Scrum teams don't want to work with each other

Hey guys,

Bit of a pickle but my two scrum teams don't want to work with one another.

Historically people in both teams don't get along with each other, however due to changing scope we need to reshuffle the team (as some people know more about other components - the aim is that everyone becomes tshaped eventually).

After the teams agreeing among themselves who will work in what team (felt like quite a mature moment), one of the teams has now come back in retro flatly refusing to work with certain members due to quality of work, lack of trust etc.

I've tried to explain that we're aware of some of the concerns but as these essentially will be new teams, I've made suggestions like utilising ideas such as team charter, team values, rules of engagement etc to try and build back some trust among the team members and set a standard we can hold ourselves against.

These ideas landed like a led balloon and the team has really kicked off. They're hugely concerned that their delivery and pride of work is at risk.

In truth feels a bit like theyre weaponising their high performance and simply don't want to hear any suggestions except for keep things as they are.

Having a whole team flatly not wanting to work with the team is a bit of a new one for me and am really wondering how to get unstuck here?

I'm also not quite sure if this type of situation falls in scrum master remit, but may it be an escalation point?

in agileby Cprznt

90%

2mo

Brown_note11

2mo

A good opportunity to test that self organising line.

How do they think the work should be done for the best interests of the company and the customers? Have they got a solution?

Because of they don't have an answer and they don't au they're self organising into their next employer.

Cprznt

2mo

Well, their option is that they should stay together and, as they're performing, that they don't want to have to deal with this change in team makeup. In a weird way, it feels like they arent really being as mature as they perceive themselves.

Brown_note11

2mo

It's not mature. On the other hand they've built something the value together and have relationships they value.

I'd seriously ask them how they would solve the business problems together as a forst step. If they're not going to follow the plan put to the they need to have an answer.

It may be that team a think they can do all the work of both teams more effectively as they are than by reconfiguring. Maybe that's a better plan. Maybe not... But find out.

Cprznt

2mo

Good advice! Thanks mate 😀

workinginacoalmine

2mo

At my company, this would be escalated to the employee's managers as a performance problem. Employees don't get to refuse to work with other teams.

Cprznt

2mo

Yeah, in my head I did wonder where in the agile framework does it discuss how to deal with this as it kind of felt like a management thing more than a methodology thing.

New-Hornet7352

-2

2mo

you just buried the problem, did not solve it or fix it

User deleted comment

2mo

New-Hornet7352

-1

2mo

Lather, rinse, and repeat... And pretty soon you don't have a team/org

wain_wain

2mo

I guess you're the SM of both teams.

First, does the organization provide standards regarding minimum quality of Increments ? It should be a first stepping stone for common quality standards.
A way to smoothen the conflict is to gather the devs togeher and discuss about the quality of work :

"Bob, you mentioned quality of work of Team B at the last retro. Can you share an example of work the team A had to deal with, that you considered poor ? Can provide guidance that could have made better work ? Team B, what do you think of Bob's point of view ? Can you explain why it wasn't possible to have un upper quality ?" Etc. => Make the teammates discuss together and share their opinion. The discussion should lead both teams to have shared quality standards, hence a common (and better ?) Definition of Done.

This discussion is meant to (try to) remove "jealousy" and communication issues between teams, and share how people work from a team to another. The teams need to feel that they're moving to the same direction, not againt each other.

The Product Owner could emphasize that both teams help achieving the Product Goal together.

If some of the teammates try to ruin the meeting, you need to have a one-on-one coaching with them ("How did you experience this meeting ? Did something bother you ? Do you think this meeting was useless, if so, why ?" Etc.) and perhaps warn management if something goes really wrong.

Cprznt

2mo

What a really well thought out answer - thanks!

frankcountry

2mo

There is no version where 100 people will work flawlessly with one another. We’re all random carbon units.

However, you can attempt understand it with Patrick Lencioni’s 5 Dysfuntions of a team.

Also, people love solving problems, work with them to solve this problem.

LessonStudio

2mo

A friend has a company with a about 250 staff, mostly engineers and developers. They went full work from home during covid, except they didn't. Many of the top performers self organized into little offices or worked from some people's homes where this made sense. Groups of around 5 people; this was invite only.

His office lease was up as he discovered this self organizing thing so he allowed people to work from home, or he would rent little offices like they had been doing. He put up a google spreadsheet where you could suggest an office location (he would organize the lease) and sign up for that location.

People were signing up for offices, and then moving their names to another office, over and over and over and then saying they were just going to work from home. He took a few of the people out for lunch and with some beer got some of them to talk. Mostly they were avoiding some really shitty managers. Grade A micromanagers. But they were also avoiding some weirdos and just generally crummy coworkers.

He almost immediately fired 8 managers (out of about 14). But, he then started culling a number of developers who people really hated being around. Some, he told them to remain at home, but as he put it, when he interviewed them to see what the problem was he said they were creeps or assh*les.

After this culling, productivity went way up, but more importantly, quite a few of his very very very top performers made it clear that had he not done what he did, they were leaving. A couple had made this clear before, but a couple thanked him after saying they had already lined up new jobs but with the managers and weirdos gone, they were happy to stay.

He realized that if he had lost those 4 that the quality of all work would have been significantly lower. His point was they weren't just more productive, but they made things possible that others wouldn't even try.

So, if you have people kicking up this much of a fuss, I would suggest there is one of two problems:

There are some seriously problematic people in your organization who you should toss overboard.
There are one or two sh*t disturbers who are causing this for their own weird pleasure. Again, toss them overboard.

I have worked for more than one company where there were people (managers and coworkers) who were avoided by anyone with any sense of self. What was amazing was they would make it 100% clear, "If I am assigned to work under James, I will quit, no notice quit." Then, they would get assigned to James and about the only thing they did differently was to give notice. Ironically, James was the exit interview Manager. He even asked another person, "Am I the reason these people are quitting?" Nothing was ever done about James. The company probably lost 5 top top top performers over the years along with dozens of very good workers shortly after working with or under James. He is a crappy manager other than he is willing to cut every corner to ship a product. This makes him look good as the heroics of later dealing with in the field disasters doesn't show up on his record.

Then there was Adam the misogynist. He was such a prick that men didn't like working with him; plus he wasn't a good developer. Still there as well.

phatangus

2mo

What a rollercoaster. This would be an ideal situation for agile consultants to use as an example.

JonKernPA

2mo

Fantastic story and a lot to learn from.

As a young engineer, a colleague and I would sometimes have to vent about having to rub shoulders with another guy who was so lazy it was demoralizing for we who busted our asses. We at least got the guy moved out of eyesight since it was hard to fire people. (He ate breakfast and read the newspaper every morning, barely seemed to do anything. Was the head of the professional engineers union, tried to get me to join, NFW. And lots more negative energy.)

fzq779

2mo

A friend of mine wrote an article about this recently. quiet agile teams

Triabolical_

2mo

I worked in a group with three teams and our manager shuffled team membership every 6 months.

Everybody hated it. And it wasn't personal, it's that your team would spend a few months getting used to the membership and figure out how we wanted to do things and we would just get to a good state and we had to start over. Hugely disruptive.

It seems to me that you believe you have a problem and you have imposed a solution on the team. They have tried is and they *hate it* - it is not working well for them.

This isn't really a surprise - it's an imposed solution and they didn't get a chance to try things out.

You made the mistake of coming up with a solution and trying to sell that to the team. What you need to do is sell the *problem* to the team and then work with them to figure out one or more experiments that you can try to see how they work.

Agilonomics

2mo

When people don't want to talk and work with each other, escalating and forcing them through management can influence their superficial / outward behavior. However, they may still carry the grudge inside and it will come to impact quality and delivery. If some of these folks are strong and high performing individuals then they may also decide to leave the team/group or even the company.

My approach would be to bring this to the attention of management as a consultative manner to brainstorm but really step up the servant leadership aspect of your role. It can do wonders but it does need patience, building strong connections, deeply understanding concerns of people/individuals and helping remove the deeper causes than fix the symptoms.

Remember: Autonomy, Purpose and Mastery are the true intrinsic motivators. Bonus, carrots or forcing will only solve the problem superficially

sergeyratz

2mo

Fire them and get new one.

FancyWizardPants

2mo

This a job not a playground. You will work with others or you can find a new job. It’s not that deep.

UnusualSeaOtter

2mo

This may or may not be actionable from where you are but: The best solution to problems like this is to get everyone to eat together.

Outside-Flamingo-240

2mo

Rather than the consensus that these people are a problem and this needs to be escalated to mgmt immediately (wtf) …. I would study this a bit after letting my own manager know about the issues.

Just to make sure that there aren’t legitimate reasons for the attitude (such as either a few weirdos, jerks, or even a sex pest or two on either side).

JonKernPA

2mo

Wow. Software would be so much easier if it weren't for all of the people problems, LOL.

cliffberg

2mo

Stop viewing them as teams and consider the individuals. By creating two cohesive teams you have created two tribes. There are individuals who have issues with other individuals. It is up to you as their leader to deal with those issues and get them resolved.