Ignore “Values & Principles”, Focus on Virtues

Agile and Lean brought wonderful things to the world of software development. But I sometimes cringe when I see enumerations of “agile values” or “lean principles”. Every time they are different, and every time they make no sense to me.

The Agile Manifesto mentions trust in its twelve principles. But Mary and Tom Poppendieck have a special place for respect among their seven principles of lean software development. There is no mention of trust in the lean principles, and there is no mention of respect in the agile principles. Why the difference? I’m quite certain that trust and respect are not synonyms. I trust my dictionary. But I don’t respect it.

Unfortunately, the confusion doesn’t stop there… Kent Beck’s short list of five values of Extreme Programming contains communication, simplicity, feedback, courage, and respect. (Note that trust is not among them!) But Ken Schwaber’s list of five values of Scrum has replaced three of those with commitment, focus, and openness. What are the agile gurus trying to accomplish here? Should we now discuss which values are better than other values? Or should we just merge them all into one big list and get it over with?

When you dig a bit deeper into this topic you will soon figure out that trust, respect, courage, commitment, focus, and openness are all examples of human virtues. They are personality traits that we value as being good. But there are more! In fact, there’s a whole legion of them, including appreciation, assertiveness, benevolence, caution, chastity, cleanliness, cooperativeness, curiosity, determination, encouragement, excellence, fairness, fitness, flexibility, generosity, honesty, honor, humor, integrity, loyalty, nonviolence, patience, resilience, respectfulness, responsibility, restraint, self-discipline, sincerity, skill, sympathy, truthfulness, wisdom, and many more.

Trust-vagawi-3155400274 Does Agile place “trust” on a higher level than the other virtues? Is “respect” singled out in Lean because it is the mother of everything? Does Scrum have a better list than XP because the communication, simplicity and feedback mentioned by XP are actions and qualities, rather than human virtues? Are other virtues, like excellence, flexibility, honesty, humor, responsibility, self-discipline, and skill somehow less important in agile and lean?

I think four times no. The gurus probably never really bothered to look into this topic. They could have picked some other set of five virtues, like excellence, honesty, responsibility, self-discipline, and humor (I would definitely leave out chastity), and it wouldn’t have made a difference for agile and lean adoption around the world. Or would it? I have repeatedly claimed that technical excellence and self-discipline are wrongfully assumed by agile, and rarely made explicit. But I digress…

Researchers found that creativity is a product of knowledge, motivation, and personality. In any project team, knowledge can only lead to innovation when people’s personalities and motivations are properly addressed. That is one of the main reasons virtues are important. They are part of people’s personalities, and they have big consequences for other people’s motivations.

Choosing either trust or respect, or some other limited set of virtues, is a too simplistic approach to address personalities and motivations. The world is more complex than that. Software projects benefit from some virtues being shared by all team members. But creativity also benefits when there is a healthy dose of diversity of personalities (and virtues) in the team. And what a good thing that is! Agile recognizes that we’re all human. We’re not saints, nor robots. We cannot be virtuous in every dimension. (Nonviolence is the one I struggle most with, when there are government officials around.)

Don’t be fooled by arbitrary sets of values or principles. As a manager, depending on the context, you should pick your own set of human virtues to focus on in your teams organization. Just remember that agile values are not a fixed set of twelve, seven, or five items. But you probably know me by now. My blog is about complexity, not about simple answers.

Note: I changed "organization" to "teams" as I believe the virtues should be selected with the teams, and agreed upon by the teams. (And they can also differ per team)…

(pictures by babasteve and vagawi)

Twitter TwitterRss SubscribeEmail NewsletterDelicious Bookmarks

Latest, greatest and favoritest posts:
On Paper I Was Once a Millionaire
ScrumButs Are the Best Part of Scrum
Managing Risk vs. Managing Yourself
  • The Three Phases of Creativity
  • Innovation is the Key to Survival
Related Posts
free book
“How to Change the World”
  • http://profile.typepad.com/6p0120a56cdea0970b Jeremy Kriegel

    I think that company ‘core values’ statements that were in vogue some years ago aimed to address this on a more local level. Perhaps their failure shares the same root problem as what you outline here.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/jurgenappelo Jurgen Appelo

    No, I most definately do _not_ agree with top-down corporate “core values” approach. That doesn’t work.
    They have to be “team values”, coming from the team, not from the CEO. But they can be anything, not just the limited few listed by the gurus.

  • http://agilesoftwarequalities.blogspot.com/ Scott Duncan

    I believe that when teams are asked to develop a “charter” to list their agreements on the values and principles they will adhere to in their work, that this may meet your recommendation “pick your own set of human virtues to focus on.”
    The original Manifesto Values and Principles were an attempt to identify what people from a variety of method backgrounds could agree upon as foundational for software development as they say it (and called it “Agile”). I do not believe they were intending to create an exhaustive list of personal/moral behavioral characteristics for all interpersonal relationships.
    I believe they felt that reasonable people who could accept the foundational Vs & Ps could be relied upon to come up with acceptable, effective broader sets for themselves.
    And while I do not believe trust and respect are the same thing, I believe it would be difficult to have one without the other when it comes to interpersonal relationships. My “relationship” with my dictionary is of a different sort than with other human beings (though, clearly, the dictionary exists because of the work of other human beings). However, trust for a dictionary can be decided fairly easily through certain easy to understand factual criteria — though I doubt any of us actually apply that criteria and assume others have applied it to allow the dictionary to be published in the first place.
    But for human-to-human relationships, I believe Agile’s self-organizing principle assumes people, as I noted above, can be relied upon to adopt/adapt behavior as they feel works for them. The formal Vs & Ps, as I noted in my blog a couple days ago, are a “touchstone” for team-created/adopted specific behavior/practice: http://agilesoftwarequalities.blogspot.com/2009/09/there-is-no-definition-of-agile-hooey.html.

  • http://javadots.blogspot.com/2008/07/finally-definition-for-good-program.html Itay Maman

    I think the key statement here is “Agile recognizes that we’re all human”. It summarizes a theme common to all agile methodologies which is the importance of the human factor in the creation of quality software.
    In some sense, agile methods say something along these lines: we don’t have a recipe for good software, but if you take good programmers and let them work in the right environment (physical, cultural, professional) they will come up with a good software.
    Like you, I believe that values are emphasised by the gurus just as the vehicle which delivers the “human factor” message.

How to Change the World - free Workout - free