Agile Strukturen sind Hierarchien heute oft voraus. Sie sind schneller, flexibler, besser. Das liegt vor allem daran, dass sich Teams selbst organisieren, was Menschen dazu bringt, sich mehr einzubringen und mehr und anders Verantwortung zu übernehmen. Doch befördert das nicht die Selbstausbeutung? Ist Agilität in Wirklichkeit eine Form moderner Sklaverei?
Den Vorwurf höre ich oft
Agilität sei nichts weiter als ein übler Trick, der Menschen und Teams nur dazu bringen soll, sich noch mehr selbst auszubeuten. Mein Kollege, Wolf Steinbrecher, hatte sich vor einiger Zeit im Teamworkblog sehr nachvollziehbar mit dieser Frage auseinandergesetzt.
Seine Antwort damals: Nein. Das Gegenteil sei der Fall.
Denn erstens handele es sich bei dem, was wir landläufig Selbstausbeutung nennen, in Wirklichkeit um Ausbeutung. Zweitens schaffe Agilität bewusst und mit Ansage Strukturen, um ebendiese Ausbeutung zu verhindern.
Der Grund hierfür liegt
im Lean-geprägten agilen Mindset, das Verschwendung und Verluste nach Möglichkeit überall, also auf allen organisatorischen Ebenen permanent einzudämmen versucht – was im Endeffekt das Geheimnis des agilen Erfolgs ist:
- Mura – „Unausgeglichenheit“
- Muri – „Überlastung“
- Muda – „Verschwendung“
Nimmt man es genau
dann bedeutet Selbst-Ausbeutung, dass Menschen selbst und freiwillig (!) entscheiden, sich auszubeuten oder sich ausbeuten zu lassen. Also zusätzliche Dinge zu tun, ohne dass sie etwas davon haben.
Doch wie ist das, wenn wir auf Urlaub oder Freizeit verzichten, unbezahlte Überstunden schieben, rund um die Uhr erreichbar sind etc.? Tun wir das wirklich freiwillig?
Wahrscheinlicher dürfte sein
dass wir das bewusst oder unbewusst tun, weil wir uns dazu gezwungen, zumindest aber gedrängt fühlen – aus welchen Gründen auch immer. Zum Beispiel, weil wir denken, dass „man“ das von uns verlangen kann, aus Angst vor Status- oder Jobverlust oder schlicht, weil automatische Stressmuster greifen.
Wenn aber Zwang der Grund für unser Tun ist, handelt es sich eben nicht um Selbstausbeutung. Sondern um Ausbeutung.
Wat mut, dat mut?
Dass wir trotzdem von Selbstausbeutung sprechen, ist folgerichtig und psycho-logisch. Denn Ausbeutung ist in unserer Leistungskultur tief verwurzelt: Anerkennung (Liebe, Lob, gute Noten, Zeit, Geld, Job, Karriere etc.) bekommen wir heute (fast) ausschließlich gegen Leistung.
Von Kindesbeinen lernen wir: Wir werden belohnt, wenn wir tun, was man uns sagt.
Das ist für uns ein normales und selbstverständliches Lebensprinzip
auch wenn wir in immer mehr Lebensbereichen andere Erfahrungen machen können, z.B. in heutigen Eltern-Kind-Beziehungen.
Das zeigt, dass das zwanghafte Leistungsprinzip eben keine Naturgewalt ist. Sondern im Gegenteil bislang recht zielgerichtet forciert wurde und wird. Und das schon sehr lange.
Weil wir aber von einem freien Willen in einer freien Welt ausgehen heißt das, dass wir dieses (zwanghafte) Leistungsmodell für uns auch aus freien Stücken akzeptieren. Wir entscheiden uns ja selbst (!) dafür, also für diese Art von „Ausbeutung“. Wir könnten es ja auch z.B. ablehnen.
In der Arbeitswelt und meist auch im Selbstmanagement
folgen deshalb die allermeisten von uns jeden Tag aufs Neue dem klassischen, hierarchischen, also tendenziell rigiden, autoritär-patriarchalischen Bild davon, wie es zu laufen hat:
Weil sie (oder wir) das dürfen oder gar müssen, setzen Mitglieder einer Organisation andere Mitglieder ihrer eigenen oder auch anderer Organisationen unter Druck, um sie zu Dingen zu bewegen, die sie (mutmaßlich) von sich aus nicht getan hätten.
Das geschieht in der Regel
unbewusst und unreflektiert, aktiv und passiv. Mal also sind wir diejenigen, die einfordern, mal lassen wir zu, dass man uns drängt – alle Sandwichmanager unter uns wissen, was das heißt.
Dass es auch anders laufen kann, kommt uns selten in den Sinn. Obwohl wir immer öfter mit diesem Prinzip an Grenzen stoßen, z.B. wenn wir unzufrieden werden oder zu langsam zu schlechte Ergebnisse produzieren.
Genau das aber ist der Grund, warum agile Arbeitsrahmen wie Scrum und Kanban anders vorgehen.
Manager kontrollieren oder befehlen hier nicht.
Sondern sie führen im allerbesten Sinne. Sie machen also klar, was die Unternehmens- und/oder Projektziele sind und sorgen für gute Rahmenbedingungen für die Umsetzungsteams.
Die Teams und ihre Fachexperten wiederum entscheiden dann über die Umsetzung: Welche Aufgabe hat welche Priorität? Wann wird welche Aufgabe erledigt? Wer macht das?
Es soll so wenig Management wie möglich gemacht werden. Und wenn, dann dort, wo es wertschöpfend ist und Sinn macht. Vor allem also in den Umsetzungsteams. Sie sollen schließlich pünktlich jene Ergebnisse liefern, die man gemeinsam vereinbart hat.
(Man kann übrigens zurecht fragen, was daran neu und anders sein soll im Vergleich zur klassischen Managementlehre. Die Antwort ist: Wenig. Agilität setzt jetzt aber organisatorisch das um, was wir schon seit vielen Dekaden wissen.)
„Wo kämen wir denn da hin…?“
Ständig werden dafür die Erwartungen synchronisiert und wenn nötig Rollen und Entscheidungshierarchien angepasst. Denn je nach Rolle, Aufgabe und Verantwortungsbereich darf und muss (!) jedes Teammitglied selbst und/oder gemeinsam im Team entscheiden, was wann wie be- und abgearbeitet wird.
Deshalb achtet Agilität auf die „Souveränität“ der Teammitglieder: Wer entscheiden soll, muss seinen Entscheidungsspielraum kennen und braucht dafür Entscheidungsgewalt. Nur so funktioniert das Pull-statt-Push-Prinzip.
Agil zu arbeiten, bedeutet positiv und vertrauensvoll zusammenzuarbeiten
und vor allem auch entsprechende Strukturen dafür zu schaffen. Zum Beispiel indem überflüssige Kontrollstrukturen abgeschafft werden. Dadurch werden organisatorische Freiräume geschaffen, Potenziale gehoben und der Blick auf die Wertschöpfung freigelegt, also auf jene Dinge, die den Kunden und die Investoren interessieren.
Misstrauensgeprägte hierarchischen Organisationsformen haben naturgemäß Schwierigkeiten, dies nachzuvollziehen.
In agilen Strukturen sind Menschen aber
In agilen Strukturen sind Menschen aberExperten, die auf Augenhöhe arbeiten. Also: Diesmal wirklich. Und nicht nur wie bisher nur für die Imagebroschüre.
Denn ihre Aufgabe ist, sich maximal einzubringen. Als Fachleute und auch als Prozessexperten ihrer eigenen Arbeit, die nicht nur ihren eigenen Fachbereich im Blick haben, sondern auch für das große Ganze denken. Auch in organisatorischen Belange.
Das ist natürlich auch wertschätzend und motivierend. Aus organisatorischer Sicht ist es vor allem aber schlau.
Denn so können die Fachleute machen, was ihnen in hierarchischen Strukturen aufgrund eines bürokratischen (z.B. Reportings) und organisatorischen (z.B. Meetings) Überbaus erschwert wird: Ihre eigentliche Arbeit erledigen. Und zwar dann, wenn es am besten und sinnvollsten ist.
Und zudem so organisiert, dass es gut für sie, die Ergebnisse und das Team ist.
Und das eben nicht als Aufgabe des/der Einzelnen, sondern als Entscheidung, die im Rahmen eines geordneten und getakteten Prozess gemeinsam durch das Team gefällt wird. Und zum Team gehört auch das Management und/oder der Auftraggeber.
Fördert agiles Arbeiten also Ausbeutung oder gar Selbstausbeutung?
Fördert agiles Arbeiten also Ausbeutung oder gar Selbstausbeutung?Es ist nicht auszuschließen, und in unserer Leistungskultur halte ich es sogar für naheliegend, dass agiles Arbeiten dafür missbraucht wird. Trotzdem:
Es widerspricht allem, was mit agilen Strukturen bezweckt und erreicht werden soll.
Für agiles Arbeiten braucht es ein klares, offenes und angstfreies Umfeld. Es braucht selbstbewusste Menschen, die im Team gute Ergebnisse produzieren wollen und deshalb gemeinsam lernen wollen und dies auch tun. Fehler, Konflikte und Missstände werden hier regelmäßig gut und zielgerichtet behandelt.
Heißt also: Wo dies – aus vielleicht auch unbewusster Haltung heraus, also aus Prinzip (!) – nicht geschieht, wo also Menschen stets auch nur tendenziell unter Druck und Angst arbeiten, in diesem Sinne also „ausgebeutet“ werden oder sich vielleicht auf diese Art auch selbst ausbeuten, wird schlicht nicht agil gearbeitet.
Es ist wichtig zu erkennen, dass dieser Zustand der Selbstausbeutung kein Naturphänomen ist. Es liegt an uns das zu ändern.
Wir können das ändern. Allerdings nur, wenn wir uns – selbst – dazu entscheiden.
Literatur & Links
- Balle, Michael u.a.: The Lean Strategy: Using Lean to Create Competitive Advantage, Unleash Innovation, and Deliver Sustainable Growth.
- Byrne, Art: The Lean Turnaround.
- Donauer, Sabine: Faktor Freude. Wie die Wirtschaft Arbeitsgefühle erzeugt.
- Sandell, Michael: Vom Ende des Gemeinwohls: Wie die Leistungsgesellschaft unsere Demokratien zerreißt
- Sandell, Michael: The Tyranny of Merrit. Can we find common good
- Seit wann wir für die Arbeit brennen – Geschichte der Arbeitsfreude. BR2-Podcast
- Steinbrecher, Wolf: Agile Werte: Führt Scrum zur Selbstausbeutung? Blogpost auf Teamworkblog
- Sutherland, Jeff: Die Scrum-Revolution: Management mit der bahnbrechenden Methode der erfolgreichsten Unternehmen
- Sutherland, Jeff: Scrum The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time
- Verhaeghe, Paul: Autorität und Verantwortung.
- Verheyen, Nina: Die Erfindung der Leistung
Today, Agile structures are often ahead of hierarchies. They are faster, more flexible, better. That’s mainly because teams organize themselves, which encourages people to get more involved and take on more and different responsibility. But doesn’t that promote self-exploitation? Is Agility in fact a form of modern slavery?
The accusation I often get
Agile is nothing more than a nasty trick designed only to get people and teams to exploit themselves even more. Some time ago, my colleague, Wolf Steinbrecher, dealt with this question very comprehensibly in the Teamworkblog.
His answer at that time: No. The opposite is the case.
First, what we commonly call self-exploitation is actually exploitation. Secondly, agility consciously creates structures to prevent this exploitation.
The reason for this lies
in the lean-influenced Agile mindset, which attempts to permanently contain waste and losses wherever possible, i.e. at all organizational levels – which, in the final analysis, is the secret of Agile success:
- Mura – „Imbalance“
- Muri – “ Overload“
- Muda – “ Wastefulness“
Looking at it closely
then self-exploitation means that people voluntarily (!) decide to exploit themselves or to be exploited. In other words, to do extra things without getting anything out of it.
Yet what about when we choose to sacrifice vacation or time off, work unpaid overtime, be available around the clock, etc.? Are we really doing this voluntarily?
More likely is
that we do this – consciously or unconsciously – because we feel compelled, or at least pushed, to do so – for whatever reason. For example, because we think that „one“ can demand it of us, out of fear of losing status or a job, or simply because automatic stress patterns take hold.
But if compulsion is the reason for what we do, it is not self-exploitation. It is exploitation.
We need to do, what we need to do?
It is logical and psycho-logical that we nevertheless speak of self-exploitation, is. For exploitation is deeply rooted in our high-performance culture: today we get recognition (love, praise, good grades, time, money, job, career, etc.) (almost) exclusively in exchange for performance.
From childhood we learn: We will be rewarded if we do what we are told.
This is a normal principle of life for us, and one that we take for granted
even if we may experience other things in an increasing number of areas of life, for example in today’s parent-child relationships.
This shows that the compulsive performance principle is not a force of nature. On the contrary, it has been and is being forced quite purposefully. And that for a very long time.
But because we assume a free will in a free world means that we accept this (compulsive) performance model for us also out of free choice. After all, we make a decision for it ourselves (!), that is, for this kind of „exploitation“. We could also reject it, for example.
Therefore, in the working world and mostly in self-management
every day, the vast majority of us follow the classic, hierarchical, i.e. tending to be rigid, authoritarian-patriarchal image of how things have to run:
Because they (or we) are allowed or even required to do so, members of an organization put pressure on other members of their own or other organizations to make them do things they (presumably) would not have done on their own.
Usually this happens
unconsciously and without reflection, actively and passively. So sometimes we are the ones who push, sometimes we allow ourselves to be pushed – all sandwich managers among us know what that means.
It rarely occurs to us that things can work differently. Although we increasingly reach limits with this principle, e.g. when we become dissatisfied or produce outcomes that are too slow and/or not good enough.
But that is exactly why agile working frameworks like Scrum and Kanban proceed differently
Here, managers do not control or command.
They rather lead in the very best sense. In other words, they make it clear what the company and/or project goals are and provide a good framework for the implementation teams.
In turn, the teams and their subject matter experts decide on the implementation: Which task is given which priority? When will which task be done? Who will do it?
As little management as possible should be done. And if there is management, it should be done to really add value and to really make sense. Primarily, that is, to help teams do their work. After all,they should deliver on time the results that the company has agreed on – together.
(By the way, one can rightly ask what is new and different about this, compared to classical management theory. The answer is: Little. Agility, however, is now implementing organizationally what we have known for many decades).
„Where would we get to…?“
For this to happen, expectations are constantly synchronized and, if necessary, roles and decision-making hierarchies are adjusted. Because depending on the role, task and area of responsibility, each team member may and must (!) decide for themselves and/or together in the team what is processed and when.
That’s why agility pays attention to the „sovereignty“ of team members: Anyone who is supposed to decide must know their scope for decision-making and needs decision-making power to do so. Only in this way does the principle of pull vs. push work.
To work in an Agile manner means to collaborate in an positive and trusting way
And, above all, to create appropriate structures for this. For example, by abolishing superfluous control structures. This creates organizational freedom, raises potentials and exposes the view on value creation, i.e. on those things that interest the customer and the investors.
Distrustful hierarchical organizational forms naturally have difficulties in comprehending this.
In agile structures, however, people are
experts who work at eye level. So: for real this time. And not just for the image brochure, as has been the case in the past.
Because their task is to contribute to the maximum. As experts and also as experts on processes in their own work, who not only have their own specialist area in mind, but also think for the big picture. Also in organizational matters.
This is of course also appreciative and motivating. From an organizational point of view, it is above all smart.
Because in this way, the experts can do what in hierarchical structures is difficult for them due to a bureaucratic (e.g. reporting) and organizational (e.g. meetings) overbuild: Do their actual work. And do it when it suits them best and makes the most sense.
And also organized in a way that is good for them, for the results and for the team.
And that precisely not as the task of the individual, but as a decision that is made jointly by the team within the framework of an orderly and clocked process. And the management and/or the client also belong to the team.
So, does working agile push exploitation or even self-exploitation?
It certainly can’t be ruled out, and in our performance culture I even think it is quite likely, that agile working will be abused for this purpose. Nevertheless:
It contradicts everything that agile structures are intended to do and achieve
Agile working needs a clear, open and fear-free environment. It needs self-confident people who want to produce good results with and within the team and therefore want to learn together and do so. Errors, conflicts and grievances are regularly handled well and purposefully here.
So this means: Agile teams or organizations which tend to work under pressure and fear tend to „exploit“ or tend to exploit themselves. Means: They simply don’t work in an Agile way.
It is important to realize that this state of self-exploitation is not a natural phenomenon. It’s up to us to change that.
And we CAN change this. But only if we decide to do so by ourself.
What Else Comes To My Mind
- Balle, Michael u.a.: The Lean Strategy: Using Lean to Create Competitive Advantage, Unleash Innovation, and Deliver Sustainable Growth.
- Byrne, Art: The Lean Turnaround.
- Donauer, Sabine: Faktor Freude. Wie die Wirtschaft Arbeitsgefühle erzeugt.
- Sandell, Michael: The Tyranny of Merrit. Can we find common good
- Sutherland, Jeff: Scrum The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time
- Verhaeghe, Paul: Autorität und Verantwortung.
- Verheyen, Nina: Die Erfindung der Leistung
Today, Agile structures are often ahead of hierarchies. They are faster, more flexible, better. That’s mainly because teams organize themselves, which encourages people to get more involved and take on more and different responsibility. But doesn’t that promote self-exploitation? Is Agility in fact a form of modern slavery?
The accusation I often get
Agile is nothing more than a nasty trick designed only to get people and teams to exploit themselves even more. Some time ago, my colleague, Wolf Steinbrecher, dealt with this question very comprehensibly in the Teamworkblog.
His answer at that time: No. The opposite is the case.
First, what we commonly call self-exploitation is actually exploitation. Secondly, agility consciously creates structures to prevent this exploitation.
The reason for this lies
in the lean-influenced Agile mindset, which attempts to permanently contain waste and losses wherever possible, i.e. at all organizational levels – which, in the final analysis, is the secret of Agile success:
- Mura – „Imbalance“
- Muri – “ Overload“
- Muda – “ Wastefulness“
Looking at it closely
then self-exploitation means that people voluntarily (!) decide to exploit themselves or to be exploited. In other words, to do extra things without getting anything out of it.
Yet what about when we choose to sacrifice vacation or time off, work unpaid overtime, be available around the clock, etc.? Are we really doing this voluntarily?
More likely is
that we do this – consciously or unconsciously – because we feel compelled, or at least pushed, to do so – for whatever reason. For example, because we think that „one“ can demand it of us, out of fear of losing status or a job, or simply because automatic stress patterns take hold.
But if compulsion is the reason for what we do, it is not self-exploitation. It is exploitation.
We need to do, what we need to do?
It is logical and psycho-logical that we nevertheless speak of self-exploitation, is. For exploitation is deeply rooted in our high-performance culture: today we get recognition (love, praise, good grades, time, money, job, career, etc.) (almost) exclusively in exchange for performance.
From childhood we learn: We will be rewarded if we do what we are told.
This is a normal principle of life for us, and one that we take for granted
even if we may experience other things in an increasing number of areas of life, for example in today’s parent-child relationships.
This shows that the compulsive performance principle is not a force of nature. On the contrary, it has been and is being forced quite purposefully. And that for a very long time.
But because we assume a free will in a free world means that we accept this (compulsive) performance model for us also out of free choice. After all, we make a decision for it ourselves (!), that is, for this kind of „exploitation“. We could also reject it, for example.
Therefore, in the working world and mostly in self-management
every day, the vast majority of us follow the classic, hierarchical, i.e. tending to be rigid, authoritarian-patriarchal image of how things have to run:
Because they (or we) are allowed or even required to do so, members of an organization put pressure on other members of their own or other organizations to make them do things they (presumably) would not have done on their own.
Usually this happens
unconsciously and without reflection, actively and passively. So sometimes we are the ones who push, sometimes we allow ourselves to be pushed – all sandwich managers among us know what that means.
It rarely occurs to us that things can work differently. Although we increasingly reach limits with this principle, e.g. when we become dissatisfied or produce outcomes that are too slow and/or not good enough.
But that is exactly why agile working frameworks like Scrum and Kanban proceed differently
Here, managers do not control or command.
They rather lead in the very best sense. In other words, they make it clear what the company and/or project goals are and provide a good framework for the implementation teams.
In turn, the teams and their subject matter experts decide on the implementation: Which task is given which priority? When will which task be done? Who will do it?
As little management as possible should be done. And if there is management, it should be done to really add value and to really make sense. Primarily, that is, to help teams do their work. After all,they should deliver on time the results that the company has agreed on – together.
(By the way, one can rightly ask what is new and different about this, compared to classical management theory. The answer is: Little. Agility, however, is now implementing organizationally what we have known for many decades).
„Where would we get to…?“
For this to happen, expectations are constantly synchronized and, if necessary, roles and decision-making hierarchies are adjusted. Because depending on the role, task and area of responsibility, each team member may and must (!) decide for themselves and/or together in the team what is processed and when.
That’s why agility pays attention to the „sovereignty“ of team members: Anyone who is supposed to decide must know their scope for decision-making and needs decision-making power to do so. Only in this way does the principle of pull vs. push work.
To work in an Agile manner means to collaborate in an positive and trusting way
And, above all, to create appropriate structures for this. For example, by abolishing superfluous control structures. This creates organizational freedom, raises potentials and exposes the view on value creation, i.e. on those things that interest the customer and the investors.
Distrustful hierarchical organizational forms naturally have difficulties in comprehending this.
In agile structures, however, people are
experts who work at eye level. So: for real this time. And not just for the image brochure, as has been the case in the past.
Because their task is to contribute to the maximum. As experts and also as experts on processes in their own work, who not only have their own specialist area in mind, but also think for the big picture. Also in organizational matters.
This is of course also appreciative and motivating. From an organizational point of view, it is above all smart.
Because in this way, the experts can do what in hierarchical structures is difficult for them due to a bureaucratic (e.g. reporting) and organizational (e.g. meetings) overbuild: Do their actual work. And do it when it suits them best and makes the most sense.
And also organized in a way that is good for them, for the results and for the team.
And that precisely not as the task of the individual, but as a decision that is made jointly by the team within the framework of an orderly and clocked process. And the management and/or the client also belong to the team.
So, does working agile push exploitation or even self-exploitation?
It certainly can’t be ruled out, and in our performance culture I even think it is quite likely, that agile working will be abused for this purpose. Nevertheless:
It contradicts everything that agile structures are intended to do and achieve
Agile working needs a clear, open and fear-free environment. It needs self-confident people who want to produce good results with and within the team and therefore want to learn together and do so. Errors, conflicts and grievances are regularly handled well and purposefully here.
So this means: Agile teams or organizations which tend to work under pressure and fear tend to „exploit“ or tend to exploit themselves. Means: They simply don’t work in an Agile way.
It is important to realize that this state of self-exploitation is not a natural phenomenon. It’s up to us to change that.
And we CAN change this. But only if we decide to do so by ourself.
What Else Comes To My Mind
- Balle, Michael u.a.: The Lean Strategy: Using Lean to Create Competitive Advantage, Unleash Innovation, and Deliver Sustainable Growth.
- Byrne, Art: The Lean Turnaround.
- Donauer, Sabine: Faktor Freude. Wie die Wirtschaft Arbeitsgefühle erzeugt.
- Sandell, Michael: The Tyranny of Merrit. Can we find common good
- Sutherland, Jeff: Scrum The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time
- Verhaeghe, Paul: Autorität und Verantwortung.
- Verheyen, Nina: Die Erfindung der Leistung