It switched from operating public number " Ctrip Technology Center PMO " (ID: cso_pmo)
At present, more and more companies try to agile transformation, also encountered a variety of obstacles. After personal study organizational behavior, we found that too much attention to specific practices. We will focus on stations, user stories, kanban, continuous integration, pair programming, red and green practices to solve these specific problems of reconstruction. However, a large, successful business goals, these practices only the last part of the success factors of the organization there are more obstacles are far from resolved. So, where is the root cause?
"Color", exclusive of the "empty"?
Adam Smith in 1766 describes the "division of labor" can greatly enhance the efficiency of industrial production [1], Taylor proposed "standardized", "fixed" [2], the time is 1895 to 1911; Weber "Division - stratified "" centralization - unity "," command - obedience "[3], the time is 1920; Fayueerti the pyramid organizational structure," planning, organizing, directing, controlling, forecasting, "time is 1925. And Le Pen [4] and study the psychological aspects of McDougall [5] for the next industrial mode of production clusters, blindly follow the crowd, irresponsible, low intelligence and so, just close to the time also appeared with the three classic management theory from 1895 to 1920.
Related works described phenomenon, the theory put forward, even in the current so-called "modern enterprise", the also abound and deep-rooted. For example, "The Wealth of Nations", we only remember the "division of labor to enhance the efficiency of the production of nails 4800 times" this case has significant limitations of the times, it will imprison "professional people to do professional things," the division of labor in the mode of thinking [6]. In the "Management 1.0" to "3.0" of evolution, including a Hawthorne experiments (1924), Parkinson's Law (1957), Peter Principle (1969), Red Bead Experiment (1982) and a series of studies to explore "management 1.0 "the problems, but unfortunately we rarely update these management concepts in it.
How! We try to learn and use millennium after the "agile", and the understanding of individual enterprise business organizations are also common 100 years ago (WTF!), Then we may have to do things well, do it right? is it possible?
Martin Fuller of the famous programmer "agile essence." [7] described as such: agile development is adaptive rather than predictive; people-oriented, not process-based. Fuller explained that, to some extent, shows that each school of management to continue to develop on the basis of the three classic management theory, but their position is not static.
Emphasis on process management and process management functions of school-based management science school of mathematical quantitative analysis, in the era of relying on new technology VUCA Jidoka, artificial intelligence evolution to the SPC APC and show a new charm. However, analysis of contingency theory school context interactive, pay attention to practice of empiricism school, relationships with psychology backgrounds - behavioral school focused on management theory and other more human, subject to further attention in the new era. "Agile" idea is not suddenly pop out from the stone monkey, let alone since even if the boulder is exalted by naively show, Nissei Yuet Wah yet.
In Buddhism, the color refers to the physical nature of the appearance, nature can not be empty refers to the figurative. Since it is "color does not vary empty, empty is not heterochromatic," it does not solve the organization in which people understand the problems of management, promote only tool figurative, methods, frameworks, that agile transformation may be the only replacement of some of the visible term only . Various new name of the puppet "Agile practices" nature everywhere.
Change from old to start
Long-popular knowledge, there may be a need to re-examine. To get rid of people believe, the wrong understand, personally I think that approach is relatively easy to research the original. For example, we believe that the waterfall model (Water Fall) is sacred, so long as the so-called waterfall model author Winston Royce's paper [8] to find out the show can be. The original author is, "I firmly believe that there is a risk of implementation and above will bring failure." It shocked you, the author of the so-called waterfall model, is simply to do so in the question! The model he wanted to set out in the paper, it is the iterative. Some people want to Royce put on the "waterfall model author" crown. Why is there such a "full glory", to whom this is good, it is worth pondering.
There are many such stories. For example, perhaps the CMMI process management in practice directed out of the question, who think there is a problem? CMMI is the Institute itself. Deming's PDCA loop needs to be improved [9], who questioned it? Deming is yourself. Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory, after a layer needs met, another needs to appear, who feel that the reference to the need to re-examine it [10]? Maslow himself.
如果一个观点连作者本人都觉得可能存在问题需要更新，那我们又为什么对进入脑海已久的知识坚信不疑，而不保留自己的独立思考呢？
重建思想，引导变革
旧的思想破了，接下来考虑如何去重建。如果仍然一股脑儿把新的思想、新的理解塞到组织中个体的脑子里，再加以行政手段强迫接受，这么做容易引起抵触和反感。让组织中的个体保留思考和质疑，才可能是好的途径。否则今天重建的认知，就将会成为明天改进的阻碍。使用教练和引导技术，让团队学会自己思考问题，得到他们未曾思考过的答案，并激发它们的潜力。
教练的公式是“绩效=潜力-障碍”[11]。教练和引导是较为新的技术，可能需要重新学习和实践。但不管是否想好该如何激发员工潜力，至少可以先尝试减少障碍。去除不必要的、不增值的活动，以及支撑这些有问题活动的流程规范。逐步移除团队获取更高绩效所遇到的“管理1.0”障碍。
在变革过程中也时刻需要关注破旧。戴明在终身与“流行的管理体系”斗争、马丁·富勒在担心“工业综合体”，以及原本中立的PDCA、CMMI由原作者进行改变来抵抗它们被用作负面的实践。传统的组织观念中我们需要“人事经理”——哪怕它们一点也不了解如何管理人员[12]去把庞大的个体们组织起来，这也是老的（而不是现代的）管理过程学派、管理科学学派拥护者所希望的：用职能和流程把个体们“管理“起来，再用数据去度量他们而不用考虑个体们的想法。
变革保障：安全感
当然，任何变革都会遇到阻力，包括变革过程中需要大量学习以接受新的知识。这里，又将使用到管理学的武器：按照马斯洛晚年的理解，在心理安全时，才会形成成长吸引；反之，在心理不安全时，会畏惧成长，回避知识、回避责任[13]。这也是麦格雷戈指出的：不要错误地把安全需求（safety needs）理解为安保需求（security needs）。管理者存在任意的管理行为而导致：不稳定的雇佣关系、不公平、歧视、无法遇见政策实施效果，等等，这些都会引发人们对安全的需求，即使管理者自己也不例外[14]。结合马斯洛的心理学观点和邦克的变革管理观点[15]，则可发现心理安全与变革适应性存在一定对应关系：
为什么明知道有好的方法却不愿意改变？为什么没有想法没有创新？为什么团队成员明明没有工作在假加班？为什么中层领导不愿意转型自组织？这些问题使用人际关系学派和行为学派的观点似乎能够找到病症根源和解决之道。
总结
我们遇到问题的症结，大多在于“空”，而不在于“色”。尝试去理解“空”，才能更容易地找到解决方案。在敏捷转型的过程中，具体的某一个敏捷实践恐怕不是最需要去了解的。我们迫切地需要了解的是，这百年管理学、心理学究竟发生了哪些新的改变、产生哪些新的理解，并告诉大家：“大人，时代变了！”
参考文献
[1]Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations
[2]Taylor, FrederickWinslow. The Principles of Scientific Management
[3]Fayol, Henri. Industrial and General Administration
[4]Le Bon, Gustave. The Crowd: A Study of thePopular Mind
[5]McDougall, William. The Group Mind
[6]http://www.myzaker.com/article/5841006a7f780bfe2800004f
[7]Fowler,Martin.“The Essence of Agile Software” martinfowler.com<https://martinfowler.com/agile.html>
[8]Royce, Winston. Managing the Development of Larger Software Systems
[9]https://deming.org/explore/p-d-s-a
[10]Maslow,Abraham.“TheoryZ”<http://www.maslow.org/sub/theoryz.php>
[11]Whitmore, John. Coaching for Performance: ThePrinciples and Practice of Coaching and Leadership
[12]Appelo, Jurgen. Management 3.0, Leading Agile Developers, DevelopingAgile Leaders
[13]Maslow, Abraham. Toward a Psychology of Being
[14]McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise
[15]Bunker, Kerry.Responses to Change：Helping PeopleManage Transition
推荐阅读
部分图片及电子书来源于网络，版权归原作者所有，仅供学习勿作它用。如果侵犯到您的权益，请联系我们。