Vantaggi
Pros is the tricky and frankly spoken in-between strategically abused part in the speech recognition team(s), difficult to decipher for newbies (most non-techies) of agile project or team, organization and leadership, yet the advancedness and technicity suggest a constructive pragmatism: - team managers´ (TM) expectations were unclear towards the most advanced and actually prototypically agile client organization of which TMs till the last week suggested we made them happy - in weeklies to suggest leading-from-below and team-building ("inclusive” keeping track of staff number at rather high fluctuation, dismissals unfortunately due to deliberate and structural mobbing by the monologizing TMs ) - in a climate suggesting agility´s happiness-preceds-performance (if necessary sabotaging competence to upkeep this fight-the-dark-power instant "creativity" and here ideological, unreal help) - approximating the agile project management´s Scrum review and retrospective difference by an intentionally faked "always change" process-innovation (retrospective) among other incoherent informing us, while blaming parent organization as pretext for autonomy bubbling or here capsuling (especially in this case of TMs not being agile craftsmen and explicitly stating that “helping” or connectedness, today in Motivation 3.0 often as purpose, motivates us: the “good” mediates change in a regional office ... of a firm that itself had avoided anti-humanizing flotation) - to grab the attractiveness points of deviance from traditional goal-over-fulfilment by almost compulsory and reaction-hampering shifting of what remained orientation as “priorities”, completely unintelligibly related to relative, situative importances of the local task-system (maybe a mimikri of perceived pushs from above) - lately the chief TM (she/ her like all others) enjoying again the blame-culture-prone micro-management part of raising the previously populististically yet still top-down lowered benchmark - spontaneously stating a "we create the guidelines" second task (aside not so overlapping and results-open observation-plan-based content grading, which was required to be done with ideal interrater-reliabilty and up-to-date) in a suppressed-creativity-narrative, while never directing real self-organization for real bottom-up conceptual or linguistically pragmatist label-development (at almost not so constructivist Natural Language Processing … but we could feel “language is power”). And without this task being explicit part of our performance evaluation (or thus an interesting part of reviews) as there was beyond claims no real if not motivational then structural (agile tabu of resource management ) and informative task-standardization of our … at best guidelines co-creation At least they started looking for Project Coordinators at that “we create the guidelines” moment (on a weekly’s slide) , who could clarify expectations of the client, of which they had confirmed several times they would be happy (TPT company philosophy is still about exceeding expectations, yet potentially in agile style not abiding to external norming of quality in third party exchange, or conducting traditional project management controlling)
Svantaggi
Vision or here better mission "shared" was handed down in short video clips of parent organization, while preserving a modern organization self-eulogy at pseudo-participatory weeklies. Almost there was no mention of differences between tutorials, practice and live projects, furthering task-completeness or a slightly different notion of purpose. Aside not making sense of differing situative tasks and their relative importances and different organizational consequences asked for by some colleagues, already the algorithm programming were never treated as motivation aspect of our still expected networking task (likewise self-actualization-related Linguist certificate topic as offered ... maybe linked with observational statistics). Thus dispite no failure-culture adequate in grading, without clear expectations also for us (note that focussing on stakeholder value when combined with short-phased release cycles recently were factor-analytically identified as determinants of agile team success … not-knowingly para-phrasing expectancy-value-theory while claiming content-theory of “motivation”) The origins of quality management in control and not activating, participatory goal setting (OKRs got close to the precise feedback power, too) described ironically the main authority of the highest TM (she/ her) … with top-down shifts of quantities that then only imitated being bottom-up. These declining “invitations” could hint at manipulative power, even before they resulted in the frozeness combined with attention-seeking for what they’d done. The conflict of the 2 tasks of being recipient (grader) and sender (creative input) was thus exacerbated by lacking clarity, or active desertification premises in explicit disdain thereof… for more debased and really irresponsible interpretation of a almost traditional line-management, whose direct yet useless functionality weakend employees fortified Local training (pedagogical psychology with active, focussed transaction of CLT may have depended on task-system clarifications of the “structures” trapped in impulses) but also knowledge management got rather less interactive and was determined by degrading ease-of-use tools (depracating a nice slack tool for a worse and ripe in burocratic documentation) … despite the sunny office. Roles in the form of a conflict-resolution team got clarified yet never against their own claims left the realm of data-driven feedback. Using the word “project” frequently (not having neared transitional Matrix silo-overcoming let alone holistic networking) and TPT portraying itsself to be an agile enterprise, TMs or local coordinators were far from getting cross-functional experts together (ironically loaded with HR consequence-level authority to instill fear and punish though): exchange between markets, task-development of their attractive creative one, contact with stakeholders, functioning Partner programm, etc had a call-center feel preserved. Or more hierarchically expressed: Agile leaders would be between enabling encounters, self-organization, and spreading agile methods, none of which the three TMs (she/ her), plus assistance (she/ her) and their favoritist followers (mostly bossy she/ hers) were capable of. Not only did "not our task" to self-oranise smaller teams , innovate, or invite suggestions (fairness of self-actualization) "deviate" to a serious perversion of no-blame-culture (see below; as internal core of anti-frustration agile methods), with the handpicking of "no worries" followers in the chat in also "not standardized" gender competition at the workplace involving zeitgeisty “humiliation” (i.e. loads of relational violence, including the misgender subtype of bullying if not insinuating harassament involving private parts): TMs (remember: "local coordinators" of no exchange between languages/ scaled groups/ roles or even stakeholders) were apart from letting things roll enthusiastically ... observed with systematically making up mistakes of then literally people whose looks they didn't like. These at the forming-phase hard to detect PATTERNS and the fact that they kicked out 50 % of team from one "week" to another was so new and painful to me and others ... that I had prepared a letter to the Department Manager Eurasia (that title just in case), who had peeked in once in a weekly saying he ´ll be in the background. Here in stenography-style follow tricks common to above 10 targets of attacks, or actually stressors of a blend of structural mobbing that really deserved a look from external authorities (said from a OD and IO-psychologist perspective with excellent "grades"): - first and foremost construing mistakes instead fighting blame-culture, i.e. faking productivity sheet entries with false quantities, remove check-in and -out clockings and then blame, not explain clockings corrections or medical leave correctly with the intent to blame more, erasure of daily project entries in the productivity sheet, combined with sadistically laughing at technical mistakes in weeklies i.e. sabotaging mastery/competence needs while suggesting connectedness needs, and really using the autonomy need and power capsule of agile wrongly … the actually TMs’ changes going unnoticed by the document history - Brutal instrumentalization of group chat with really abusive GIFs (violent stuff like kills, violence against children, body shaming, harassment-close selections) and other public bullying (last but not not least misgendering men), also by TMs directly if not weaponizing them (including in my case witnessed-at-screensharing password details) - TMs eliminated a slack tool that dripped of illogical and bullying-related content, and for which other companies have a separate chat as voluntary chatter playground - they implicitly really threatened „mental health“ issues (if not relaxed outside the obligatory yet abusive chat at free time) under the disguise of work-life balance, collectively touching boundaries with malign intent yet in soon 3on1 isolating and abused feedback monthlies; the complicity including assistance and HR who took people that complained in private out afterwards (potentially recorded against their will at their first breaking the silence and opening up in face of provocations) - While half the team size gradually got alienated by missing fairness, nothing corrective happened to support the impression of nice climate whereas the laissez-faire arbitrariness and differentiation of most offensive following grew - I had sourcing specialist emails at the very start of the ghosting and ingoring contributions, yet hadn´t made public my new position. Also a strange Whatsapp message contiguous to the alienation and fraction-building appeared - Even though stressing it: questions towards the adored client underwent a filtering editing process (including greetings or not, rewriting wording and content of suggestions in Q&As), never made explicit whereas pressure got applied to diffuse our participation in chat, by referring to better immediately ask above. (2:8 seems the ratio of male-female contributions by a first glance at Q&A files, as this intersection was ripe in TMs´ neuroticism of how much guideline creation was actually expected, still they protected it and had most co-workers self-select themselves negatively rightly) - When asked about following through with guideline creation, they counterintuitively said that somebody had to be right; contradictory to bottom-up change claims earlier we saw the systemic offence of subjectivization of rulework-related ideas at stages beyond faceloss - Discriminating publicly whole "countries/markets" i.e. whole teams as weird and nightmare before getting 50% of these very people fired - Insult with offensive local language to-quick-to-grasp at beginnings of originally One-on-Ones - not attaching a mentioned password-reset instruction file to targeted individuals outside of their benevolence and information flows, after mentioned in a contiguous mail So: I would say that is on the extrem end of a derailed local leadersip towards a perceived non-pragmatic power struggle with highly manipulative resentment … and little results or real happiness. Instrumetalizing restorative justice while really TM positions´ favoritism was based on being local, another anachronistic decision-making factor. Promotion being based on "internal" recommendation, and a small percentage bigger HR. To sum up the invisible 3 step in these complexities: people experience a counter-transference first and wish to be more structered, then counter-cyclical new hires open up to change work, and finally are left alone with their own reasoning and potentially self-blame as to why change didn´t work out. In-between they mostly stop understanding what´s wrong, and that while the proximity to the agile proto-organization (connectedness to client of only TMs) continues to make supervisors’ methodologies look effective. Which they aren´t but who cares to explain at that point, when one harvest the wrongs of failed feedback-culture (pos feedback culture different from constructive criticism, and mentioning positive standardized as well as other contributions - not firefighting or blame for things out of your control; both maybe missing due to embedment) A detail regarding the climate i.e. communication facade, or silencing of excluded coworkers: the creative is not at all limited to one gender, rather contrary as also newer research suggests with counterintuitive findings (relentless carrerism versus e.g. practicing arts in absence of obligations).