S2 E11 Lean Change w/ Jason Little and Ken Rickard
[00:00:00] Brad Nelson: Welcome to today’s episode of the Agile for Agiles podcast. I am your host, Brad Nelson. And with me as always is Drew Podwal.
[00:00:09] Drew Podwal: Hello. Hello, hello.
[00:00:10] Brad Nelson: Hello. And we have a very exciting episode today. We always say that, but I’m especially excited because today we have authored Jason Little joining us who has authored the book, lean Change Management, innovative Practices for Managing Organizational Change.
And he also has, uh, some trainings and I see Agile as well for enterprise coaching. And with him is trainer and coach from my company, Ken Rickard. Welcome guys. Hey, hey guys. So we’ll toss it over to to each of you to do a little bit of an intro and start with you, Jason. All right. Hopefully
[00:00:47] Jason Little: this goes better than the, uh, the session from last week where nobody got a reference.
We, uh, Ken and I spoke, uh, at a conference in person and it was the first time we actually met in person. So we did a little play on the old TV show. Perfect Strangers and like one person knew what it was. So, uh,
[00:01:04] Drew Podwal: did you do the chance of Joy?
[00:01:06] Jason Little: Yeah. Not good. I suggested it, but uh, Ken would’ve been the one that would’ve had to carry me because he was Belk and I was Larry.
But, uh, yeah.
[00:01:14] Brad Nelson: Well you’re in luck cuz Drew knows a lot of TV shows.
[00:01:17] Drew Podwal: I am, yeah. Yeah.
[00:01:21] Jason Little: So sorry for throwing us off the rails right away. So I’ll get, uh, get into the intro. So I’m j Jason Little, I started my career as a developer back in the nineties. So I am the world’s greatest cold fusion developer, and I got into change through the Agile space.
So the early two thousands I started working with, um, companies on helping them adopt, uh, Agile practices. So I worked as a product owner, scrum master, internal external coach. And probably mid two thousands is when I started to realize this was all about change and really didn’t have a whole lot to do with Agile.
So the last 15 some odd years I have been trying to figure out how do we take the good ideas from a bunch of different communities like Lean Startup and design thinking and Agile and change and organizational development and throw out the outdated stuff and try to build an approach that’s gonna fit our context.
[00:02:13] Ken Rickard: Yeah. Uh, and, and Jason picked me up on the side of the road a couple years back and that’s how we met. Of course, I’m just kidding. But my career has kind of taken a all over the place type of approach where I started out as a mainframe operator, uh, then got into analytics and did development work there.
Then architect type work in the data and analytics space, and then managing development teams. And eventually got into Scrum around 2008 and it’s been a good long time there. And then wound up getting into coaching, mainly team coaching. And then eventually, your past few years here have been doing more enterprise coaching and leadership coaching.
Uh, training. So it’s been a journey, that’s for sure.
[00:02:51] Brad Nelson: Definitely. Well, we’re excited to have you guys, and today we’re gonna talk about lean change. Surprise. You have the author on the show, you tend to talk about it. Um, so I’m gonna start with you Jason. What is Lean Change Management at a high level, and how is it different than other change management approaches, methodologies, uh, frameworks, whatever we call
[00:03:13] Jason Little: them.
Um, I like to call it a, an action biased approach to change that fits your context. And it was born out of necessity. So the, the late two thousands working with an organization where I think all Agile coaches have experienced this, sometimes it feels like you’re pushing water uphill with a stick and you just can’t figure out why.
And everybody’s looking at this shiny Agile thing and you quickly realize it’s far beyond that. It’s not really about these practices or even the values and principles, it’s more about the social agreements, about how we do change and how do we, how do we create, uh, a common purpose for people to rally around.
So it was designed to be something that got us to action sooner. So I’d find companies were spending, you know, 3, 4, 5, 6 months planning everything, creating all the steps, and then the day they unleash it, nobody cares. So it was how do we get to action sooner and how do we use the feedback from how people are responding to the change as input into the next iteration of it?
And the lean was meant in the sense of the dictionary definition. Mm. So it’s inspired by Lean startup, but when I put lean in front of change management, it was, it was more about how do you have the lightest possible approach to change that doesn’t put your process first. Because a lot of the times we just, we’re following the steps or we’re following the process.
We have these big heavyweight processes and ideas, and we spend all of our time focused on that, and we don’t focus on the actual change. So how do we lean it out and make it as thin as humanly possible?
[00:04:48] Drew Podwal: Yeah, it’s wild, you know, everywhere you go, everyone wants to know the new process, but they don’t want to pay attention to the other stuff.
They, it’s just, give us the process. Teach us, teach us how to do it and we’ll do it. So tell us more about that. If you’re going in with lean change management as an approach, and you wanna sidestep the conversation of process to go right to the protein of, I guess, culture, strategy, uh, structure. Well, one, is that correct?
And then two, like what is, what is the focus there?
[00:05:22] Jason Little: For me, it’s always, it always starts with the conversation and that the guardrails around that conversation is usually at a very high level. Why this change? Why now? So I actually just did this, uh, last week with a new client. They were talking about wanting to be more Agile, and our first conversation was, first of all, what does that mean six months from now, if you’re hanging out at the water cooler, what’s an awesome story that you’re gonna tell if this change goes the way that you want it to?
It’s to get away from the steps and process, because it’s sort of like you’re getting plunged into a constantly changing reality. There’s no current state, there’s no future state. These things are fluid. They’re always evolving. So we want to try to understand why this change, why now is always the anchor, because that gets people really thinking about.
That’s a good question. You know, why not start this three months from now? Why didn’t you start a year ago? And then they really start to uncover what they don’t like about how their organizations are working. And that really gets you away from the stock answers of, oh, we want to increase velocity and we want to increase this, that, and the other.
So you really get to the meat and the purpose under it.
[00:06:33] Drew Podwal: That was gonna be my next question, which is what are the, some of the typical responses you get that enable you to jump in with organizations? And then what are the responses that you get that are kinda like the anti-pattern responses, and how do you then approach those anti-pattern
[00:06:46] Jason Little: responses?
Yeah. The, the best one was, uh, I don’t remember which company it was. I don’t know, it must have been an insurance or financial services or something, I can’t remember. But, uh, fairly conservative, let’s just call it that. And uh, they wanted to start off with some training and some things like that, and they asked me, so once you come in and you do all this stuff, how can you ensure people do this change?
I’m like, you can’t. I mean, if they don’t want to do it, they’re not gonna do it. And, uh, they were a little bit surprised by that answer, and they kind of, on the call, they went, oh, I guess, all right, so we’ll think about what it is that we want to do. We’ll call you back later by click. And I never heard from ’em again.
And for me, that just shows you’re not ready. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Like we beat companies over the head for being stupid, for not changing, but a lot of the times they, they don’t really know what they want until they start taking action. Yeah. And
[00:07:36] Drew Podwal: I think that speaks to the lament of a lot of coaches out there who, or Scrum masters even, who don’t have the optionality to turn away or maybe don’t have the experience to be able to like, put the canary out there to see whether it lives or dies, to know whether to walk away from, uh, an engagement or not.
And then the other side of the coin is if it’s our job to help customers take those steps forward, then uh, you know how. I don’t know what the PC word to say this is right now, but how, how not broken do they have to be in order for you to want to take interest to, to helping them to take that first step?
[00:08:17] Jason Little: Hmm. As long as there’s a compelling reason and people, you know, you can see a spark in their eyes that there’s something that they want to do differently. They might not be completely sure what it is, but they are passionate about either what their team does or what their company does. Like they love working there and they wanna make it better.
And that’s a very nefarious, kind of big gray area to start with. But if that’s missing, it’s probably change for the sake of change. Uh, Jerry Weinberg, who pretty much all my work is inspired from calls it dropping change through the hole in the floor, where the people up at the top decide on a change and they drop it into the organization and there’s no purpose behind it.
It’s just go do an Agile thing and then the people at the worker level, if you want to call it that, are just stuck. They really have no. Say and how that change happened or whether or not they should do it, or if they have better ideas and they take this attitude of this too shall pass because a year ago we did the same thing and nobody did anything.
So there’s gotta be a spark of something from someone that wants to take this thing and run with it.
[00:09:25] Brad Nelson: Yeah. So you’ve mentioned it’s a lean change management. We’ve talked about lean, we’ve talked about change, and I know this is a word that Ken loves. Isn’t the insinuation with change management that you’re managing the change?
But it sounds like you’re not really managing it. It’s more of if you want to change, we’ll support you and we will help you.
[00:09:44] Ken Rickard: Yeah, so this is a big thing. I think I’ve probably mentioned this more than a few times, Jason, but you know, when I first came across Lean Change Management, I was in need of a, a change approach that was more rooted in Agile or agility in general.
And I had found lean change management. Uh, I’d come across it kind of just briefly looked at it and didn’t pay a lot of attention to it because it had the word management and the title. And to me it was as an Agilists, it was o c m, like in the traditional sense of what we think about O C M, the fact that it had change management in the title, I just kind of passed over and, um, it took me a while longer and a little bit of time setting with the idea to come back to it and then finally, eventually take a class back in, uh, I guess it was 2020, and realize that change is what I’ve been doing.
And I didn’t ever tend to call it that. Um, as an Agilists, as a score master, as a coach, as an Agile coach, what I’m doing in my day-to-day is change. I’m helping people change. I’m either helping them use a new process or I’m helping them change their behaviors. And those things I’ll have at the root of them change.
And so it, it took me a while, but I got there. And then it was also something that I had kept bringing up to Jason over the years of, man, it sure would be nice if this was kind of just called Lean Change, you know, uh, dropped the management part and, and eventually you did, I think, uh, earlier this year or last year, right?
You changed the company name from Lean Change Management, um, over to Lean Change Incorporated, right? Yep.
[00:11:12] Jason Little: Yeah, exactly. So.
[00:11:14] Brad Nelson: You’ve mentioned change several times. Ken in particular, you start to draw the parallel between Agile and change. Mm-hmm. And we talk about Agile. It’s our ability to adapt. It’s our ability to change.
And so, and I work with Ken every day, so I’m feeding him some of these things. Uh, cause I think they’re great conversations. But, you know, when we think about Agile, really what we’re talking about is change our ability to change quickly, to respond to feedback or changes in the market. Uh, and so I just wanna make sure Right, that we call that out.
Yeah. Cause it’s almost, it’s kind of meta, right? Like you’re helping people to become better at change by using change.
[00:11:52] Ken Rickard: Yeah. And of course, I mean most of the things that I would say in any given day have been heavily influenced by Jason over the past few years. And then also more recently, people like, you know, Michael Spade and Michael Hammond going through some of the icy Agile stuff.
But I mean, I’m, I’m more or less just regurgitating with my own spin on it, the things that Jason has been planted in my brain over these past few years. But from a change perspective, you know, I think it depends on how you look at Agile because your lens of the world, you know, Drew spoke about it a few minutes ago about how it may be tough for SCORE Masters and Agile coaches to have the autonomy and the agency to be able to go and actually be more exploratory and discovery based in how they approach things.
And likelihood, the reason why they can’t do that is because things have been kind of dropped down on them from the top. And so in the case where, you know, leadership is kind of going in the back room and they’re making decisions about how things should be, and then they’re coming out and dropping that change through the floor, and it’s kind of trickling down through the hierarchy, it does turn people into followers and it does kind of crush creativity and innovation in some way.
And so that level of conformity is an approach to Agile. Now, a lot of us would likely say it’s not really truly Agile, but you gotta understand that the perspective of the people who are implementing Agile in that way believe it to be Agile. So there is a perspective there that has to be respected, and then it has to actually, you have to acknowledge the gap in understanding, and then you’ve gotta be able to coach towards that instead of trying to just implement the framework that is being asked to be implemented.
I mean, obviously you’re in a position to do that as well. You probably need to do that in order to keep your job. But at the same time, it’s about coaching towards this idea that conformity, even when it pertains to Agile, isn’t something that’s ultimately going to help us be adaptable. And so I think that’s a message that a lot of Agile Agilists who claim to be Agile Agilists, and also people who don’t really claim to be Agile Agilists, but want Agile, they tend to miss or misunderstand.
[00:13:44] Drew Podwal: You know, it’s like going on the most important sales pitch of your career with somebody who is a hundred percent adamant that they know the client’s needs and the solution that we’re pitching, but they just don’t, you know? Mm-hmm. Um, and, and you’re, you’re with them on this pitch and you’re trying to hold it all together to try to win this pitch and it’s just not going well.
And somehow you win the business. Like this idea of, well, these companies, most of them aren’t technically going outta business. I would say that a lot of them are taking the very slow boat to going outta business if they don’t start to sure to change. But, you know, they’re still delivering. So it’s like we win the pitch, but we didn’t really win the pitch.
[00:14:31] Ken Rickard: Sure. Anybody that’s in middle management to the upper parts of an organization, uh, the executives and so on, why would they want to do anything different than what they’re doing now, if the perspective and the lens they’re looking through says that they’re succeeding or winning? Okay, so this Agile thing, so what, right?
There’s, there’s no reason for them to change. And in that, what they’ll tend to do is say, okay, fine. You guys wanna be Agile or do this Agile thing. Okay, great. Just don’t mess up all the things that, from their perspective is going well and they perceive to be as succeeding and it is a slow burn. Uh, like you’re saying, Drew in a way, it’s like a, a death by a thousand paper cuts in a way.
Yeah, because they don’t really see how they’re not succeeding because it happens so slowly. I
[00:15:15] Drew Podwal: really appreciate that within your five principles or philosophies, that that purpose over urgency is at the apex. To me, that’s the biggest thing that kind of gets in the way of trying to come up with experiments and or co-creation and buy-in, is that there’s such a huge focus on delivery that it’s hard for teams to recognize how to break outta that space, carve out a little bit of time for getting an understanding of where we have waste and friction and, and bottlenecks, and so I do appreciate that purpose over urgency is the top.
I do have a question about response over resistance. One, can you walk us through some of these and then two, that one response over resistance is one that I probably could use a little bit of clarity
[00:16:06] Jason Little: on. Sure. So I called them the, the five universals and use the term universals on purpose because it’s things that people just get right.
Like everybody knows what it’s like to have a new neighbor move in next door or to get a new boss and you don’t go on Google and go, what’s the eight step process to get successful ROI with new neighbor? You go over, you know, with a box of donuts and some beer, eh, cuz we’re in Canada and you say, Hey, I’m Biff.
I live next door, let’s hang out sometime. You know, everybody knows how to do that. So the universals is the same thing. We know that if people have a shared sense of purpose, they’ll work towards something. But we seem to forget that when we go into organizations. So we leave ourselves at home and we send our professional representative and we wanna follow the process.
So the Universal is something that was born out of, um, what I call the world’s most boring world tour ever. So that was after the book came out 2013 ish. I basically traveled from then until Covid and then went around to multinationals, small, medium, large companies, pretty much in every sector. And I wanted to find out what was separating the companies that were good at change from the ones that were having a hard time with it.
And it was those five universals that popped out. The first one, again, being purpose. So companies that could figure out a strong purpose and translate that to the different groups that were affected, because urgency is really in the eye of the beholder. You know, it’s urgent for me as the owner of a company to want to change because my livelihood depends on this company surviving.
What’s the urgency for a tester on a team? I don’t want to get yelled at if my test cases suck. Like there’s a huge disconnect between that. So how do we shift away from false urgency, which caught or warns about, uh, but people kind of gloss over that. The other four universals were the same thing. When companies that deal with uncertainty by focusing on experimentation over just blindly executing the change tasks.
I think we’ve all seen the green status report at the end of a year long program where we spent the exact budget, we finished all the tasks, but nothing’s different. So how do we use experimentation to reduce uncertainty instead of, I’ve never liked the term, let’s just embrace uncertainty, which has been a big Agile thing forever.
For me, that’s just like, let’s just walk off the cliff and hope it’s okay. It’s a little more calculated than that. We want to focus on what can we do to get a handle on uncertainty, even though that complexity thinkers will call me an idiot for saying that. But the sooner you act, the more you learn. And the faster you can experiment, the faster you’re gonna learn what the actual change should be.
The meaningful dialogue was really about how I saw companies that were broadcasting at people. You know, sending out newsletters, sending out SharePoint sites, doing one sided town halls, that’s all scripted If we get away from that, and the companies that focused on generating dialogue, one multinational did a C E O roadshow and he just went out and talked to people for six months, gathered insights.
Tell me what’s going on. Like to dig information outta people. Uh, the co-creation one is, um, a friend of mine, Jill Forbes likes to say, the people who write the plan don’t fight the plan. If you build the plan with the people who are energized about the change, there’s nothing to sell. So you don’t have to go get buy-in from people because you actually help them develop what the right change is in the first place.
And then the last one that you asked about response over resistance was, Resistance is basically the change. People saying, I don’t know what happened, but it’s all y’all’s fault. We just blame resistance. I mean, the version one surveys for the last 18 years have resistance to change, has been number one on their list.
Uh, just people resist change, but you can’t overcome that. It’s not like you, the more force you apply to a change, the less resistance you’re gonna have. It’s probably the opposite. You’re gonna get more if you keep pushing too hard. But what you can do is you can look at the response, everybody reacts to change differently.
So how do we separate the signal from the noise and how do we look at how people are responding to the change? And we use that as input into changing the change in the first place. You know, if everybody’s up in arms, for example, and actively pushing back saying, I will not do this, that’s perfect data that says it’s either the wrong change or the wrong time, or something else is going on.
So go get curious instead of furious. If nobody cares, it’s a totally different problem. You’ve gotta go digging for insights about why is it nobody’s doing anything. So if we focus on those five positive things over the traditional change things, companies that were doing that, from my experience on that tour, were being more successful with their changes.
[00:20:39] Ken Rickard: Yeah. And I think that’s the most misunderstood part. Drew the thing you’re asking about on Jason’s response there is I’ve had people come to class, um, we get into the course material and we start talking about h why lean change is different. And there’s an inevitably a spot where they say, yeah, but how does this all work?
How can this work? You know, people resist change. And it’s like, we’ve got that idea so ingrained in ourselves as human beings working in a professional kind of corporate world, that that kind of the top down directive of change has like changed the way we think about things. And so, To think in another way, uh, uh, what I often refer to as bottom-up intelligence to change that is supported top-down.
And that idea is so foreign to people that they can’t possibly believe that lean change can produce little to no resistance, just based on how the approach works. Almost like if you get a traditional kind of O c M person in, in your class, they will almost outright just resist the idea that resistance can be essentially eliminated through actually going to people and asking them about what they want to change.
[00:21:43] Brad Nelson: when you go to a company, Jason, like, or a company comes to you, are they saying Teach me Agile and you’re using a lean change approach to make that happen? Or are they saying teach me lean change?
[00:21:56] Jason Little: It’s, uh, sometimes it’s either or, or both. So it really depends on the context. Um, one company, fortune 50 Company, um, I can’t say the name.
Uh, but they intentionally wanted to, they wanted to call it change agility, which is the title of the, the second book, cuz that’s the one they found first. So they wanted to implement change agility within their change management division. Uh, they were using a different approach that people didn’t really like that much.
I’m trying to be nice on purpose, but, uh, they wanted to know mechanically how it worked. So that’s what we did. We went with the mechanics of how it works, and then we started to do pilots on various teams. And the, the response from the people on the teams is they were blown away, but the real timeness of the lean change approach.
So normally in this company, the change people would parachute in and they do like an hour long presentation, setting up the teams they’re working with to show them how they’re gonna do change. But our hour long session was a strategy canvas about the actual thing the teams were working on. And in an hour we were done.
We had the strategy done, we had personas done, we had their Kanban board done, and they went, so when are we gonna talk about what your change management approach is that we have to follow? And we’re like that, that doesn’t, what do you mean we’ve been doing it? Yeah. It doesn’t compute. We just did it. And they were like, seriously?
Yeah, everything was updated online in real time, and there was no need to go back for two weeks and redo the deck and do the comms, and then make sure we got the meeting minutes right. It was done in real time and they loved it, but that was their intention. So
[00:23:35] Brad Nelson: when you’re talking about or, or what I’m hearing is that instead of saying, here are the things that you need to change in order to become more Agile, you’re going to them and saying, what is it that you wanna change?
I believe are the words that Ken or Jason said. What if the things that they want to change don’t lead to more Agile working environment?
[00:23:57] Jason Little: As long as it’s their choice and it’s their idea. My job is to poke them and ask the hard enough questions so they can decide on what is the best way forward for them in their context.
And then we talk about consequence of action. That’s really a good way to sum up lean, change. It’s consequence of action. So you can go extreme co co-creation and involve everybody, or you can involve a small subset of people. But basically it’s, we’ve made calculated risks about what we think is the right thing to do next, and we’re gonna go try it and see what happens.
[00:24:29] Ken Rickard: Yeah. There’s two main questions I tend to get in, in class around this, and then one is, well, if we go and we let everybody decide how they want to change, well, what if we’re a, uh, an automaker, uh, like let’s say Ford or GM and somebody decides we should start making ice cream. Well, we, we can’t have that, right?
We can’t do that. Another one we get is, you know, what, if there’s a big change, like a migration to Office 365? And so we can’t just, like, that’s not gonna be something we’re gonna go and just ask everybody how they feel about this, or, you know, how this is gonna work for them because it’s a corporate level decision that’s made.
And so there’s, there’s not a lot of wiggle room there. And I think, you know, the way I would typically respond to those kind of things is that lean change isn’t the approach for everything. It really, in my opinion, it, it depends on the level of complexity and volatility that’s involved. Because if it’s a predictable change that, you know, you’ve done a million times and it’s gonna work the exact same way the next time, most likely using predictable ways of managing that change, it’s gonna make a lot of sense.
So you’re more traditional kind of prosci plus change plans, plus all the things that you would need make a lot of sense. But when there’s higher volatility, when there’s uncertainty, when there’s complexity that you can’t control, uh, when there’s an ambiguity, you’re not really sure exactly how you’re gonna go forward.
But you know, there’s multiple ways to get something done. That level of characteristics in the issue tends to suit not only Agile better, but change, agility and things like lane change is, is where I would be looking instead of your traditional change management approaches.
[00:25:56] Drew Podwal: You know, the ice cream example is one I’ve heard as well, and I mean, not with ice cream, but.
It’s always amazing to me when I hear that because it’s like, who do you think your employees are that they’re gonna suddenly decide to like make video games or ice cream or cherry pie or whatever, like, and whose responsibility is that, right? If that does happen, it’s the leadership’s responsibility to set the vision and the parameters for what we’re trying to do.
At the 60,000 foot view. And as long as that’s well communicated, not in these big gigantic town halls like you were talking about Jason, but with road shows and you know, more of a question and answer and interactive kind of manner, then nobody’s gonna wind up like, you know, churning butter, um, and making butter butter sculptures as a, a way to try to be profitable in an auto company,
[00:26:49] Brad Nelson: you know?
Yeah. You kind of touched on my next question there, Drew. So Jason or Ken, do you have a vision or a purpose or some sort of guardrails that you, when you go to a group of people, you’re like, Hey, how should we get better at this? Or how should we fulfill this vision? Cause I have to imagine if you just say, what do you guys wanna change?
That’s how you get kind of those outliers and those crazy ice cream type things.
[00:27:18] Jason Little: Yeah, it’s always I either use, uh, movie posters or Lego or something creative that gets them talking about some future at a certain point in time or future perspectives or videos. One company we had 55, uh, managers doing a session and had them go up to the front and act out a water cooler conversation that they were gonna have three months from now.
And I just said three months, you know, maybe it’s six months, maybe it’s a month. I don’t care. Pick a time horizon, but have a conversation for two minutes about something awesome that happened as a result of what we did to get there. Uh, and then a month or two weeks into your change, sit down as a team of managers and watch all those videos.
And then go, are we getting close to that? Why or why not? What needs to, what do we need to do to get closer to that? And leave it as simple as that. Cuz then you get away from all of this. The, the language and lean change is designed to be simple for everybody to be able to understand. It’s not supposed to be a bunch of buzzwords and, and stuff that you see that makes change management not accessible for people.
And when you have those conversations, if they made a movie about this change, what would it be? People can rally around that and then that gets them aligned towards the future. And then those outlier cases, I find those are just in training sessions. You get people who they were sent to a training session from their employer or they don’t really like the ideas at all, or they’re just not the type of change agent that has the temperament for taking this type of approach.
Nothing wrong with that, go do something else. This might just not be the right, right approach.
[00:28:56] Drew Podwal: I appreciate what I see Agile has been doing to our industry. Like as I hear you talking, Jason, the idea of you recognize you can’t make somebody change. If you go and do training and you do workshops and you go away and, and you’re honest, that may or may not be sticky.
I can’t force it to be sticky. And I feel like I see Agile has really like spearheaded that kind of movement in their training that really teaches you at the scrum master level, at the coach level, at the enterprise coach level, at the team coach level to really understand that all you can do is to try to figure out ways of influencing change and championing people to then get to that level of energy where they want to be the champion for that change and, and hit that terminal velocity at some point where everybody that gets sucked into it and goes along for the ride.
You know, versus, I don’t want to downplay scrum.org or the Scrum alliance, but there’s not a lot of that in the training from a standpoint of influence and like digging into powerful questions and things like that. So I’m really appreciating the way that you’re talking about this in that regard.
[00:30:13] Brad Nelson: And you have certified courses in IC Agile, correct.
[00:30:18] Jason Little: Uh, just two. Yes. Enterprise Transformation and Coaching Agile Transitions. And they’re basically, uh, lean change courses, but aligning to IC Agile’s learning objectives.
[00:30:29] Ken Rickard: Yeah, it’s a two main, uh, enterprise coaching courses in the enterprise coaching track with IC Agile. Yeah,
[00:30:35] Brad Nelson: and my understanding, uh, from my conversations with Ken is those are a flavor of those courses.
So if you wanted a lean change flavor of that course, you would have to seek out your course, Jason, as opposed to their other versions of that, that’s also certified,
[00:30:50] Jason Little: correct. Yeah. Yeah. That’s the challenge with the learning objective model is there’s probably 50 providers of coaching Agile transitions content, and you’re gonna go to one class and you’re gonna get a linear step-by-step approach, and then you’re gonna come to one of ours and you’re gonna get the total opposite.
So it’s, it’s quite different depending on which provider you go with.
[00:31:12] Drew Podwal: Yeah, that’s true. Across the board in, in every single training curriculum is it’s all which instructor you get and what their perspective is on the material. And, and I think, again, that that hurts our industry as a whole. When you get an instructor that isn’t really like breathing the fire from the belly of the beast in the way that it was intended to be taught.
[00:31:36] Jason Little: And the region where they’re from matters too. Cause we’ve had,…