] think can do that three days. then everyone shuffles. So yeah, like it's it's pitched as a process problem but usually it's not a problem process It's problem someone What what's damning term not manipulating process of meddling meddling process. That's damning term meddling, which is right term meddling with it. Like I hate this. Look, the other thing stance is that listen, people are rational. OK, if they're hedging or slow, that's because they're that they're just moving inside system. They're just navigating the system. That's what they're doing. Right. Just, know, not causing waves. put them navigate. put them a boat and give them wait. Was the coffee stir to, to, or as boat. Yeah, right. And then you're surprised that they're slow. OK, like I also think about this one in shops I've been in where they need 18 layers of approval to get anything done. You know, that's Yeah. Fixing the fix is coaching the leaders, not the team oh boy. What think about that one, Om? Listen, it's easy to write down, isn't it? Like this leadership coaching. just wrote it. Yeah, super easy. It's very easy write down. But in practice, you try coaching a leader, right? It is difficult probably more than we have time for the podcast. But a lot times people who try to do this hey leader Mr misleader this is you should be doing but you're doing this instead. And leaders just immediately shut down say, will you tell me what do Yeah I've been doing this for long time. Right? Yeah. But you've been doing wrong. You can't tell me that. Probably true. Right? So reframing that the point where you say, you're doing X and the result you're getting is Y. Are you happy with that? Right? If you're not, have you tried doing Y? Right? If you haven't, then how about we treat can back the whole experimentation mind? How about try doing this for month? And if doesn't work, we'll change it. But let's try that. right. They might just be willing to come along. So that is what have say about this People are rational. But same time, leaders need see the whims. What's it for them? Well, let's [UH] let's talk about what's it for them. So stop adding processes to fix dynamics start changing what your own behavior rewards and punishes your own behavior. That's a, that's a boy. That's a, that's broad statement right there. Like Ask what behavior you last punished and then match your actions with your goals. step number two, a we talked about is ask what behavior you last rewarded because you list that down and say, should I have really been egging people on to reward that kind behavior OK, ask, ask what behavior gets you in trouble here even when it's the right call. How about that one? Is it as a separate question answer, if your Because if your answer is like out of wack, like you have dynamics problem, that that's we're trying to call out this category have a dynamics problem. Otherwise known a quote culture problem. Culture like so encompassing of a word that it's useless. Sure Anyway, listen, this category here could been whole podcast. This category, deep, deep category. indeed. What your behavior in your workplace? that they want but then they quietly punish or maybe not so quietly punish. Is speed? Is it disagreement? Is it bad news delivered early? There's a lot things that sound good you know, to the agilists that reality you actually do. Yeah, it's those companies that swing mind where they say, know, have non-retaliatory policy around these things and open door. And when you do that, you suddenly find that person opened the door is no more there couple weeks later. So yeah, maybe because they went through the revolving. They did go through that and then come all way around. That's right. That's right. So and [UH] here's level everyone jumps to. First, most leaders skip the top two levels that talked about entirely and they dove straight into this one. When something feels off every leader, their first instinct is those, those two just don't get along These, we got separate this team. Oh yeah [UH][UH] Grant's point is pretty brutal. says most time that conflict was built upstairs up above the team upstairs you put two people in overlapping roles with conflicting goals And then you call it a quote personality clash. OK, the relationship isn't broken. The structure put them in that steel cage match. But this isn't coaching part. The real interpersonal conflict is also real. And pretending that it isn't is just going to sink your boat Om! Boy, I feel like now we're in hunger games That's what it feels like to me. I mean, there's quotes here. So thequotes from article, what looks like interpersonal conflict is actually being caused by something higher up the waterline. And the second quote here, the structural part, two people are stepping on each other's toes because the structure put them there. I can't even begin to remember to tell you how many teams I've been on where they put like a tech lead and a product lead in like clashing where you're like you're not sure where one person's role begins one person's role ends. Who gets call like well I call a technical and I get the call on prioritization. But some prioritization is technical. and like you know mean, now we're butting heads But now, now technical architect Om and product manager Brian we just have a people problem. We do. have separate these two. Put them on different teams. the people. Yes, indeed the system wasn't designed to, to like Om] decides in these, these specific positions and decisions. And Brian decides these. Yeah, it's that whole role definition, you know, and at end day, which team are batting for know, that that's what is. Are you a better fielder than you are pitcher? mean, you're same team. always bet for Brian. was just saying unless Clint's field. Then I'm kind on his I'm a kind Clint fan listen, the steel man. Listen, those two people, they just don't along. Listen, oh, some people just aren't get along. OK, that's the cynical side this. That's a great week later. It'll be like can we all just get along? I think if we had more time like we had like a like solid like record for three hours and it down two hours I would just like I would just I just chew the scenery with thisthis, this part of the podcast to say like tell about time where you were on team. Yes. And you had two people just didn't get along. then like you took them to lunch or you did like team building exercise or like you really like laid back to try like get the team on the same page. Like about some people that just like weren't working when you got there team and ended up where like everything was fine. I bet got at least three people. You're thinking of right at least least. Yes. You know, and that's that's this is like you built system that put these people against each other and then like couldn't be bothered to just fix the structure in which they're organized Everybody can see the problem. The sad thing here is that when the structure is set up in this malformed way, you'll see that people will just rotate through that. These two don't get along. Put on separate teams. Bring different people T plus one. Oh, these two don't get along. Yeah, it's like you haven't changed structure. That's crazy. The separate them to separate them. Impulse is crazy also because like if we all work the same place, it's like that's like that's like saying like we all live the same house. just separate them oh maybe can work night shift and I'll work day shift. Like how are going keep people work in the same house separate forever? And that's your solution. not. You're not. listening the podcast. That's probably their experience with this steelman is just keeping separated[UH] So didn't mean to sing the majority people offspring at everyone yeah, think missing out these is, you know, maybe just define roles little better. Yeah [UH] And I don't mean like have rigid guidelines that just say you should only do this not this because there are circumstances where you can talk to the other person say, know this not my thing, but here's my intake. Right It's like here's what I mean my insight rather What you think? Yeah, collaborate. You're talking about. So I flipped next slide. they don't get along. That is often code for. I gave them overlapping ownership and conflicting goals. Right? Again, talking about product manager, talking about product manager and the technical architect. I gave them overlapping ownership. You both own these business function outcomes want do or roadmap. And and I gave conflicting goals. One person's goal is get this out as fast possible. And the other person's goal is they make this as maintainable and extensible and everything far as tech net completely[UH] indeed. Indeed. So you did that in the structure. I've been gifted my career because I started on QA teams working directly with development. Yeah, like cross-functional teams with QA and development in the same team same Sprint. Right. I'm very lucky because I was highly technical. doing QA engineering type work. Highly technical. So this conflicting goal stuff, can see it the corner my eye when I'm doing my product management for business I can see that we're suffering on the technical aspect my developers staying up nights weekends stuff to keep this thing moving. it's just not sustainable. And I can understand and knock down those conflicting goals before they become a problem for the business. It's not skill that everybody has. Right. don't know future is product management, but mean, would hope that the future product management is getting better that, that bullet point. Number one, know, definitely. The second one here says check gauge before blaming the fighters who built the overlap. I think this is self-explanatory really. mean, you know, we don't have dwell on that one So the next one, the last one when systems sound and they're still a clash, it's real. And then coaching gets direct. Yeah. So now you've gone to the lowest level of that strata in the in the model. Right Which is good because lot times people go straight here, especially coaches. They go straight here say, yeah, let me talk you about this. Right? It's like you haven't addressed the real problem here. bad coaches which is which is what was that period my career when thought agile coach. It's But my head I heard like I'm go straight problem and try to coach straight the problem. But the issue is you're skipping the top two levels and not straight to the problem. Right? Yeah, you're There's no way. was there too at that point my career. And all you're doing is really snapping to the point where you feel like can make biggest impact. Right? She can't make biggest impact when you get straight the real root this problem. But you can just talk people say hey listen you just like we all get along? No, that doesn't do it. but that's what learned in quote unquote coaching school. if there is a takeaway here, stop diagnosing personality clashes and start checking whether the structure built the conflict. OK, you map both roles ownership for overlap. I'm not saying that have to completely what's called deconflict. I'm not saying completely like disentangle the overlap. Some overlap is fine. No problem. I'm just saying check whether the incentives are pulling in opposite directions to solve that overlap. Right. then and then you can address the relationships directly only after. Right. It's really number three is number three. Yeah, I agree. Absolutely. Right. And so I have try this. says when get back work Whatever day might be listening to take the last quote. Those two clash situation that wrote off and map whether their roles overlap or their goals conflict. And if you can try it, you ask we put these two in position where they have to fight other? That's that's question can ask to identify. Hey maybe we, we've caused this conflict as opposed to, know, oh, it's just Om and Brian. Don't get along. If because I've, I've heard this so many times not, not, not from me directly. oh Brian XYZ, don't along it's just like I've heard this so many times I'm oh, from quote unquote leaders. Yeah, it's just like [UH] now it's so clear They're like, oh, that's just like leadership abdicating what they should been doing. So know the comments like when's the last time you saw a quote personality clash that was obviously two people fighting over an ownership line that nobody in management or whatever the system ever drew clearly for them. Right. And then name the setup, not the people. That's we're trying say. So only after you've[UH] cut out the system and the conflict we're talking about with role overlap does come back to an individual person. And That's bottom ocean as far this model goes. And that's where the, the model either earns keep or gets used as a weapon. And you know, when we're using models weapons yes. You know, that's when I'm most excited on the podcast to talk about Let's talk about Graham's. So in quote, in quote here, says once the system is sound, clarity and decisiveness are kinder than dragging things out. And then the trap she names at top whole piece says blaming people for problems that are actually structural is one biggest leadership traps that there is. And oh boy, all this segues back to Deming's the crisis. We did whole podcast on this one was arguing agile one ninety nine. W. Edwards Deming's profound knowledge for transforming organizations. We also did arguing agile 181 181 Deming's 14 points. The management revolution needed 40 years ago. We did the ninety nine January 22nd twenty twenty five. Wow. So this quote once system is sound clarity and decisiveness are kinder than dragging things out like think about that. Right. And then the other one that she names blaming people for problems that are actually structural is one of the biggest leadership traps there is. I feel like real life the word traps substituted by secrets that this what leaders do pretty much regularly routinely. Right It's like this is what to leadership school for because you don't look the mirror and you don't point yourself. so it's this that you do. It's not me because I'm too busy yachting. Listen, we just haven't found the right model yet. And then the academic to say, make it individual only after the entire system is sound. You need to just give me all the right requirements before we write a bit of code and get everything completely right. But then, then like I feel middle ground here, the practitioner middle ground is say knowing isn't the gap. It's the nerve to act. It's like know the system is not a hundred] percent right. Yeah. And you have to be willing to like meddle and fool around with it. It's never going be perfect. OK, got to keep messing with it I think this one has most weight for me. Got to jiggle handle. Yeah, yeah So we've known about damning stuff for 40 plus years. But largely ignored it. We still care. Yeah, we don't care. Exactly. Yeah, the practitioner wins my view here, right? Knowing isn't gap because we've known the knowledge issue. Deming told us, So like our stance here. OK. I'm with you practitioner side. Like if if if there's any complaining that anyone can do, like practitioner kind wins that one. There some organizations. Yes, that the framework is weak and are not willing act on it. Sure. And larger the organization gets, the more that gravity pulls back down planet Earth. I understand. OK, but like orgs blaming individuals because it's cheaper than like changing the system or cheaper than don't even know it's cheaper than changing system because like I just said that changing the system is much cheaper than changing individual. And I think now that we're down here bottom. Cheap is not the word though. It's easier. Oh, OK, OK. Right No, [UH] It's so easy to just blame individual or change the system. I'm going with cheaper because it's very expensive to change out individuals. It is quite expensive opposed just like change little bit your process and like clarify roles and goals [UH] that's that seems so easy compared to we're going to excise an entire person. Yeah. That's, that's insanity. most time the system is so engrained and entrenched the org trying to change that becomes almost Herculean. It might seem like it's easy, small changes, tweaks the process here and there, but can't do that, especially at scale in hurry. You know that's the problem. is the bottom line here that have on our stance. It says the bottom level is also where the model is most right. When the systems sound act fast and kindly like people will act kindly and help other people. And that's just like that's that's lowest level human nature. Given the prevailing conditions Right. Yeah. Yeah. People will help other people. And that's that's the wild part like the upper levels can pervert downwards, you know. But it's, it's saying we hire right people on the lowest level they'll do right thing at the lowest level. so do have take here? I think we do. So take away. says stop diving to the individual level first, which is think that's way started this podcast and start asking whether your org acts on the diagnosis. It already has. have three steps here. Recall your last quote people problem firing. identify what your organization been doing. And then you ask, did we already know that was structural? And and if did or didn't, you named what stopped you fixing the structure. So you need to, when you say, oh, had get rid person. Now I'm forcing you to dive through all the different layers to say where do all these different pieces fail to get that person and do that last. Right? Yes. Right. Because had that last. Yeah, that. proposes a people change. You ask what we already know is structural here that we're choosing not to fix. And if you can't ask that out loud here that you're already avoiding and you're not now have before anyone another line There's a diagnosis questioning that have figure out your honor. Indeed. And if you've been struggling this for while, we always fall back to that[UH] nugget of advice that we always have on broadcast. Oh, what is that? That resume [UH] Oh yeah. Got to keep that resume updated. Listen, if you've sat in room where everyone knew what the problem was like structurally knew what the problem was and then you, you watch them get rid of person anyway. what's stopped that room from fixing the actual thing or pushing back and fixing the actual thing? That's, that's kind I want to know. we started this podcast by calling it Deming in wetsuit, which just, it's little funny, quirky little thing say. But but the meaning, we mean it as a compliment to this article. like this article. That's reason decided podcast. We dove into whole model top down. but the reality framework is It's a 40 year old. It's free. Read the Deming books. Pretty good. Like you can copy four levels of a blog. You can listen our podcast. Same thing I just want ask like before get here [UM] there is a piece this that has gone unsaid in this podcast. like there's the identifying things. But then there's like coaching, like the nerve to act and actually like get there and fix these things and say, hey we seem be getting rid these people. But I think there's structural or interpersonal or whatever issue you know, think if you're internal to an organization and witnessing this sort thing the will to act might not come forth because you are afraid to lose job. Sure what might work is to hear it from somebody external to the org and they hear the same message. That's fine. Yeah, but things there. It's not coming from internal. two, they're paying the advice. So they hear the same thing from someone else and say, hey, you need pay attention to some these structural issues. I think that might hold some traction so that be something you consider when you're these people go, try and escalate or elevate the cost of doing that because talked about that little bit. That's not the cheapest option. Right? Try that and say instead that, can we just try fixing some part of our process, some part of our structure. Please don't in and say it's our culture and need to change it because nobody's going give you time day. Right. So yeah, those are those my takeaways. think from this obviously other than fact that know Deming was a sage. attention to what he's saying. So yeah, pay