4/6/2023 0 Comments Pokerth discussion boards![]() Now that we were familiar with the practice, we first identified all types of decisions we thought we should discuss, which resulted in this table:ĭuring the Delegation Poker, some interesting discussions took place. So with each new entry on the board, I would have one vote and the team would have one vote. This worked very well, and we soon had our first entry on the board: We used three different corners in the room and started with multi-dimensional Delegation Poker: We not only had to show the card reflecting our opinion in numbers, we also had to walk to the corner signifying the group being empowered. The whole team? A subset of the team? Each individual? However, we still had to figure out who exactly would get the right to veto. This felt better and more democratic than just leaving the power with the manager, so we were all happy. So both the team and I have a veto right, and neither they nor I can decide on a specific level without the other party. It took a while to get used to delegation poker, but finally we agreed on “Agree”. Therefore, we started pokering the question: “Who has the final say about delegation levels?” I didn’t like this rule, because we would start a new practice exercising old beliefs while trying to establish agile management thinking. The Management 3.0 rules of delegation poker state, that the manager has the final say on what delegation level to choose. We then started figuring out what level of empowerment was appropriate. The difference to “consensus” is, that in a consent situation it is okay to be neutral while in a consensus situation every single person has to actively agree. Whenever a group was empowered, we decided that the group could only exercise it with a “consent”, meaning that every single person has the right to veto a decision, but not everybody has to agree. Everybody affected by the decision, as a team.We reached the conclusion that, for our purposes, we needed three different groups who could be empowered: Once we understood all levels, a discussion on level four and higher embarked: Who exactly was the one being empowered? “The team” is such a vague term that it could mean anything and nothing. Inquire: The team makes the decision, but I will ask about it and will be informed.ĭelegate: I don’t even need to know about the decision, the team handles such matters themselves. So effectively, each has a right to veto, only consensus leads to a decision being made.Īdvise: I will give my opinion to the team, but they decide and I have to follow. Still, the team has to follow.Ĭonsult: While I still make the decision, I will ask my team before I decide.Īgree: Both the team and I have to agree. Sell: I make the decision, but I explain why I made it this way. Tell: I tell the team what I decided and they have to go with it. ![]() Once we added the perspective (the one sharing his power), consensus followed quickly. In the beginning, this was not easy, because we were not clear about the perspective from which the levels must be seen. We discussed what each level means until we reached consensus. Then we put a brown paper onto the wall and created the 7-level-grid on it. The first thing we did was to print out delegation cards. This context framed our decision to use a Delegation Board and to determine which decisions to put on it. We are doing agile consulting, so usually we are helping customers during the week and use our Fridays to work together and learn from each other. Our team consists of nine people, including me, the team’s manager. This post shares our experience with this practice. A delegation board can be used to bring transparency into how the team takes on empowerment. Management 3.0 offers a very practical method to avoid chaos in this matter: Delegation Boards. When trying to set up self-organizing teams, authority has to be handed over.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |