A lot has been written about how to create these simple rules (my favorite article comes from Esther Derby), so here`s the process I use when working with a new (or existing) scrum team. At the beginning, you encourage discussion within the team and allow everyone to propose, agree and reject any agreement. Note that you can`t get people to change their emotions, but you can focus on (opposable) behaviors. Once the whole team knows what each grip note means, ask them to evaluate each standard with the next scale. Thumbs up (👍🏼) for total consent, neutral face (😐) for questions or thumbs down (👎🏼) for disagreements. Here`s the hook with disunity though; If someone disagrees, they should propose better. Zach Chapman explains how we can create a deal that works for everyone. He sets an example for us to respect our teammates. I know you have to remind me of that from time to time. The ScrumMaster is the custodian of employment contracts, but the whole team has a responsibility to question if someone breaks the agreement. As the work agreements have been agreed by the team, the perception of personal attacks and confrontations is eliminated. In the spirit of transparency and continuous improvement, team members should review employment contracts from time to time and ask, „Should they be updated?“ Faced with friction between some members of the team, he opted for a 1-2-4 model[3] to discuss possible agreements. This model aims to ensure that everyone has a voice in this process: teams must hold each other to account.
People will have differences of opinion and will have to re-examine them. „In the spirit of transparency and continuous improvement, team members should reconsider employment contracts from time to time and ask, „Should they be updated?“ Don`t let things go too far. Steve begins to ask for proposed agreements in his first priority area: Daily Scrum Start Time. After any possible work agreement, it uses the Decider protocol[2] to quickly examine the possibility of consensus. If there is no immediate consensus, the person who said „no“ to an idea suggests what they see as a better idea. If more than one person has a problem, everyone is expected to offer a better idea. If too many people say „no,“ the applicant should consider withdrawing the proposal. In the case of Steve`s team, the team has its first work agreements after 20 minutes: it is important to remind the team that these actions are not even cancelled. They can (and should) change when we know more about cooperation. Retrospectives are a good time for action that changes an existing labour agreement if we recognize that it is an obstacle to better cooperation.