The “team marriage” or the fight against the four horsemen of the apocalypse

In 2021 I attended the first module of Organizational Relationship Systems @work. Upfront the following reading was recommended: Gottmann, Silver: The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work.

The book is based on decades of work with couples and data analysis. According to his own statement, the author is now able to predict with a very high probability (91%) whether a couple will stay together or separate after briefly observing their interaction.
The data allowed him to isolate four observable factors that allow classification of relationship status. He calls them: The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. These four have the power to slowly but surely destroy a relationship. They are: criticism, contempt, defensiveness and walls.



Criticism is generally ok. In agile contexts, we can even use them profitably for a continuous improvement process. Criticism becomes a problem when it becomes a regular occurrence without being addressed. This first rider prepares the way for the other, far more dangerous riders.
Contempt – the second rider – comes as sarcasm, eye rolling, and more. Contempt makes it impossible for the other person to engage in problem solving. It will only create more conflict.
Defensiveness is actually a way of blaming the other person. The message of the third rider is: I’m not the problem, you are. It increases the conflict many times over.
Stonewalling – the fourth rider – often only appears after some time. People use this to protect themselves from the feeling of being psychologically and physically “flooded”. If this feeling occurs regularly, it inevitably leads to inner distancing and thus to divorce. In a metaphorical sense in the world of work, this means the employee’s internal resignation.

The author names 7 principles that emotionally intelligent people – most of whom have been proven to have longer and more stable relationships – do observably and intuitively in their relationships:
1. Be able to read the relationship map. Partners know each other very well and have internalized knowledge about their partner. This is particularly important when external factors significantly change the current reality of life. In the world of work, for example, these are complex situations in which agile approaches are applied.
2. Promote affection and recognition. They remind themselves of the qualities of others, even in difficult situations. A quality that employees of companies that are under extreme market pressure, for example, can often no longer provide.
3. Turning to each other. Couples and teams who understand how to create connections work better. It’s not the big gestures or work conversations, but rather hundreds of small interactions that strengthen the relationship. A pat on the back, a smiley post-it note on the computer, listening with an understanding nod. It’s so simple, we should all pay more attention!
4. Allow yourself to be influenced by others. Emotional intelligence is generally attributed more to women. Only 35% of men have this ability. This is about the ability to appreciate your partner or team member and the ability to express this. To grow relationships, you must be able to value other perspectives and share the driver’s seat.
5. Good manners – treat others the way you would like to be treated. This often becomes clearest when addressing sensitive topics. The soft approach goes in the direction of non-violent communication (Rosenberg, 1972). In contrast to confrontational approaches, it gives the relationship partner the opportunity to react constructively.
6. Don’t allow deadlock situations. Arguments heard 1000 times, no humor or compassion in the speech, viewpoints polarize more and more, giving in now hurts everything you believe in. This is how you recognize deadlocked situations. The best way to deal with them is to avoid them. The first 5 principles help here a lot. When it does happen, it’s often about unspoken dreams and desires. These are often not obvious and have to be worked out. Recognizing each other and taking them into account when finding solutions – mutual respect – that’s what it’s all about.
7. Working out shared opinions. Couples and teams can form a micro-culture. They have rituals (for example the shared espresso after the retro), myths (the story when XY happened). A framework that tells you who you are and what it means to be part of the team. A network of all individual parts that is flexible enough to change as the team members mature personally.

The key to a happy relationship and better teams is to coordinate better with each other to make friendship the top priority (North Star). Friendship and trust are the glue of every relationship. Creating this and keeping it alive does not happen by itself. We need to invest time, care and attention in our relationships. When reading the book, I always compared the couple relationships described with work relationships between, for example, two individuals or within teams. I noticed that perhaps the most significant difference between couples and teams is that in the vast majority of cases, work partners and teammates did not choose each other. What this means to me is that if we have high demands on teams, like becoming a high performing team – we need to give them time and support to strengthen their relationships with each other.
We are all constantly in relationship with others and we cannot – as Paul Watzlawick postulates in his axioms in „Human Communication“: „(…) not not communicate.“ In particular, Scrum Master and similar roles – ideally filled with emotionally intelligent people – should always be aware of this. Your job is to bring this knowledge into your organization and make it usable.

The book itself gives many useful examples, tips, tricks and exercises. My conclusion: Very worth reading!

This review first appeared in it-agile’s in-house magazine, the agile review
Foto: HBO

Lego®️4 Scrum with 50 people

“We want to experience agile, but we only know a little about it yet. We’re 50 people and we have about 3 hrs time.”

Table with Lego during first sprint

Lego4Scrum was invented by Alexey Krivitsky who wrote a book about it. It was the base for this 3 hour workshop. In this book he describes how you can build a Lego®️ City within a Scrum simulation.

I started the workshop with: Why? Why Agile?
To answer that question I turned to the Taylor Bathtub, which makes it pretty clear that agile is the answer to a challenge organisations face, not because the things that they have done till now are suddenly bad, but because the environment that they are competing in has changed. In a complex world the needed answers can only be given by a learning and therefor adapting organization.

Second step: The Agile Manifesto
It worked like a charm against the perception that agile was just a fad. Which is a common way to see Agile in late majority or even lagging organisations. Although the participants (including me) didn’t look like the had any clue about the latest fashion. 😉

Shortly after that I explained Scrum – which can be drawn by the way on a beer mats – and Inspect and Adapt as a core principle of agile. This intro had to be enough, because we wanted to build a city until the end of the workshop.

To gain some time I had prepared a Product Vision and about 40 User Stories with 1-3 acceptance criteria. I found some examples for user stories for Lego4Scrum simulations in the internet, but I wasn’t happy with them, so I rewrote them for my purposes.

Selforganised the participants created 5 teams. My acceptance criteria: equal number of participants, a PO and a Scrum Master. Next time I would go for one more team, because with 8 people in the dev-team not everyone was building all the time.
In total we had 6 of the Lego®️ Classic 10698 boxes, which turned out to be enough.

My learnings:
A challenge was to build up some pressure during the sprints. Because the sponsor wanted a light playful time for his employees, I hadn’t prepared metrics. Next time I would a least measure what was planned and what each team had really build.
The same problem was with the sprint duration. Because nobody looked at the timer, they didn’t really feel the time ticking. Next time I would work with more acoustic signals.
Because of certain constrains I was the only trainer. Next time I would rather go for two trainers when working with 50 people. Another option could be to brief the POs upfront accordingly. Because it turned out that they tended to accept everything their team had build, and played it nice.

One of the most effective moments was after the first sprint, when the models only stood on the table of each team. I shouted: “Where is my city?!” (I was so loud – it even surprised myself.) They learned that this was a group effort and that integrating the models showed other problems that without this interference they only would have noticed at a moment late in the building process when it would have been probably too late.

Another great moment was switching to a shared Review after the first Sprint Review, because now the developers really understood the big picture.

Altogether this was a successful workshop. I only regret that I couldn’t build stuff with them, because I really love to build things with Lego®️.

Not everything has to be build with bricks

Designed Team Alliance – a tool for teams and families

For a team – and I set team and family alike in this blogpost – it’s very helpful to make explicit how they want to be while working together. As a facilitator I ask: “What’s important to you in your working relationship?”

Words like “respect”, “helpfulness”, “goal oriented”, “committed”, etc are being named often. The question however is what do they mean for the group of people that are writing them down? As a facilitator I help them to be as specific as possible and than we explore the different aspects that are lying within.

To make the DTA complete it is important to answer the question: “How do we want to be if we see we’re not living up to our DTA. The answers belong as well on the DTA.

The DTA should be a living document. Therefore it’s place is not an electronic tool, where it can be easily forgotten. Everyone should be able to see it – all the time. A flip on the wall of the team room or the background of the screen of a team member is a good place.

I created a DTA with my family. The kids are to young to read, but at least one of them could be part of the discussion. So we came up with one overall principle that’s important to us. We want to love, respect and support each other all the time. That means no shouting, no boxing or kicking, no swearing. It means supporting each other on eye level. It is valid for children and parents alike!

What do we want to do when we don’t live up to it? We sometimes watch a tv series for children called “Stillwater”. In this a big panda bear helps three neighbouring children to learn something about their emotions and what living together can mean. He is very sensitive and acts out of a coaching stance. (I actually think it’s a series for parents as well.) In one of the episodes Stillwater gave the option to pause a moment and breath in and out five times very consciously, so that one of the children could calm down and reflect on what’s important in this moment. We all liked this scene very much and made it part of our DTA. Now anyone can shout “stillwater” if he/she observes that someone does something that doesn’t follow our first guideline. The person called out has to breath in and out five times very consciously.

We hope our DTA will help us to be a better family.

Our family DTA

Are we red or are we blue

It’s always fun to facilitate an Agile Basics Training. This time 25 participants waited for my colleague and me.

The company builds storage facilities and automates them for their customers. Lately they experienced that new customers demanded in the contracting phase that the process should be agile. Now they wandered if that was really necessary – their waterfall process delivered satisfactory results in their opinion. Furthermore they questioned, if they knew enough about agile to have a qualified conversation about this specific need of their customers.

The participants went along with our training until the point where we introduced Scrum to them. It was like an uproar. It was a fantastic moment, because it revealed what the situation was really about. One participant nailed it later by saying: we try to get our heads around a “red” way of working, while deep in our corporate culture we are “blue”. He said it without judgement and was referring to the blue and red ways of work described in the book “Komplexithoden” by Niels Pfläging and Silke Hermann that we worked with earlier in the training.

At the end of the day they had a lot of new insights and were ready for the next step.

Why it‘s important to trust

Trust seems to be the essence for success in modern organisations. Especially for agile organisations or the ones that are on their way of becoming one. The article in HBR “The Neuroscience of trust” made that very clear by showing some numbers.

HBR January-February 2017

It’s the task of every leader in an organisation to foster trust. To be a leader isn’t bound to a job title or a certain level in hierarchy. A leader is someone who decides for her or himself that a certain part in his/her world needs her/his support.

What can a leader do to foster trust? There are multiple ways to do that. Getting to know each other better is the first step. A wonderful exercise is to draw so called „Influence Maps“. „Where are you local?“ is another one and there are many more. In time you will see how people share more and more of themselves. Making yourself vulnerable with given these personal informations ads to the process.

Active listening and powerful questions lead to a style of communication that allows deeper understanding. As someone that studied Communication Science I know that understanding is not the norm. Radical constructivism says that the recipient always interprets what is being said through the lens of personal experience and cultural background. Given that full understanding is nearly impossible. But it’s possible to narrow this communication gap.

Mutual learning as described by Roger Schwarz helps to take a personal stance in this communication effort. The ground assumptions help to be open for new ideas and points of view, the ground behaviours help to have productive conversations.

All of this and more is needed to foster trust. Only in high trust environment can change thrive that is created by many not the few and that will play out for the benefit of the customer, the company and it’s employees.

The Seven Principles of Making Marriage Work

2019 I attended the first module of the ORSC™ series*. The book „The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work“ was recommended as an introduction. The book is based on decades of work with couples and data analysis. J. Gottman claims to have a 91% probability of predicting whether a couple will stay together or break up. Four observable factors have been isolated that enable this classification of relationship status.

The four horsemen of the apocalypse
as they are called in the book – have the power to slowly but surely destroy a relationship. They are: Criticism, Contempt, Defensiveness and Stonewalling.

Criticism becomes a problem when it becomes a regular occurrence without being dealt with. It paves the way for the far more dangerous riders. Contempt comes as sarcasm, eye-rolling and much more. This makes it impossible for the other person to engage in problem solving and creates further conflict. Defensiveness is actually a way of blaming the other. The statement here is that I am not the problem, you are. This intensifies the conflict many times over. Stonewalling often only appears after some time. People use it to protect themselves from the feeling of being psychologically and physically flooded. If this feeling occurs regularly, it inevitably leads to inner distancing and thus to divorce.

Photo by Miguel u00c1. Padriu00f1u00e1n on Pexels.com

The authors name 7 principles that emotionally intelligent people observe and intuitively do right in their relationships – which have been proven to lead to longer and more stable relationships.
– They know the other person very well and have internalised this knowledge. They can read their relationship map. This is especially important when external factors strongly change the previous reality of life.
– Even in difficult situations, they remind themselves of the qualities of the other person. In this way, they strengthen their affection and recognition.
– They know how to establish a connection. It is not the big gestures, but rather hundreds of small interactions that strengthen the relationship.
– They are able to value other views and express this. This makes relationships grow. Only about 35% of men have this ability.
– They address sensitive issues in such a way that their partner has the opportunity to react constructively. Treat others as you want to be treated, be lived.
– They do not allow deadlocked situations. They always work to resolve conflicts.
– They formed a micro-culture with their partner. Their rituals, myths create a framework that tells you who they are and what it means to be part of the team. They developed shared perceptions.

The conclusion of the book seems simple: the key to a happy relationship is to be more attuned to each other, to make friendship the top priority. Friendship and trust are the cement of any relationship. Creating this and keeping it alive does not happen by itself. The final advice sounds familiar: we should invest more time, attention and care in our relationships.

While reading the book, my observations of work relationships came to mind. Perhaps the most significant difference between private and work contexts is that in the vast majority of cases, work and team colleagues do not choose each other. Especially in transitions, I observe the amplification of the effects of these apocalyptic riders.
For me it is clear that high demands on teams can only be realised if they are given time and support to strengthen their relationship with each other. Especially Scrum Masters and similar roles – best filled with emotionally intelligent people – should always be aware of this.

The book itself gives many more useful examples, tips, tricks and exercises. 
My conclusion: Worth reading!

Gottmann; Silver: The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. Orion Spring 2018

*Organisation and Relationship Systems Coaching

My ORSC™ course series experience

End of July I finished the last ORSC course in the training series: Systems Integration. ORSC™ stands for Organization and Relationship Systems Coaching. ORS@Work (Organization and Relationship Systems at Work) in 2019 was my first course in the ORSC™ series. It was a two-day course that explored the ORSC™ coaching model, and is a business-focused version of ORSC™ Fundamentals. I was excited, because the ORSC approach seemed very useful to the clients and systems I was working with. ORSC focuses on relationship systems. We are constantly in relation with others, whether we like it or not. In this way it is like communication. We are not able to not communicate. Rather than working with an individual the coach works with the system – i.e. the couple, the team, the department, etc.


All of these five courses – except the first one – were remote due to corona, and in English. I had the opportunity to learn with some of my colleagues at it-agile, because we organized an in-house course series. That was a double win. Not only did we learn a way of coaching, but we could simultaneously work on our relationships as colleagues in it-agile. Two years in corona it brought us closer together again.


The series included the following courses:

  • Intelligence: a Roadmap for Change™. Change is somehow the basis of my day to day work. In the center of this course – at least for me – stood the concept of Deep Democracy. Meaning that in every change it is vital to hear from all who are impacted by the change. To be able to tap into the wisdom of the system, so that the change can be successful.
  • Geography: Roles & Structure™. Roles and structure were meant to ease the way we work, but often they aren’t as helpful as they were meant to be. To understand them and to change them for the better is the goal. For me the idea of „infinite diversity in infinite combinations“ as a source to have „joy in the difference“ and to cast out fear by curiosity is the key.
  • Path: Vision & Potential™. With being in relationship there is potential conflict. Not only maneuvering these conflicts, but to create a motor for improvement by tapping into the dreams, fears, expectations and projections is very powerful. Although I have to admit that I need probably a little more time to fully understand the „Wheeler Fish“. 😉
  • Systems Integration: Moving Toward Mastery™. This course brought it all together. We went through challenging three days with lots of opportunities to coach. Therefore we had to use our full arsenal of coaching tools from the other courses. One of my main take aways is, to go with the essence of the coaching tool, instead of trying to remember all the steps.

It were all three day courses. Additionally we established a coaching Dojo for us at it-agile, were we could intensify our learning and understanding of ORSC by exchanging our questions and experiences. Not only from the courses but especially from bringing these new skills & tools into our work with our clients.
Systems Integration- the last one – was an open course for me, because I missed the one with my colleagues due to being sick at the time. In this course we were 12 participants from all over Europe and a pair of trainers. The participants came form a variety of different backgrounds. The trainers mirrored this, one helping us from Dubai and one from Johannesburg. This diverse setting created a wonderful petri dish for learning.


I’m looking forward to going further on this path and deepen my understanding of relationship systems, how I can better work with them and enable them to find their own way of solving the challenges they face. 

ORSC is based on Systems Theory, Process Work, Family Systems Therapy, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Quantum Physics, Co-Active Coaching™, and more. It’s an ICF Accredited Coach Training Program.

Working across language barriers

With the new client came a new challenge. The teams were distributed and had many team members from an Asian country.  In my first encounter I had difficulties to understand my conversational partner. I managed to ask for clarification once or twice, but most of the conversation was more like a guessing game to me. What could I do? What was a transparent and polite way to handle this situation? Had my counterpart the same issues with me?

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

I looked for tips on the internet. I found these …

The 10 Tips

  1. If you have a question, before speaking up, put it in writing.
  2. Ask for clarification.
  3. Speak slowly – use globally understood English, more pictures, less text, no idioms, and be aware of jargon.
  4. Repeat and summarize – capture summary in the chat.
  5. Check understanding regularly.
  6. Make sure everyone contributes – this was a key distinction found in successful groups according to a Google study.
  7. Praise contribution.
  8. Encourage meta-communication – talking about mutual feelings, common goals, asking about the team’s why.
  9. Wait before asking your question: – write it up and ask it in the chat first.
  10. Use multiple channels for communication such as posting the agenda, summarizing discussion, and email.

Source: „How to Handle Difficult Accents and Overcome Language Barriers in Virtual Teams“, Posted by Rosi Hristova

Still I had to decide how to tackle that issue. I chose for being straight forward with this. I admitted that I had some difficulties and asked for help. In the conversation that followed we discovered that I wasn’t alone in this. We agreed on using the chat, because my counterpart admitted to be more secure in English while writing.

Overall we instated a 30 minutes playful language practice meeting. Everybody could talk with everyone about any topic, as long it was not a serious business talk.

Playful Nuremberg

Hence I changed the company in June, I wanted to create another agile community. With the help of my colleague Chris (barefootagile) this became true. We were clear about what we wanted.

The mission:

In our working environments we see a lack of playful opportunities to learn, a lack of experiments. Because of that we want to play sense and senseless plays and games. We not only want to play them, but we want to transform them into our daily work lives. We want to make them normality.

Our goal, to create value for people and organizations. To manifest an improvement of interaction and collaboration … and last but not least to have fun und let our creativity fly.

#playfulnue is for everyone who like us is still curious, open and has fun in experimenting.

For such a community something is more important than everything else: security. Everyone should be safe to fail. Because of that, we thought of some basic rules to guarantee this:

Ground Rules

• Follow your first impulse

• Whoever brings the idea is the gamemaster

• No talking – just playing

• Everything is time boxed

• Only positive feedback

• Leave you ego in-front of the door

• Everything is voluntary

• No justification

• No means NO!

• No pictures will be taken during the session

Thank you to all the participants of our first meetup who dared to join us. We had a good portion of fun, but as well had some learning insights on how to use the games that we played in our working contexts.

There will be a second edition of Playful Nuremberg.
Hope to see you there.

Tom

Here the link to our meetup group:

https://www.meetup.com/de-DE/Playful-Nuernberg/

Hope you don’t mind that it is in German language.

How to kill zombies – or my first day at my new job

Sebastian and Chris wanted to give a talk at agileworld in Munich. The topic was „Living and Dying in companies“. Furthermore they had the obligation to take care of their two new colleagues Maren and me. They came up with the idea to involve us in the talk somehow. As the topic was about the ecocycle described in liberating structures and why so many things (projects, ideas, habits, processes, etc.) in companies are in a poverty trap or in a rigidity trap without somebody trying to kill them – in that sense a zombie kind of state – why should they give the same talk again? Why not lead by example and kill the talk and create something new out of some parts of the talk and the input of the four of us? All this about 4 hours before it should have been held. Crazy, was the first thing that popped up in my mind. The talk had already good feedback from an live audience, had really nice slides with good self made drawings, worked on several iterations between the two … but having a second thought it made perfect sense! This way we all – the audience included – could feel what the talk was actually about and that we were serious.

4 hours later we stood in front of the doors of the venue, a bit nervous. About 10 minutes into the talk we realized that only one person had left so far and that we talked freely and the audience was engaged. Something new was born out of the „old” talk.

“What was the value of this?”, was one question out of the audience at the end of the talk. My answer to this was, that we proofed the point of the talk. Killing something considered relatively safe – a talk proofed to be good – was practicing a new habit at a time when it was relatively safe. So compared to the company world the lesson for me was that you definitely should practice killing things as long as it is safe. In an urgent situation the obstacles you would have to overcome to do this could probably take too much time and kill you.

Our practice tip during the talk:

Give somebody your cellphone, unlock it, and tell them to randomly kill an app. If this makes you uncomfortable, fine. Ok, before your favorite app is gone, take your phone back 😎. Think about why this is the case, exchange your thoughts.

What about killing an app on your phone every day? Or you could be brave an kill a habit, a process, or something else (no colleagues!!!) and see if it was a zombie anyways. Should you – after a certain time – have the feeling that you were wrong … reanimate it – it was just an experiment.

What zombie do you want to finish off tomorrow?

Good hunting

Tom