I love words. I really, really love words. I like poetry, and reading, and writing, and conversations, and songs with words in, and puns and wordplay and anagrams. I like learning words in different languages, and finding out where words came from, and watching them change over time.
I love the effect that words have on our minds and our models of our world. I love that words have connotations, and that changing the language we use can actually change our models and help us behave in different ways.
Language is a strange thing. It turns out that if you don’t learn language before the age of 5, you never really learn language; the constructs for it are set up in our brains at a very early age.
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson propose in their book, “Metaphors we Live By”, that all human language is based on metaphorical constructs. I don’t pretend to understand the book fully, and I believe there’s some contention about whether its premise truly holds, but I still found it a fascinating book, because it’s about words.
There was one bit which really caught my attention. “Events and actions are conceptualized metaphorically as objects, activities as substances, states as containers… activities are viewed as containers for the actions and other activities that make them up.” They give some examples:
I put a lot of energy into washing the windows.
Outside of washing the windows, what else did you do?
This fascinated me. I started seeing substances, and containers, everywhere!
I couldn’t do much testing before the end of the sprint.
As if “testing” was a substance, like cheese… we wanted 200g of testing, but we could only get 100g. And a sprint is a timebox – we even call it a box! I think in software, and with Agile methods, we do this even more.
The ticket was open for three weeks, but I’ve closed it now.
How many stories are in that feature?
It’s outside the scope of this release.
Partly I think this is because we like to decompose problems into smaller problems, because that helps us solve them more easily, and partly because we like to bound our work so that we know when we’re “done”, because it’s satisfying to be able to take responsibility for something concrete (spot the substance metaphor) and know you did a good job. There’s probably other reasons too.
There’s only one problem with dividing things into boxes like this: complexity.
In complex situations, problems can’t be decomposed into small pieces. We can try, for sure, and goodness knows enough projects have been planned that way… but when we actually go to do the work, we always make discoveries, and the end result is always different to what we predicted, whether in functionality or cost and time or critical reception or value and impact… we simply can’t predict everything. The outcomes emerge as the work is done.
I was thinking about this problem of decomposition and the fact that software, being inherently complex, is slightly messy… of Kanban, and our desire to find flow… of Cynthia Kurtz’s Cynefin pyramids… and of my friend and fellow coach, Katherine Kirk, who is helping me to see the world in terms of relationships.
It seemed to me that if a complex domain wasn’t made up of the sum of its parts, it might be dominated by the relationship between those parts instead. In Cynthia Kurtz’s pyramids, the complex domain is pictured as if the people on the ground get the work done (self-organizing teams, for instance) but have a decoupled hierarchical leader.
I talked to Dave Snowden about this, and he pointed me at one of his newer blog posts on containing constraints and coupling constraints, which makes more sense as the hierarchical leader (if there is one!) isn’t the only constraint on a team’s behaviour. So really, the relationships between people are actually constraints, and possibly attractors… now we’re getting to the limit of my Cynefin knowledge, which is always a fun place to be!
Regardless, thinking about work in terms of boxes tends to make us behave as if it’s boxes, which tends to lead us to treat something complex as if it’s complicated, which is disorder, which usually leads to an uncontrolled dive into chaos if it persists, and that’s not usually a good thing.
So I thought… what if we broke the boxes? What would happen if we changed the metaphor we used to talk about work? What if we focused on people and relationships, instead of on the work itself? What would that look like?
Let’s take that “testing” phrase as an example:
I couldn’t do much testing before the end of the sprint.
In the post I made for the Lean Systems Society, “Value Streams are Made of People”, I talked about how to map a value stream from the users to the dev team, and from the dev team back to the users. I visualize the development team as living in a container. So we can do the same thing with testing. Who’s inside the “testing” box?
Let’s say it’s a tester.
Who’s outside? Who gets value or benefits from the testing? If the tester finds nothing, there was no value to it (which we might not know until afterwards)… so it’s the developer who gets value from the feedback.
So now we have:
I couldn’t give the devs feedback on their work before the end of the sprint.
And of course, that sprint is also a box. Who’s on the inside? Well, it’s the dev team. And who’s on the outside? Why can’t the dev team just ship it to the users? They want to get feedback from the stakeholders first.
So now we have:
I couldn’t give the devs feedback on their work before the stakeholders saw it.
I went through some of the problems on PM Stackexchange. Box language, everywhere. I started making translations.
Should multiple Scrum teams working on the same project have the same start/end dates for their Sprints?
Does it help teams to co-ordinate if they get feedback from their stakeholders, then plan what to do next, at the same time as each other?
Interesting. Rephrasing it forced me to think about the benefits of having the same start/end dates. Huh. Of course, I’m having to make some assumptions in both these translations as to what the real problem was, and with who; there are other possibilities. Wouldn’t it have been great if we could have got the original people experiencing these problems to rephrase them?
If we used this language more frequently, would we end up focusing a little less on the work in our conceptual “box”, and more on what the next people in the stream needed from us so that they could deliver value too?
I ran a workshop on this with a pretty advanced group of Kanban coaches. I suggested it probably played into their explicit process policies. “Wow,” one of them said. “We always talk about our policies in terms of people, but as soon as we write them down… we go back to box language.”
Of course we do. It’s a convenient way to refer to our work (my translations were inevitably longer). We’re often held accountable and responsible for our box. If we get stressed at all we tend to worry more about our individual work than about other people (acting as individuals being the thing we do in chaos) and there’s often a bit of chaos, so that can make us revert to box language even more.
But I do wonder how much less chaos there would be if we commonly used language metaphors of people and relationships over substance and containers.
If, for instance, we made sure the tester had what they needed from us devs, instead of focusing on just our box of work until it’s “done”… would we work together better as a team?
If we realised that the cost might be in the people, but the value’s in the relationships… would we send less work offshore, or at least make sure that we have better relationships with our offshore team members?
If we focused on our relationship with users and stakeholders… would we make sure they have good ways of giving feedback as part of our work? Would we make it easier for them to say “thank you” as a result?
And when there’s a problem, would a focus on improving relationships help us to find new things to try to improve how our work gets “done”, too?
Great post Liz, it reminds me very much of the Alicia Juarrero quote “Meaning exists in the interaction between things, not in the things themselves”
Pingback: Five Blogs – 9 November 2016 – 5blogs
Great article, Liz! A fantastic insight into how language shapes how we think
Pingback: Java Web Weekly, Issue 150 | Baeldung
Nice post. It seems to me that when we use Clean Language to ask “what kind of …” or “is there anything else about…” we are “breaking the box” to learn more about the metaphor and what it means to the person using it. Sometimes they themselves are unaware of these “unknown knowns”.
Nice article Liz. It’s making me wonder if I can think of dependencies between teams as relationships as well, rather than “just waiting for them again”. I’m going to see how I can put that into practice. Thanks.
Liz another aspect that is a problem is that few can understand our language when we codify it in a way normal people can’t understand. Every profession creates a lingo because it can work as shorthand for communication, but it also isolates us.
As Agile Coaches our number one aim should be the people first, the product and services second. And people here includes everyone, even the customer we are building stuff for. Breaking boxes for me is about communicating, not being dogmatic, and getting quality things that benefit people 😉