The Downfall of Agile Certifications, part 2

Lee Eason: An Experienced Leader's Perspective

There’s this scene in Joe Versus the Volcano (criminally underrated Tom Hanks movie) where Tom’s boss (Mr. Waturi) is arguing on the phone with someone and he keeps repeating the line, “I know he can get the job, but can he DO the job?” That whole scene is fantastic, as is the rest of the movie.

I keep thinking about that in light of the certification discussion. There are these well-meaning people popping in, talking about their idea for making a more effective learning program. But I don’t think that’s the problem. The problem is that for 15-20 years now, people have been using certifications to justify getting hired and staying hired.

In the lean manufacturing class I just took, we learned about Six Sigma, visual workplace, TQM, and value streams in industrial manufacturing settings. It was fascinating to hear from the folks in factories who are responsible for delivering continuous improvement. They only talk about their work in terms of improvements to outcomes. Always. They never use squishy language, or the certifications they got, or the meetings they facilitate, or “Agile” to describe their role and what they do.

They talk about reducing workplace accidents, lowering inventory overhead, reducing waste, and improving flow (but always with an acknowledgement of Tact time and constraints). The other striking thing is that the people who own the factory understand perfectly what those things are and how they affect the company's overall success.

Compared to what I observe in technology-dependent businesses, the gap between that world and ours is immense. The average scrum master and agile coach seldom describes their work in ways that relate to business outcomes, and the firm's leaders have no idea what those people do.

We could have the most incredible certification program in the world. Still, if it produces people who are effectively outsiders in the business, it will not move the needle on whether our industry starts to believe in their value.

Background

I was a hands-on key software engineer for about 15 years, learning how agile teams work under great teachers like you and Mary Thorn. Over the last ten years, as I transitioned to full-time leadership roles and gained responsibility for allocating budget, I got closer to the executives of my companies and started hearing their unfiltered opinions of “Agile” as a framework.

Two things became obvious: most executives have at best, a fuzzy idea of how the craft of software engineering works, and none of them have a clue what Agile Coaches, consultants, and Scrum Masters are doing to add value. I cannot think of a single instance of a C-level leader other than a CTO successfully describing what those people do. I came to believe they tolerated those roles because they’re pragmatic, and it became impossible to hire good engineers unless they embraced the branding of Agile. Scrum Masters had become the ping pong tables at enterprise companies.

At first I tried rigorously to educate and defend, but over time as I listened to the words and observed the actions of the people in those roles, I had to accept that while some great people are doing those jobs (and I was lucky to work with some of them early in my career), the vast majority of the examples out there in the industry simply don’t and they are the overwhelming evidence our leaders are observing. The contrast between them and a manufacturing plant manager could not be more severe.

Lee Eason is the Director of Software Development at Edward Jones

Wrapping Up

Lee shares with a level of candor that all of us can appreciate. He’s also given us some incredible insights into how WE are generally seen, which hints at what we can do to change our impact. While this is a sad view, I see it as a compelling Call to Action! Thank you, Lee.

Now, what are YOU going to do?

Stay again, my friends,

Bob.