Vitaly Sharovatov

This is a response to Mike Cohn Linkedin post Daily Scrums: what to do when people won’t talk”.

Mike brings attention to the common challenge of team members remaining silent (or not so active) during daily scrum meetings. His recommendation for Scrum Masters is to proactively encourage these individuals to speak.

While the intent behind Mike’s advice is certainly to foster better team communication, there are alternative perspectives worth exploring.

Firstly, the Scrum Master’s traditional role involves guiding a self-organizing team. Encouraging team members to speak could be seen as veering toward a more directive approach or even micromanagement.

Studies show that micromanagement has a detrimental effect on team morale, performance, and turnover. The more the scrum master manages people directly, the closer they are to micromanagement.

Asking Scrum Masters to prompt individuals to speak up also introduces another layer of complexity. This shift from a ‘push’ to a ‘pull’ system could negatively impact how teammates communicate and share information.

It’s worth noting that adding complexity, rather than simplifying, is a common psychological trait. Being aware of this phenomena can help teams focus on solutions that reduce complexity rather than adding to it.

From an organizational psychology standpoint, it’s essential to consider the potential ramifications of such an intervention. Encouraging participation without understanding the underlying hesitations might inadvertently transform meaningful activities into mere rituals, affecting the team’s perception of the meeting’s value.

To get people to talk, you need to understand what’s keeping them quiet

A more balanced strategy might involve investigating why certain members remain quiet, possibly through private conversations to assess their perspective on the meeting’s value.

So what alternatives can be considered?

• Reassess the purpose and effectiveness of daily scrum meetings with the team. If they’re no longer serving their intended purpose, it may be worth experimenting with different formats or even forgoing them.
• If the meetings still offer value, engage one-on-one with quieter members to understand and address the factors hindering their participation.

In conclusion, while proactivity in improving communication is admirable, a nuanced understanding of team dynamics, individual motivations, and the complexities of human behavior should guide interventions. This ensures that actions taken will empower rather than inhibit team members, keeping in line with the principles of self-organization and effective communication.