 Good morning. So I was just wondering if this room has become a confession room, because these speakers before me talked about students, and I'm also going to talk on a similar thing. So let me just start off with a brief introduction about myself. So I work for Intel India. So I've spent about 18 years in the industry, and last five, six years as a lean agile coach and on practices and tools. So this is just a culmination, or you can say a collation of the experiences from the journey what I went through. So how many of you here are agile coaches or people who work as Chrome masters? So one of the first common reactions that I've seen when we get into a coaching engagement is people say that they're already doing agile. So we don't need a coach. We know what it is all about. And they start off by talking about the daily stand-ups, then the sprint planning, review, and all that. And we talk more about the practices. So it is then that we get into the next level of conversation. So is this really helping you to deliver business value faster? So do you have your business teams, product teams, and your program management organization connected to each other? So these are the larger questions. And I will try and address some of the software aspects. I think Sean and Dan, who were in this room before me, they have covered a lot of these anti-patterns and other stuff. So maybe I think it's safe for me not to delve into too much detail in the first few slides. But my talk is going to primarily focus on the cultural dysfunctions, team dysfunctions, and also sub-optimal execution. So which is more about system thinking. So these are the three things that I will talk about even the constraints of time. Though I do have about 12 anti-patterns which I listed. And I feel lucky that there is no overlap between what the previous speakers spoke versus what I'll be speaking. So let me just go on without much ado. So we have heard this thing yesterday. I think it was Shane or somebody who pointed out that agile leadership should be viewed as a verb, not as a noun. So we should start doing things that are agile rather than getting carried away by the jargon that lies beneath it. So this journey started about four years back when I attended a talk by Pete Behrens in one of the agile conferences. And this is what he had to say. He said, as a verb we want leaders that actively lead organizations and people in agile ways. So that's what we'll be focusing on today. So I don't know if everybody can read this. So let me read it for you. So this is just a humorous thing that I picked up. But it is very much in line with what we see in the organizations that we work in. So it goes like this. So we are going to commit to 20 features that we don't understand because the VP said to do it. Yep. And then they are going to tell us, they are going to yell at us for not getting it done. The agile finance said we have to commit or forecast one of those. But then they are going to say agile doesn't work and bring back giant upfront specs. That appears to be the goal. Glad that you're finally catching up. So does this strike a chord with you? This is something that you've seen happen in the companies that you work with. Yes, at least I had such experiences. Which is why I thought it's more relevant to put up a thing like this to just start the conversation. So again, this is a quote from the poet Rumi. So you may wondering what is a poet quote doing in agile conference presentation? So the quote goes something like this. Your task is not to seek for love but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you're built against it. So if you just replace the word love with agile or agility, I think it will read like your task is not to seek for agility but merely to seek and find all the barriers that you're finding as agility. And we'll be talking about some of the barriers today that comes in the way of being agile and how we can overcome that. So most of the things that I'll be talking about today is not something that is new but I'm just trying to correlate that with the context and the experience that I've gained. So that's the thing. So that's why I said, if I've seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. And failure, I'm not trying to glorify failure but there have been cases where things succeed and there have been cases where things fail. So failure is all about learning. So it is not losing the lessons when you lose. So that's what I wanted to convey here. So moving on. I think Sean and Don also talked about this done. So principle scale, but practices do not. So most of my talk will be preferred with try and avoid because what works in a particular context may not work in a different context because best practices are highly contextual and being agile is a journey. So you don't have a stop. It's a continuous improvement journey. And one more thing to remember is organizational structures will remind flexible. They will keep changing. So that is why practices may not scale but principles would. I'm sorry, okay. I think the color coming there is different from the one here, okay. So I'll be focusing on three things, the cultural anti-patterns. And I'll also be focusing on suboptimal local execution and dysfunctional teams. So these are the three things that I'll be covering. So how many of you here believe that culture is an important thing that distinguishes, I think more or less everybody says that. So it goes without saying that you cannot over emphasize the importance of company culture. So let me just give an example. So I work for a company which wanted to bring in the Toyota production system or lean, as we call it. And we went to Japan and we observed the company as to what they were doing. But when we came back, it took us nearly five to six years to really build that into our culture. And by then Toyota had moved way forward. So culture cannot be replicated. So culture is a source of competitive advantage, whether it is a team, whether it is an organization or even whether it's a country. So the primary drivers for cultural dysfunction are, I think we have been hearing these words time and again. So I will not get into the details. So lack of purpose, lack of trust, lack of ownership. And when we talk of disruptive behaviors, why did I put disruptive behaviors here? See, many managers and leaders tend to turn a blind eye to the people who are showing disruptive behaviors which damage the cultural fabric of the team of the organizations that they work in. So there are n number of psychological reasons why this happens. You have a fear of response or you have a tendency to be liked or you would like your team to be loyal to you which is why you don't sit and take action. But many of the times if you don't take strong action or timely action on the disruptive behaviors that damages the culture of the team and it brings down the entire team. So here is this quadrant about trust and ownership. So we have been talking all day long yesterday and today about trust and ownership. So high trust and high ownership zone is where we really want to be because that you'll be moving from command and control to energy and innovation. And high trust and low ownership leads to failure. So the leader may have trust on the team but there may not be much ownership coming in from the team so which leads to failure. Or that could be a case where the team wants to take ownership but the leader may be a micro manager and may not be allowing them to do it. So both these cases are bad. We need to move to a quadrant where we have high trust and high ownership within the team. And quite trust, I think you have seen this multiple times so almost every speaker has put this up but I just wanted to underline two points here. Collaboration has become a dirty word after Narasimha's speech but let me still go ahead and talk about it today. Let me be brave enough to talk about it and responding to change. So collaboration and change can happen only if you have trust and ownership. And I think even the sound system didn't like the word collaboration. Okay, so we'll just move on. See, we have been talking about trust all day long but trust has an economic value. So there were a lot of questions even yesterday on whether you can quantify trust. Yes, trust can be quantified. There is a great place to work survey. I think some of the product companies are a part of it in the service companies. So they have something called as a trust index and what they have found is the top 100 trust companies generated twice the revenue growth of the second ranking top 100 trust companies and four times that of S&P 500. So that's an impressive set of statistics that gives us the value of trust and why we are talking about trust here. No, no, see. Okay, so let me, yeah, I heard what you're saying. So maybe we need to look at this from the perspective that as an employee, if you trust the company, you're going to give your best for that company. So I think that's what it conveys. So there are also some questions in that survey. I had also taken that survey last year which talks about interactions between the team and the manager and stuff like that which also captures kind of what is happening at the grassroots level as well. So it may not, like again, all surveys should be taken with a pinch of salt. So having said that, I would still say that it makes a case for us to increase trust and why we need to be looking at increasing trust. So trust is all about hand holding. So I would just like to narrate a small story here. Some of you may have heard it but I think it's worth repeating it. So there was a little girl and her father who were just crossing a bridge and when they were just halfway through the bridge, the father gets scared and he tells his daughter, why don't you just hold my hand? Then the daughter says, no, no, I don't want you to hold your hand. You hold mine. Then the father asked the daughter, what difference does it make? Whether I hold your hand or you hold mine. She says it makes a lot of difference because if I hold your hand, then there may be a possibility that I might let go of it. But if you hold my hand, then I'm pretty sure that you will not let go of my hand at any point. So that's what being there for the team, when they need you is what trust is all about and what leadership is all about. And I found this formula on trust. So C stands, can anybody guess what the C, R and I on yes means, a quick guess? Okay, C is credibility. So you need to build your credibility. So if you are seen as an expert, then people will come to you. They trust you. That's why we go to some consultants or some doctors and not the others, right? Because there are so many people in the field because we trust them. We trust their expertise. Reliability is about doing what you say and saying what you do in a consistent manner. And the I is a tricky thing. It's called intimacy. So it's not the physical intimacy that we're talking about. What we are talking about here is can I entrust you with confidential information? So when I say something to you, can I be sure that it will not go out of the room or maybe out of our conversation? And yes, it's more of the self-orientation. That's why it's the denominator. So self-orientation is about people who steal the credit. So if you are a kind of person, again, you know, I'll probably refer you to Adam Graham's book on givers versus takers and why helping others to succeed helps you. We will probably talk about it towards the end. So people who are takers, maybe winners in the short run, but in the long run, people are not going to trust them on their leadership and that's going to affect the organization as well as the teams that they work with. And why did I put this poster here? So I just saw this movie intern about a month back. I found that whatever Robert De Niro was doing there, you know, he was an intern, 70 plus intern who was made to work as an executive assistant to a CEO who was just 30 years and how he creates that trust through all these things that we talked about, the spreadability, reliability and empathy and caring. So that's what this movie is all about. I think it's worth watching. Maybe we'll learn a few things from there. So again, you know, in terms of my epiphany moment about four years back, I attended this workshop by one of our HR folks who had read this book by Patrick Linceoni about the five dysfunctions of a team. And as part of this workshop, we had done exercises where we talked about our personal experiences and professional experiences which has a high impact on us. We talked about our strengths and weaknesses and how that affects the team. So it was a three day workshop. And at the end of it, you know, we came to know a lot about each other. There was a higher level of trust and we were just building a team at that point. And I was able to see that, you know, focusing on these things, like how do you increase trust and how do you remove this fear of conflict and how do you understand, by understanding the other person better helps a lot. And if you look at this pyramid, I think it's bang on because absence of trust leads to inattention to results. And that's exactly what comes out from the great place to work survey in terms of companies with higher levels of trust and companies at the slightly lower level of trust. So trust is also all about vulnerability. So if you can say to your team members, I made a mistake or I need help, I'm not sure, then that shows that there is trust. So you can go and share your weaknesses as well. So lack of trust is more easily visible than the presence of trust. So how does a team without trust look like? So one thing is fear. So there's an eerie atmosphere, right? So there's a lot of micro management in teams that lack trust. And then there's a lack of safety. So I put the word safety here because people hold information. We look at information as a source of competitive advantage and we don't share it freely within the team. And there are also people who are busy gaming the system. So I think the speakers before me also talked about focusing on the outcome. But probably people focus more on the output and how they can show them that it's better than others. So that kind of an environment exists. People don't share information. People become defensive because the focus is on the person and not the issue. And there's a lack of engagement. So I think we have all been to these kinds of meetings, right? Where we don't really get engaged. So there's a lack of engagement. So again, you know, it's about this judgment part. There is something called as the error of attribution. So in teams that lack trust, what happens is if I'm late for a meeting, I would attribute that to bad traffic or probably a back to back meeting that I had. But if I see the same behavior coming from somebody else in the team, I'm going to attribute that to a lack of attitude, right? So you have different yardsticks. You tend to get judgmental very quickly because you don't trust the other person. And you have disconnected customers. And people here, people in the team hear about things only from the great point. And there's a lot of agitation. So the key question that leaders should be asking themselves is, am I breaking the trust in the team? Or is it that there is no trust that exists and do I need to create one? So what are the strategies that we can use to increase trust? So I talked about the boot camp which you could do at the beginning when you're trying to create a team. You could use things like Patrick Linceoni's workshop or whatever. And you also tend to share your work histories. And yesterday, there was an interesting set of games called Impro Games. So they are also something that could be used for getting a better understanding among the team members. Then you also share your profiles, which is what we did exactly when we did that Patrick Linceoni workshop. We shared our Myers-Briggs profiles with the rest of the team so that they understand where we come from and what we are doing. Team working agreements. So I think that's a separate session on this in agile India. So standardizing the way you want to work as a team, especially with respect to your day-to-day decisions and what kind of actions you want to take if somebody violates those agreements is something that you could put as part of the team working agreement. And breaking barriers. So I think there's no better example for this than the talk that Richard Sheridan gave yesterday where he talked about breaking the walls physically. And I think I saw a similar thing from the CEO of AirAsia last week, Tony Fernandez. When he said that he was trying to increase the openness and transparency in AirAsia for a long time, but he was not able to do it. But then one day he just went and demolished all the cubicles that the managers were sitting in and he said that openness and transparency started happening from there. So physical barriers also matters. The way the team arrangement is, the way people sit and the collaborative environment that you build matters a lot. So it is also about failing wise and failing early. So do you have frequent connects with your customers? Do you demo things? Do you understand what your customers really need? Then visualizing workflow is a powerful tenet. So it's something that I think most of you will be using from the Kanban space. So it's about small deliverables and shorter iterations so that you get to know. You get to see the outcome of whatever you are doing. Then having a shared vision and promoting knowledge sharing across the team. And 360 degree feedback I think is the most important. I would like to quote an example here. So I work with a manager who actually shared her 360 degree feedback with the entire team and we started working together to work out ways on what we can do with respect to the implement areas that really created a lot of trust in the team because the manager was so open. And I think about five, six years ago, the CEO of HCL Technologies, Vinit Nair also did something like that. He made us appraisal public to the entire organization. So I think those kind of things do help if leaders are transparent and share feedback. And it also encourages teams to go back and share feedback with them. So what is the role of the leader in building trust? So the leader's attitude is what shapes the team's attitude and the team behavior. So what I would like to talk about here is accept change. So I think there is no better leader who accepted change than Nelson Mandela. So when somebody asked him, how did he spend 30 years in prison? He just told them that I just took a long vacation. So that's what attitude is all about. So that resilience which brings us back every day to what we do. And embracing ambiguity, don't beat data to death. Don't still wait for that 1% information that you're looking for. Make your assumptions, move fast. Then listening and empathy. I don't need to explain that. We all know what it is. And setting a shared vision wherever you have multiple teams. So this is where most of the larger or the large scale agile implementations run into trouble because the different teams that we're working with start looking in different directions. They don't really have a common goal that they work towards. Then the ability to detect patterns in terms of how the market is shifting and how the customer mindsets are shifting also helps the team. So I also talk about decision filters here. So I just coined the acronym called FIIT. So FIIT is about fairness, integrity, authenticity and transparency. So every decision that you make has to be put through these filters so that you are seen as fair and a person of integrity by the team. So and about receptiveness to feedback, I already talked about it. So share the feedback with the team and look for ways in which you can improve. Then the last point I think about sharing credit is extremely important. So this is where I had brought in the context of givers versus takers. So actually Adam Grant gives a very wonderful example of Jonas Salk who had discovered the polio vaccine. So there were a lot of people who worked with Jonas Salk. But Jonas Salk was the only one who got the Nobel Prize for the particular discovery. So immediately after that is the entire research team abandoned him and he never came up with any worthy discovery after that. So not sharing the credit was one of the main reasons you know why the relationship broke down. I think that's a good example and as leaders I think we should be able to share credit with the team wherever it is due. If not we would be seen as takers and people who, maybe people will work with us for the first time but they may not like to work with us the second time around. Okay so we have talked all day about establishing purpose. So a lot of people have talked about it. But how do you establish purpose? So this is something that I've run through with some of the teams that I work with. So when you start a program or when you start a product or when you start an engagement I think these questions are extremely important. So you need to understand what is your mission? Who is your customer? What is your plan? What results? So these are the outcomes. What are the results that we see? And what is your customer value? So let me just ask you a question here. So if you are going to a shop to buy a night drug what is it that you're actually buying? What is the value that you're buying? You're buying a good night's sleep right? So that's what you're looking for when you buy a pillow or a mattress or whatever. So from the perspective of the team that is working on the product they need to understand what the customer perceives as value. So I would just like to narrate an anecdote here which actually led Drucker to come up with these five questions. So there was a company which was selling window blinds in the early 1920s and they were into a lot of trouble. So there was a consultant who was hired to help them to get back on track. And one of the first questions that the consultant asked the owner of the company was what is the business that you are in? He said I'm in the window shades business. Then she asked the next question why do you think people come to buy window shades when he started thinking? And he said that people come to buy window shades because they want protection from light and they want privacy. So then it dawned on him that he was not exactly in the window shades business but he was actually into the privacy and the light control business. And this company later went on to sell Venetian blinds which was not so popular in the United States and probably became the number one company at a later point in time. So there's a shift in thinking when you ask these questions which is what I wanted to point out. And purpose impacts stress. So wherever I see that whatever I do contributes to a greater good or produces economic growth I will probably trust. There is something good in going with that. And when you talk about purpose I don't think there is anything better than this man on the moon speech given by Kennedy. So it has the why, why they are doing this. It has the timelines in terms of before the decade is out. And it also spells very clearly what is required of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely back to the earth. So that is the mission. So about increasing ownership I think skills are really important if you want people to take up ownership. So as managers we need to detect patterns. We need to look at what is the direction in which the industry is moving. And if they can proactively spill up the people that would really help. And mentoring one to one spending time with your team. So Jack Welch who was the ex CEO of G used to spend a lot of time with his direct reports trying to understand them better. So maybe we also need to have that one-on-one time with the team and try to understand what they are doing, what are their challenges and what is it that they would like to work on. That really helps a lot in terms of assigning the right person to the right job. And we talked about fear already. So it's also about removing fear. So lack of tolerance to failure is one of the things that frequently comes up. And you also need to be focused on the outcomes and not have people gaming the system by just looking at a convenient set of metrics. So team performance over individual performance. Yes, we need to have some weightage to the team performance as well. Because if we just focus 100% on individual performance I don't think people will go and start taking up work or helping the team to meet its goal. So it's more about the individual then. And connect the teams to the customers. So this again has to be done in a gradual way but it has to be done because the team needs to understand firsthand. It kind of also helps them to understand the purpose and the customer pain points. So if you just allot a bug to a person to solve you may not be knowing much about it but if he interacts with the customer then he might know what is the business value of that. So we recently worked on something, worked on a bug which led to an outage. So people understood what is the revenue impact on the customer because of that because they interacted with the customer and that made them appreciate why they were looking for the timelines that they were looking for. And create a culture of gratitude. So do you say thanks or do you recognize your teams on a regular basis for the good work that they are doing? And it is not only about the leader does it also happen across the team? So creating a culture of gratitude is important. Then this vacation test is something that I had tried. So try to go on a vacation where you're not in touch with the team. This will help you to really identify people who take one or two people who don't or it could also be a complete disaster in which case I think you need to start working on why people are not taking ownership. So that's a very good test. Have your succession planning in place because if you have a succession plan then it's a motivation for that person to take more ownership and have your backup planning also for each individual. So we move to the next set. How do we deal with non-collaborators? So there are some strategies that we can use. So I think one of them Richard Sheridan also mentioned yesterday when he talked about let's try an experiment. So that's probably one of the things that I also had included in my slide. And the other thing is also to look at people who are close to the person who is non-collaborative so that you can find those influencers who can actually go and influence that person. Then it is always important not to get into power struggle with the person who is a non-collaborator because it can cascade down across the team. So it needs to be handled very deftly and speak so that you are heard. What I mean here is actively listen to the other person, try to understand where their fears are coming from and try to put it across in a way that you are able to project what's in it for them and how the impact on them will be mitigated by going for certain strategies and be transparent. So I would just like to give an example here. So one of my team members had asked him to do multi-skilling on a different technology or platform, I found that he was very reluctant to do it. But when I told him that this product, whatever we are working on, is going to get into a sunset more soon, then he got the message and he started working on it. So it's always good to be transparent sometimes if you need to get results from non-collaborators and also share how you feel. So if you have a manager who is a micro manager and you are not feeling good about it, I think you need to express it and you need to come out with a way by which you can proactively go and share information. An appreciative inquiry, I would just like to give an example here. So appreciative inquiry is all about knowing where you are, where you want to be and what takes you there. And there is no better example for this than Abraham Lincoln. So there is a book called Team of Rivals. So Lincoln found that there was a common ground between him and the people and his rivals who actually also ran for the presidency with him. And he inducted them into his cabinet because he knew that they had a common enemy and it would work. So maybe you also need to know what is a common ground. And one of the examples that I could cite from my personal experiences, I was dealing with the person whom I was trying to influence on a project issue. And we were not really making much of a headway, but when we found that through our interactions that we share a common personal interest or a hobby, it really makes it a lot more easy for you to talk to that person and try to influence them. And not only people, but processes can also be non-collaborative. So it's very important to understand how to deal with non-collaborative processes. You may want to standardize or automate that particular process. Or you might want to create a situation where I can just give you an example here to explain what I'm talking about. So audits are something that people dread. So and teams are not really forthcoming when it comes to audits. So it may probably help that you just go and train a few people from the project team and they do the audit for their particular team. So that's probably one way to make a non-collaborative process more collaborative. And there is this movie called Bridge of Spice, which I saw recently. So that's a very good movie which talks about negotiation tactics. So I think some of these will help you when you really want to deal with non-collaborators. See, actually my contention is that people are the same. Only the process models are different. So what I'm really talking about here is about how do you deal with people who don't collaborate? So it could happen either way. See, they are specific to agile because there will be, see when you talk about trust and ownership, right? So there will always be some people who may not exactly fall in line or align with your way of thinking. So how do you win them over is what I'm talking about. So it may not necessarily mean that it works only in an agile context or a waterfall context. So it is pretty generic. The principles are generic, but you could apply them based on the context. So that's the answer. And measurement systems are important. So when you want to bring about change, you need to look at your measurement systems. I think nobody explains this more succinctly than Elea Goldrath when he said, tell me how you will measure me and I'll tell you how I will behave. And Jim Ismith also came out with this long statement, but let me just read it out for you. We will have, we have to be as innovative with our measurement systems as we are with our development methodology. So project failures are not really cost only due to development methodologies, but they're also cost because of wrong measurement systems and the way people are dealt with. So the finite versus infinite game is the next thing. So don't be focused only on the deadlines. Focus on the customer value, the quality, the product success, the time to market and the profit. So this is what is the outcome-driven thinking that we talk about. So it's important for us to focus on a few critical behaviors. So behaviors are what leads to culture. So you don't try changing the culture, try changing the behaviors and invest in modifying systems so that they promote that particular behavior. So let me just give you a humorous story here. So I was just going through an economist blog a few weeks ago and there was an interesting story there. There was a person who had a four, five-year-old son who was wetting his diapers every day. So he just told him one day that I don't want you to wet your diapers. I will just give you a reward if that does not happen. And the next day when he went, he saw that the diaper was dry, but the bed was soaked. So you don't want to really have a system which leads to the right outcomes but probably not achieved in the right way. So you also need to be wary of that. So one of the things that I found that really works is like when you're starting a new engagement or when you're going in for a change, the teams which volunteer and who are the first and early adopters display certain behaviors. So if you can reward those behaviors rather than just wait for the outcome, it becomes viral and a lot of other teams also jump onto the bandwagon because of that. So it creates a lot of momentum. And suboptimal execution is about system thinking. So I think we have all been part of projects where things move fine till the integration state. But beyond integration, it probably takes a long time. So we are talking about project silos here and inventory and a lot of viewing that happens. So this is more in line with the lean methodology. So there are also unclear roles and responsibilities which leads to work duplication, delayed decisions. And the most important thing is there is a lack of linkage between your strategic, tactical and operational goals which again needs to lack of flow, rework and all that. And there are also large batches wherever you have people working in silos because there's a lot of viewing. So moving on. So you need to move towards organizational structures which focus on doing the right things rather than doing things right. And we also need to work in smaller batches because smaller changes, fewer open bugs, faster cycle time, there's always a better economics from doing that. And this is again from the Harvard Business Review. So if you work with smaller batch sizes, you can improve the efficiency of your product. So one team increase their efficiency of testing by 220% and decrease defects by 33%. The other thing to look out is, look at how we want to align your component teams. So what I have given here may be an exaggeration. The UI team is working on user story one and DB is on three and middleware is on two. But this is what really happens in a large project where there is no communication happening and maybe one part is done by a vendor, one part is done by a product team within the company. So align the component teams, create your vertical slices and manage dependencies. So there are tools like DSM, Design Structure Matrix which can be used to manage dependencies and at least ensure that you don't do testing in a waterfall, at least integrate your functional testing with the development teams. Wherever it is not possible to integrate end to end, at least start looking at having integration leads for the different platforms so that they will align the different teams. And it's always good to, as scrum masters or agile coaches or product owners, I think it's good for us to ask this question, like what is the PSI that the entire team would like to create in a particular sprint? So that this will create alignment across the teams. And one of the things that I have seen which really works is your cumulative flow diagram. So you need to generate this cumulative flow diagram at least once a week so that you understand where the bottlenecks are. And this sets a trigger for continuous improvement. And I'm just trying to put down certain things here. For lack of time, I'm not getting into the details. So it is important for us to understand what is the value that we are delivering to the customer. And value stream mapping is a very good technique which can help you to identify the value ads and non-value ads. And also the initiatives, whatever you are taking make the impact of that visible to the team. So couple of years back when we started doing a Kanban pilot with one of the teams, we put the cycle time on charts, wherever the team could see it. Because they could see that by doing Kanban, they were able to reduce the cycle time over a period of time. And that created a better sense of ownership. Then ensure that there is a linkage between strategic and operational goals. So if you're starting a project or program, make the team understand how it fits into the larger perspective in terms of the strategic goals of the organization or the customer whom you are working with. Then integrate your tool sets. So we had cases where team A, within the same project team A will be using rally, team B will be using rational team concept. So try to look for those inefficiencies and try to standardize your tool sets. So it's not about rally or rational, it's about ensuring that the teams can talk to each other and the data can be integrated. And also build quality into the system. And why did I put this build cross functional channels for frequent communication as, I had a case where I saw a team doing scrum of scrums once every week for a two week sprint. So we can very well understand that, you know, they would have had multiple delays because of that. So frequent communication helps at least ensure that the teams think of at least once on a day to day basis to discuss the impediments. Am I closing thoughts about making change stick? So create a purpose, connect people to a larger purpose. So have a sense of urgency behind the change. So if you're going to tell people to jump off a 10th floor of a building, they would not do so. But if you tell them that there is a fire and that's the only way to escape, they would definitely do it. So give people the reason why you want them to do what they want to do. And inculcate right behaviors. We already talked about this. So have organizational structures around doing the right things, apart from doing things right. And the last point is about deriving your practices from the principles. Most of the times we start with the practices, but we lose sight of the principles. And the last one is about hiring the best fit. A lot of times we look for people with high technical competence, but they may not be really good team players. So you may also want to look at the best fit rather than the best. And these are a couple of quotes which are found interesting. So this one from a Feynman where he says, you may know the name of a bird in all languages, but you still know nothing about the bird. So try to understand what lies beneath the jargons instead of just using them. And don't fool yourself, because you're the easiest person to fool. So don't fool yourself about the outcomes. Be transparent and authentic about the outcomes that you want to achieve. And at all times, think about the what, why, when, how, where, and who. Because these are your best servants. They help you to address all the issues and challenges or help you to get hang of the real status. And here are a few books which I believe are really trendsetters. So there is this given take by Adam Grant which talks about, it's very important to have a right balance between givers, takers, and matchers within a team. So it really helps to understand the team dynamics. Originals is a recent book which also talks about how do you make your team more innovative, and what are the steps that has been taken by multiple companies. The five dysfunctions of a team are already discussed. It's from Patrick Lencioni. And the agile culture by Pauliana Pickston is a good book which talks about how you can increase trust and ownership. And apart from that, I think Nareesh also mentioned Dan Pink's book called Drive. So when we talk of purpose, autonomy, and mastery, I don't think there's a better book than that on how individuals get motivated. So that's pretty much what I had on my side. So I hope you found this talk interesting. And I've been able to at least have at least one point that you can take away from this. Thanks a lot. See, one way to handle that is, I think you also need to manage up. So if you are delegating some things to your team, then you also need to look at what are the things that you can take up which will move you to the next level. So that can be the motivation for the delegation. So I'm not sure whether that works in all contexts or whether it's the best thing to do, but I think that's one of the ways that you can look at it. See, what I see is, let me just repeat the question. So he was asking like, what are the dimensions of trust, right? That a leader should be looking at, and what are the different categories? See, okay. One of the things is definitely the shared vision part. So how do you relate to the larger organization or to larger teams in terms of trust? And the second thing is also to work with the organization to look at what are the measurement systems that are in place today, which are in conflict with the values that you want to promote as a team. So I can give you an example. So when we try to bring agility to one of the teams, so one of the things that people wanted to look at was a career roadmap, because the organization had not really defined a career map for people who went down the agile path. So that is something that we had to work on. So there will be a lot of things that will be coming off the flight, but the thing here is it needs to be aligned. There needs to be an alignment, and wherever there are gaps, you need to work out to plug it, whether it is at the organizational level or whether it is at the team level. Team level is easy to fix because you as a leader would have more control. We'll take it offline. Yeah, we'll discuss offline.