Self-Evaluation and Performance Review

What if combine two things with different purpose into one and the same activity?

combine_formPurpose of Self Evaluation

If I want to improve, grow capabilities, expanding knowledge, challenge behavior, utilize my greatness and in short become a better person it helps to know about myself. Create an awareness of my strength and what I have a desire to improve. In order to succeed being a better person motivation is equally important. Awareness and Motivation is key. As I am more likely to find motivation to change something I identify, it’s more important that it’s my own finding, rather than it’s the absolute most critical one. That is the idea with Self Evaluation.

self-assessment_Homer The purpose is to support you to develop yourself by building self-awareness while maintain motivation to improve.

Purpose of Performance Evaluation

In its best form it’s to find out if all my efforts paid off. Did I get the result I wanted? Any corrections to do to perform better? BUT that is not how it is used most of the time. The most common purpose of performance evaluation is for the employer to set salaries.

Combining the two

So, what is happening if we combine those two in the same activity and dialog with your salary setting manager? I am asked to do a self-evaluation which is the base for performance evaluation which is base for my salary setting. Knowing this self-evaluation is affecting my money – of course I end up in the sell-mode. Time to make a good impression! Not only for the money, it’s also to get my manager to trust me, let me work on interesting assignments. Good for me if my manager knows I’m great.


NOW, let me add another observation: In order to base the salaries on the performance evaluation the company sometimes come up with the idea that the result must be according to a certain distribution, i.e. there can only be a certain percentage of top-performers, great-performers and average performers. This have an interesting effect on the self-evaluation and performance reviews.

This is what’s happening

  1. I evaluate myself on the very positive side because I know this affects my salary and my possibilities to work with interesting things. (The purpose is no longer self-development and improvement)
  2. The manager can comment and reflect but as it is an self-evaluation I have the last word and I will hold on to my view.
  3. Now the manager have to bring this self-evaluation and compare it against all others self-evaluations and check it against the company’s distribution of performance reviews.
  4. It may (understatement) turn out that there are too many top and great performers so the manager have to go back to the employee (me) and tell that: “- You thought you were good in this but actually you are NOT.


  •  No benefit from the self-awareness (as you are in selling mode)
  •  No fair performance evaluation as it is relative to your colleagues
  •  Motivation is probably gone when your manager is telling you are not performing as you think

What will the company gain with a process where you have to tell people they are not so good as they think!? How is it good for the company to let the self-evaluation be useless? Wouldn’t the company perform better if we all thought we were top-notch-great?

TEAM_toppick_cropTo win the World Championship, is it a good strategy by the coach to tell the players that they are not so good as they think they are? Is that how to create a winning team?

Mixing self-evaluation and performance review into the same activity will most likely have a negative effect on performance.

(There are probably no companies that have this setup, but if they do, I hope they re-think before all talent people are gone.)


Posted in agileHR, assessment, awareness, Change, communication, Evaluation, Leadership, Organizaition, Performance Measurement, self-awerness | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Some thoughts about self-assessment

I googled for some ready made question sets about the subject, but could not find any “full set” that would suit my needs. So, here is a collection of questions that You might find suitable for You.

The questions are divided to two parts; first part of the questions are only for You to answer. The second part is a basis for feedback.

I personally tested this set in a “safe environment” with one colleague i trust (we actually answered all of the questions together). Now i have a clear vision for what i should continue on and what i should stop or change.

Here goes:

1. Questions for you to answer about you:

1.a Identify what you like most about your current job

1.b What accomplishment and achievements are you the most proud of this year/period/etc? (It really does not have to be done 100% by you)

1.c Identify the components of your job you would like to change or eliminate. Why?

1.d Can any of those things you want to eliminate or change be translated into a goal for you? List.

2. Questions for yourself AND others

2.a Participation and contribution to the team/community?

2.b Impact on others?

2.c Key development areas?

It took me & my peer 2 hours to answer the questions, and i think it was time well spent.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Are YOU lean? – The Lean Driving Test

Lean Awareness in Driving


Transforming to Agile and Lean is far beyond changes in methods and processes. It’s equally, if not more, about changes in behavior and culture. A  organizational change or process change is not enough, changes in our self as individuals needs to happen sooner or later. The culture is built on behavior by individuals.


Well, have you transformed in to a Lean behaving person?

Consider yourself as driver in one of the four cars A-D:

Driver in A:
You are driving exactly as the speed-limit prescribes. No matter if it would be possible and safe to go much faster – you stick to the plan (speed limit). You are still in command and control, a sense and adapt lean person will try to run faster as long it’s not jeopardize safety(or risking a too expensive fine).

Driver in B:
You try to use your engine’s power and the car’s brake capabilities as much as possible. Your go as fast as possible in every second, you try to stick as close as possible to the bumper of the car in front of you. You will have the highest top speed (very occasionally) of all cars at the road. This feels very active and requires you to be on your toes and take active operative decisions every second. You are optimizing on resource usage. You believe pushing the most out of the engine and your brakes is equal to get to your destination as fast as possible. You are one of those that creates congestion and queues out of nothing. The risk to make the system collapse for hours due to car crashes is substantial increased . 

Driver in C:
You avoid to use the breaks. You try to push the engine just enough to leave room between you and the car in front of you so you don’t need to hit the break on the complete journey. Your car is going roughly at the same speed all the way. If the car in front of you keeps the limit, that will be your speed as well. If the car in front of you goes faster – you will. You will keep a distance just to even out the changes in speed the car in front of you might have. You know that the fastest way to get to the destination is not about speed it’s about not to break and keep all cars around you in a steady flow. You got it!

Driver in D:
You just have to rush and overtake C so you can get to the queue a bit earlier and by that gain exactly one position in the queue. You feel the urge to constantly change lanes in queues because the other one seems to go just a bit faster. Too bad all cars going to arrive later to their destinations due to traffic jams and accidents.You are sub-optimizing your own speed at expense of others. The overtake will force others to break, it builds queues, jams and accidents. All cars, including yours, will go slower (but you will arrive ahead of that lazy D-driver). Changing lanes (like moving work from one queue to another) will only increase the queuing time.   

- Are you a Lean behaving driver?
Posted in Agile Thinking, assessment, awareness, Fun, Leadership, Lean, Organizaition, Processes, Risk Management, Transformation, Way if Working | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Another Workshop in introducing Lean&Agile…

PaperArtist_2013-04-25_18-13-15_resizedToo many workshops are held these days with the aim to introduce Lean and Agile ways of working. There are two issues with that, first L&A is not only about ways of working, secondly the aim must be a real gain or a real problem to solve. Lean & Agile as no value on it’s own.  A customer will never pay any extra for a product developed in a certain manner based on certain values, they will pay for the value the product and supplier is giving them.

The problem often arise in the end of such a workshop when there shall be a number of actions created. (Typical for this types of workshops is that it’s success is measured as number of powerful actions) The actions is then often aimed at transforming  into Lean operations or get teams working agile. This without reflecting on the real purpose. What is the expected result from team using scrum? What is the result an organization want to see by adapting a Lean mindset?

Not all Lean & Agile workshop is problematic, it can be very good for education, inspiration and adapt principles and values. When it come to seek actions I recommend to focus on the actual problem or wanted results. Here are some examples on workshops where finding applicable actions is more likely both to find and to be successful:


  • WS on setting goals and targets in-line with lean values and principles
    The lean aspect on this is how we set goals on values and results over performing actions. How we set targets based on throughput and value creation instead of resource utilization. How to avoid that KPI’s drives unwanted behaviors. How we as a leadership team can set the principles and parameters for KPI’s but letting the organization set the values.
  • WS on boosting teams performance using agile
    From Agile and Management 3.0 we can add a lot around motivators for team, self-organizing, what does a high performing Team Environment look like. How should management treat a team to get the most out of it. Team charters and soft characteristics that makes team to hyper perform.
  • WS to increase quality
    From Lean we can learn the stop-the-line mentality, shorten every feedback loop. Look into the journey to Continuous Deployment via Continuous Integration and Continuous Deliveries. In XP we can learn test driven development and a bunch of other tools. 
  • WS on improving a leadership team’s ability to build a good organization
    Applying the high performing team methods and values we derive from agile teams into the leadership team. Lean concepts as pulse meetings and gemba tours, how can they be used? 
  • WS on to get the most out of project managers in an agile development organization
    What is it the teams and development organization needs to get support
    ith from a project manager in an agile environment? Why is it important and what needs to change to get from  “Command, Control and Planning” to “Sense, Adapt and Scenarios”?

…. And on and on, the list can be long.

The recommendation in two statements:

A Workshop in Lean & Agile is for inspiration, education and adapting principles and values

 A Workshop to improve organizations, operations and ways of working should target the wanted result or issue to improve.


Posted in Agile Thinking, Change, Coaching, communication, Framework, Leadership, Lean, Organizaition, Processes, Transformation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Radical Coaching -The Ultimate Gemba

Agile and Lean touches values and principles. However, this is not enough. There is more than meets the eye: people, their emotions and feelings. Radical Coaching is targeted exactly towards this; we need to address our inner self and be able to encounter each other as humans and unique individuals. This approach will provide to us an safe environment where we can start to investigate and understand each other in a new way, and where we can continue to work together with much deeper understanding about us. This will result to a situation and environment where we mutually build and work towards something positive and good. It is the essence of continuous improvement, effective workplace and other aspects that will make the great difference.

“A growing and long-living community which is targeted towards the activists of the organization. The goal is to support and empower individuals, teams and organization with change by new means. One sentence to describe it: The Ultimate Gemba!”

We have been busy. Not “busy, busy” but enthusiastic and involved. The reason is simple, we have started to understand how to move into next level. Learning from past, looking into future but living in the moment. When we look at the world around us it is becoming clear: It is happening now, the new paradigm movement. Movement around leadership and coaching that is based on discussing and listening. Person meeting person, out from the roles and structures. To be honest, this is something way bigger and more fundamental than anything I have witnessed before.

In practice we always start with new (small) group with an intensive session. They usually last 48 hours and require intimacy and devotion. We use some simple models and few basic building blocks, like:

Safety. Without safety there is no trust. Trust means mutual approval: both entities allow each other to enter closer. Build safety in. 

Love. Without caring there will not be world-class products and services. If craftsmen do not love their work there is a small probability that it will be a success. Love is all you need.

Enthusiasm. One needs to be active. Emotions spread around so make sure you have plenty of good emotions around you. Try to keep the spirit of child in you.

Miracles. They are the good deeds we sometimes do. More generally miracle is a positive change towards something better. Miracles only happen in dogma-free zone.

How these intensive sessions are then constructed? For individual: in order to embrace change you have to be ready and willing to take new insight into you. This can be helped through intensive training and deep discussions. This happens always in safe context and positive environment. For group: it is good to have a good mixture of people from different areas, ages and demographics. Group dynamics are shaped in 48hour intensive sessions that are led by trainers. After first session the journey actually starts. We support our growth with Spotify playlist (the same songs that we use in the trainings), Google+ community and of course with refill sessions and intensives. No one is left alone and we help each other out.

This is how “managers” meet with “developers”. This is how “testers” understand “coaches”. It is all very natural, logical and it all fits nicely together. Radical Coaching is about You and Me.


Posted in All, Change, Coaching, Leadership, Organizaition, Radical Coaching, Transformation | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Myths with Alignment

At the moment there is lot of talk within in our great company of the need to align ways of working and tools across the organization.  Alignment is the new black, always political correct to argue. I think it comes from the desire to become a great systems thinking company that makes us scream for alignment. But is alignment a step in right direction? How is alignment really used?

It’s time to look closer at alignments, here are what I like to call “The Alignment Myths”

The Alignment Myths
    • Alignment Translates to “same way”
    • Alignment of Processes Save Costs
    • Alignment Makes Organizational Hand-overs More Efficient
    • Alignment of Tools Saves Costs
    • Alignment Gives Flexibility
    • Alignment Makes All to Work in the Best Way
    • Alignment Makes Control and Decision Easier

Myth: Alignment Means “same way”
Not that much a myth as it is an interpretation issue. Alignment wouldn’t be bad if it meant “make things work together”. Quite common though, is the interpretation that aligning ways of working means working in the same way, not working in different ways and align those. Alignment of tools interprets as using less number of tools, not that many tools shall work smoothly with each other.

Those myths exists mainly because the interpretation Alignment = “decide on ONE process and ONE tool”.

Myth: Alignment of Processes and Way of Working (WoW) Saves Costs
It might, but the real question should be “Does alignment create value?”

What we are learning (slowly) from the lean industry is that optimizing on value and performance (speed, throughput) have a greater meaning than optimizing on costs. At least both cost and value must be taken into account.

To illustrate:

The simple Alignment Justification Formula 

Product A is best developed with method X and creates value as AX
Product B is best developed with method Y and creates value as BY 
Coordination cost of this two different methods is Z 

Letting Product A be developed with method Y (AY) gives 
less value than AX (similar for product B) 

The calculation needed to justify an alignment:      
          AX+BY-Z < AY+BY (or AX+BX)

In words; If the coordination cost is less than the in-efficiency for using a non-tailor made process - Don’t align!

Too often this calculation is ignored and it is assumed that if Z is minimized it is beneficial.

Myth: Alignment Makes Organizational Hand-overs More Efficient
This is partly right, the hand-over may be more efficient but will we create more value? What makes this a myth is the assumption that an efficient hand-over will lead to an efficient development. This is often argued when several flows goes across two (or more) organizations. If everything coming into an organization does that in a similar way it will be more efficient to handle.

The receiving organization (Org.2) sees a great benefit if all flows in the previous step is looking the same as it will be easier to understand and structure the own work. That is correct, it will be easier for the organization, but as the structure above is according to the resource view, it will be an optimization on resources over value creation. In worst case all products may suffer but management of Org2 will sense a gain of efficiency.  Again, check the alignment justification formula!

Myth: Alignment of Tools Saves Costs
If we all can use just one tool we just have to buy one license. Here again we are looking at costs without reflecting on the value a tool is creating. Everybody understands that it’s probably substantial more than one tool required so usually the aim is to reduce number of tools. Let’s look at it from another angle: If it still is a lot of manual work in daily operations then we probably have too few tools. Why not aim to add some?

Myth: Alignment Gives Flexibility
If all teams are working in the same way with the same tools it will be easy to move people around.
Well, if we move people between teams, what will the real issue with performance be? Most likely will the impact from establishment two new teams (“moving from team” and “moving to team”)  overrule the impact from having different tools and methods. If you are a professional in what you are doing you will adapt to processes and tools faster than adapting to your new teams culture and personality. In practice you don’t have more flexibility as it isn’t the bottleneck – team and people are.

Further more is alignment preventing flexibility for making adaptations in processes and ways of working as they need to be hand shaken with several practitioners, often with another view on good adaptation. This myth is not just false it is even exactly the other way around - Alignment prevents flexibility

Myth: Alignment Makes All to Work in the Best Way
This assumes there is one best way of doing things. Most likely what’s best for one situation or product is not necessary best for another. A best way is that it is not necessary a good way, it’s just best.
If we believe in the lean way of improving, there is always a better way and the crucial thing is to have the system for systematic improvements (Kaizen) in place to iterate into a good way.
It is a high risk that the iterations will take longer time when all adaptations and changes must be aligned with all operations - Alignment may slows down continuous improvements

Myth: Alignment makes control and decision easier
A reason mentioned is that steering boards and control function must understand and be able to compare the different operations within the company. As alignment implicates that instead of working in exactly the way a certain work stream requires, it is working according to a trade-off suitable for several work streams. To make it easy and smooth for the management of the work streams but more complicated and inefficient for the people in the work stream. This is optimizing on the support function instead of the value added main flow.

Is it more important that daily life is easy for management or easy for the people working in the value creating flows?

Alignment of values and principles
Well, that’s the alignment that probably makes sense!


  • Alignment in the meaning of making all different ways of working and tools to work together is good
  • Alignment in the meaning of working in the same way, using the same tools is madness
  • Consider value creation, not only cost savings to avoid complete madness. (simple alignment formula)

Picture by tamara

Posted in Agile Thinking, Change, Coaching, Framework, Leadership, Lean, Myths, Organizaition, Processes, Transformation, Way if Working | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Definition of Done for Coaching?

Wikipedia phrases Definition of Done as follows:

The exit-criteria to determine whether a product backlog item is complete. In many cases the DoD requires that all regression tests should be successful.

Probably based on this I have lately been in discussions related to Coaching and DoD. The question that has been put on the table has been: what is the Definition of Done for coaching i.e when coaching is not anymore needed? I have been pretty confused about this and have been trying to think why this kind of angle seems to be very important to some people.

My conclusion is that when someone sees Lean-Agile transformation as a methods and process change this thinking also reflects to coaching. In general a process change has start and end stages. Then you apply the new process for a while and change it again (if there is seen a need). In this perspective I try to understand that this question might be natural to some people who think this way.

For me this is also clear indication that these people have not fully understood the change that Lean-Agile brings to the organizational mindset and culture. In reality the practices/process part is merely a tool that supports bigger, more fundamental change in organizations and especially how they are led. This is the key part that needs to be understood in its entirely before real change can happen. Agile is by nature empirical and has built-in the thinking of continuous improvement. How could continuous improvement have DoD?

Yet another viewpoint is traditional role thinking in large organizations. Usually process thinking implies that role descriptions are described in detail:

Top management must ensure the job responsibilities and authorities are clear defined and communicated to all level of people within the organization (ISO 9001)

Our organization has had a bit different approach into this. We have defined coaching based on the understanding in general agile and lean literature and put focus on the continuous communication and discussion, which is complemented with the nature of complex adaptive systems: you are not able to model it. Nor are you able to document what is a definitive role description for coaches.

To nail it: some people might see coaching as supporting activity during a process (Agile) change. This implies that Lean-Agile thinking has not yet fully reached these people. It is a warning sign to the organizations and to change this we have to apply more coaching.

Coaching is key asset and absolutely critical for modern R&D organizations to succeed on a long term. Coaching brings the values and thinking into the picture and helps organizations and people to overcome traditional process thinking. Many aspects of coaching touch the soft part of systems and organizations: how people interact and how could they continuously improve.

How it is in your organization?

Posted in Agile Thinking, Change, Coaching, Continuous Improvement, Leadership, Lean, Transformation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Product Ownership Evolution, part 2

Scaled-Up Scrum

Scrum is fairly simple from practices point of view (and claimed to be powerful, when applied correctly). You work in timeboxed iterations with a team, Product Owner and ScrumMaster. You apply certain ceremonies (Daily Scrum, Groomings/Sprint Planning, Retrospectives, Sprint Reviews). This is added with a couple of artifacts (Product/Sprint Backlog) and continued until end of the world. Unfortunately, when this approach is only applied on a practice level, the real promise is not met. Agile values and systems thinking are vital part of Scrum introduction, even in small scale. How about when you have multiple teams and complex business environment? One of the initial questions we faced was: Does it scale and if it does how should we plan? Scaling has actually many aspects that are not evident in the early phases of any Agile transformation. We made initial team scaling exercises but missed the understanding what end-to-end flow optimization means in terms of scaling Agile (and Scrum). It is hard to understand that we should focus only on work instead of workers. If you have too static structures that do not allow self-organization, easy self-selection and self-ordering you will have a mountain to climb. In our exercise many of the issues were and are accumulated in the Product Ownership function and inspecting that provided us many vital lessons and deeper understanding.

PO structure and scaling

There are some alternatives when scaling Product Owner role. One thumb rule is that one Product Owner can handle two-three teams (when applying by-the-book Scrum). On the other hand Scrum says that there is only one PO. With these guidelines we did the following: there was one PO and a bunch of Proxy-Product Owners matching the number of teams (one PO, two teams). When considering that we had 20+ teams the amount of POs was around 15. Our aim was to have also PO team work as a real team but without boundaries and structure this was not achieved.

In practice this also lead to a situation where lack of common goals resulted to sub-optimization on enterprise level: a feature/proxy PO was driving own features to “done” and common problems were someone else`s problem. As we were facing initial transformation challenges at the same time there were a lot of impediments that needed teams attention and effort. We tried to overcome this with adding management attention, which was really hard when considering management role within Agile: to support and help, leaving responsibility to teams. We even heard comments (from external consultants) that managers are not needed in Scrum… What we did not understand was that proxies are not a tool for scaling but a shortcut for bringing the business closer to the teams. So in reality teams felt that they were left alone and too much was asked from them. A common question that time was: “should every team do and be responsible of everything?”.

Lack of common vision and goals leads to unhealthy balance within an organization. In our case this resulted to feature focused approach where product and legacy aspects where down-prioritized and often neglected. This is violating against the purpose of any organization: satisfy/delight the customer with continuous delivery of valuable software and solutions.

A good example of this challenge was when we introduced Continuous Integration: feature POs only had interest on improving the items that directly provided value for their feature.  It was again someone else`s problem to put focus and business priority on the items that were connected to product or solution level. Not a very food approach in terms of “see the whole!”

When we understood that this approach was not fully working the decision was to get coaching towards the PO. I believe this was a good decision, but the coaching that was really needed was not answered. It is more important to address values and and behaviors instead of User Story writing techniques. Or learn how to work with the people instead how different items are handled in the backlog. I have asked from different organizations have they seen POs more on the operational dimension (execution) or change agents. The answer has always been on the operational side. When we realized all this we decided to apply a deeper change: introduce initial boundaries and structures into PO function to help the organization scale up and continue with the change. More of this in the next part of this series…

Posted in Agile Skills, Agile Thinking, CI, Coaching, Continuous Integration, Leadership, Lean, Product Owner, Scrum, Transformation, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dream of Radical Communication Boost

The other night I had a thoughtful dream….

I went to work an ordinary Monday morning. When entering the building I notice there was a non-typical morning, people where standing drinking coffee, talking about the weekend – it was a “waiting” atmosphere in the building. Didn’t took too long before someone told me that the mail system was down and every one waited for the servers to come back up again.  After awhile a rumor started to spread; There is a message on the Intranet announcing that all should show up for a all-hands meeting at 10am for further information about the mail system outage.

At 10 o’clock our top management had the following message:

- The mail system together with the meeting booking system is down and it will be down for at least some weeks. All other system seems to work perfect.
– There is nothing we can do to change that.
We can not afford to halt any development because of this.
- It means that we all must do what ever it takes to continue design and produce our coming releases.
– It is NOT acceptable by any of you to blame the outage for anything.
Development in focus – solve the problem!

At first everybody seemed a bit lost but with a “let’s solve it”-attitude things started to move. While this was my dream I could make some “from-above” observations:

With the mail channel into the development teams cut off, the teams started to focus on team activities. Less requests for other things, less requests for changes during sprints.
The only contact with the other world for raising impediments, share progress, sync with other teams was via the daily scrum – presence and interests increased and made team spirit to grow. Productivity in teams where doubled.

To be able to sync and act fast enough without mail, a daily scrum of scrum was introduced and all of a sudden the complete progress was summarized at one place every day. It didn’t took long before the program control and management also met daily directly after the scrum of scrum to act on impediments and changes. Good and right project management support doubled the development capability even further.

While sending reports wasn’t possible and even calling for occasional meetings where hard, all status was gathered when the program team took the daily Gemba, visiting teams and project dash boards.
Every leadership team started to move around visiting every other management team face to face at frequent regular bases as that was the only way to get some what idea what was going on fast enough.
Getting rid of the reporting structure and other none value creating work boosted efficiency with another 100%.

Technical meetings and decision where posted on a blog, readable to all interested people. As they where discussed open, using discussion threads, the right people where involved – Decisions where better and deployment easier.

With those observations management realized they could not afford turning mail back on…

Here I woke up but I guess you can contribute with several more examples of “What if…..

Posted in communication, Framework, Fun, Leadership, Transformation, Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Next Generation will Demand Coaching

Next generation employees will take it for granted to get coaching when facing new tasks and challenges. It is being built in to their daily life(!) in, for me at least, a bit surprisingly way.

Just look what popped up when my 10-year-old started one of those multiuser team games the other day:


So the gamers have realized that the fastest way to get a new player on-board is to immediately offer coaching help, explain goals, answer questions, show a few tricks, initiate communication and show interest in a new player. The underlying purpose here is of course to get the player motivated to stay on-line and continue to play the game, creating revenues for the gaming company. But there is no coincidence coaching is brought into the picture; research show Autonomous, Mastery and Purpose (Reference) being the main drivers for motivation and the gaming industry probably knows that coaching is a good way to boost those values.
When we like to attract skillful employees and have them “play” in our company for a long time we need to boost the same values – where coaching most likely is a very useful tool.

Regardless of purpose, Kids of today will get used to take help and be open for coaching when facing challenges and new tasks. I will be the natural way of learning. And when they realize that, do you think they will accept a slower way to learn when entering the job market?I think they will require coaching by their coming employer.

Johan (Welund) Westerlund

PS. In our Telecom software industry we are often looking at the gaming industry as they are ahead in many software development processes with their frequent releases and customer responsiveness, now it turns out they are doing quite well in people management skills as well…

PS2: Transcription of picture “Do you want a coach? Do you like help from another player in your current game? ….”

Posted in Change, Coaching, Leadership, Transformation, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments