 do is to create some sense of safety for your people, because otherwise you just get blinkered thinking. And you could extend that even to saying, you know, thank you for bringing that up. Not just, it's okay to bring it up, but thank you for bringing it up. Because that's something that we can then work towards. So I tweeted something, I'll put on Instagram or something the other day, which I got a bit of a confused response. It was, I can't remember it, I can't remember my own thing, but basically it was along the lines of if you're asking for help, then you're giving other people the opportunity to help you. And people like to help other people. So, you know, be generous and ask for help. And then be selfish and accept someone's offer of help or request to help rather. And I think that that's that's something that so that and I suppose, once you've got that safety, I think you then need space or capacity. I'm not sure the right word so that you can, you can explore it. That could be as well as the sort of mental capacity, but time. You know, we were in our little breakout room before we started, we were saying how it'd be interesting to see what we lose if we go back to a normal way of working. I think a lot of us were talking about how it is a little bit. It's, it's a little bit calmer, work wise, because we know we can't do as much. And there's a sense of a greater sense of allowance that we're giving our colleagues because we all know that we've got kids at home. We've got spouses at home where we're not set up to work effectively will have the tools and so we're giving it that's the greater tolerance. And if we have that sense of always busy, even working on the commute, we don't necessarily have the time or the mental capacity to explore something tricky. I've just waffled there. Does that, like it's going in the right direction? Definitely. That's why we've got you here to waffle. It's brilliant. So yeah, you talked about vulnerability saying thank you, creating that space and how always being busy doesn't really help with that. Yes, it was about sharing it, wasn't it? Just share a problem so that we can collaborate on it. And it's all very well me being able to say I need some help with something or I don't know the answer to something when that's hard enough. But who, who to share that with, I think is is another sort of facet to this question. And if I don't know who has what skills or who has what experience, how do I know who to risk my vulnerability with, if you like. And a lot of the teams are really simple exercise. It's not mine. It's a journey, lines, exercise, market of skills, things where you can just learn about people, not just in terms of the items on their CV, but their experiences, their personal skills, their traits, their anything about them that could be useful. Their mindset, their attitude that could be useful to us in solving a problem. The more we know what our colleagues and our friends have to bring to the party and the more we appreciate what they bring to the party, the more they want to bring those things to the party. That's two minute warning. Okay, so I might ask. Kathy, that's two minutes. Yeah, do we want to just stop here then? Yeah, because we need to get to the doors. Yeah. So are we actually physically going outside to do this? Well, I am just to show solidarity with my community. Oh yeah, absolutely. I just wanted to make sure if we were clapping here or that's fine. So shall we all get to our doors then and come back in a couple of minutes? Cool. You're back in a sec. So, Jeff, so you finished up there talking us through a few ways of learning a bit more about people and not just about their work. Yeah. And you touched on some of Lisa Radkin's tools. Is there anything else you want to say that or shall we go to the group and see if anyone wants to ask a follow up question? No, it's taking to the group, yeah. Cool. So if you want to raise your hand, if you had any questions specifically about that first question around encouraging people to share a problem. And Shane, you can maybe help me out if you can see hands. Hands guys. Mr. Nailed it then. And that's fine. We've got a pile of questions. Shall we carry on then? Yeah. So next question. How do you deal with senior leaders who seem to have little or no interest in changing and going through agile transformations? So it's difficult because my instinct is to ask some more clarity on that because how do you know that these senior leaders have little or no interest? I suppose, you know, as the leader, I've got to, I've got to be able to get across what I'm thinking. I've got to be able to connect with people and explain, express how important it is. Well, the next thing that springs to mind is, did you say deal with? How do you deal with? I suppose I'd next thing I'd be drawn to the language of how do you deal with somebody? And well, it doesn't matter who they are. I operate on the principle that I can't convince anybody to have more interest in something. That interest has to come from within. So I'd be keen to learn a little bit more about them. It wouldn't be too dissimilar to my first answer in some way. So I'd like to learn a little bit more about the kind of leader that they are, the kind of leader they want to be, the kind of organization they want to be part of leading. And if they can see rationale in changing the culture, in changing the ways of working, if they can see the benefits in that, then I think the only thing that would be stopping them would be fear or cost. And that doesn't have to be a financial cost. But I talk about a change equation. If I want to make a change, if I want to do something different, I'm going to do some kind of rudimentary cost benefit analysis in my head, either consciously or unconsciously. The benefits are going to outweigh the costs to me of doing that, otherwise I wouldn't bother. But it's not just simply about benefits and cost because there is always a chance that I try something and fail. And human beings generally want to try and avoid failure. They want to avoid that sense of having tried something and it not worked. And the potential judgment that comes from that. So I'd probably look at those three levers. Is there any way that this could be more beneficial for them? Is there any way that this could be easier for them, cheaper for them? And is there any way, anything that we could do that would increase their chances of success? Which could be, I suppose partly, defining or more clearly defining what success actually means for them. So the other thing on that that is quite common, especially just from my experience, but especially with senior leaders, is that those people have generally got to where they are because of the way things are. And sometimes in their minds, even if it's not true, there's a perception of, well, if I have to change what I'm doing, I kind of have to admit that what I was doing before was wrong. And I say there's a perception there because it's not necessarily true. It may just be that things have changed and people aren't associating that change with them. But from a personal perspective, it can feel like I'm losing face. And having to sort of back down or overturn something that I've said or supported before. So is there a way that I could make this easier for them to change their mind without either actually or seeming to feeling like they have lost face? That's great, Jeff. Thank you. And I really like that most analytical assessment of where are you rather than just feeling really frustrated about it. I'd like to invite the group now. Does anyone want to sort of dig a bit more into that based on what Jeff has said? Either the person asked a question or someone else that's interested? And maybe just raise your hand again. Hi. Along the line of what you were talking about, and it's kind of a, it's a similar kind of anti-pattern. I often see leaders looking at the headline like, you know, twice the work and half the time, but they don't see it as a kind of a change thing for them. And then they come along and say, well, why am I not getting twice the work and half the time? Have we kind of oversold? Well, that last sort of throwaway comment, I think, is possibly worth more attention than we should. We might well give it. But with ongoing court cases, then maybe not me, but with the people that have made those claims, it might be worth steering a little bit clearer of them. But yeah, this idea of that's always been a factor, isn't it? It was even, I remember in early days, there was this view that our job was about doing more for less, getting more for less and being cheaper and cutting costs. And actually a lot of the agile movement, a lot of the leaders of the agile movement actually went out of their way to try and make it clear that it's not about that. It's not about being more efficient. And I actually make it a big, when I talk to leaders now, I'll call that elephant in the room out. If you're going down this agile approach halfway, you're not going to be, it's not about efficiency. It's about effectiveness and there's a big difference. But yeah, unfortunately, there are a number of now quite public claims about doing twice the work for half the time that perhaps bring that back onto the table a lot more. But my natural tendency is to kind of empathize because no matter how awkward or how much of a sabotage or how bad these people might look at place value, they're all trying to be successful. They're all trying to do a good thing, but they've got influences on them. And those leaders are often under a lot of pressure from shareholders, from market changes that they're behind the curve on and they somehow inherited a massive cost base and they need to do something. And while agile cost might not be the number one driver really, it's not easy to call that out from it. Thank you, Jeff. Yeah, that's great. And also different perspectives there. Shane, was there somebody else that you asked a question? Yeah, we do have another hand raised and I apologize for the pronunciation of your voice or if you're able to, is it Georgia? Yeah, close enough. It's George. George is fine. You know it's George, but whatever. I don't mind. Yeah, George is one of the global agile leaders. Thank you, Scott. No, I actually wanted to reinforce what Jeff said and kind of ask if the person who has the original question is here, because the language is quite specific and did they mean dealing with the situation that you're in where you're trying to make a change, but the leadership is not maybe supportive or dealing with the leaders themselves. I would be really curious about the nature of the question. With the question, I'd like to speak up. No pressure, but please. That's me. It's okay. It's no pressure. It's okay. Thanks, Kathy. Yeah, a couple of things on it. I think the first thing was, Jeff, thanks for the feedback on the language. The deal with was more just I was too excited about what I was probably doing at that moment. I was trying to juggle it to you on a four year old. So I just went down play. So thank you for that. I think, yeah, for me, the background for this is I've worked in financial services for the majority of my career, and there's a number of problems in terms of the leaders probably aren't really hiring the people to come in and, you know, to help with like agile transformations. And I think also you can't even get near them even if you really wanted to sort of like deal with some of this stuff. So it's probably trying to deal with that disconnect. But even if you do get two minutes for these individuals, by the time you've even thought about trying to get into what they want or what success looks like, it's generally quite challenging. And they're quite dismissive. So, and also in financial service, I think you've got the background of, and Jeff, I think you said it quite nicely where they've got to has probably been from having a massive ego and being quite arrogant and so forth. No, I added that last bit. I added the ego and so forth. But that's sort of what I believe I'm dealing with in terms of that sort of stuff. We have recorded it. My bosses are on the line. But yeah, that's where the background was that was really coming from. And to even get them engagement or to get them at the door to be talking to them. Yeah, it's. And I get that it's, in many cases, it's a little bit easier for me, because I'm an external who is bound with confidentiality. And, you know, I can be sued and taken to ethics courts for if I divulge information. But you, if I, when I was working at BT, if I did have managed to grab five minutes with a leader, why would they tell me the truth? Why would they be vulnerable with me? They've got nothing to gain on a lot to lose. So finding out what's really going on for them, where their fears are what their hopes are what their drivers are. It's really, really difficult for somebody within an organization, but for somebody who's engaged at a leadership level. It's really difficult for me to get to get there. And so I suppose I take this slightly more optimistic slash positive view of human nature, and very few people are trying to screw you over even though it might appear it, because I can see the human frailties and the vulnerabilities behind what might come across as quite assertive behavior. So that is defensive behavior. It doesn't look like it, but it is. And it's protectionist behavior. Thank you, Jeff. And thanks, Luke. Great to get that extra clarity. And I'm going to suggest we move on to another question. So the next one, the next number of advice by Luke's words, what does good collaboration look like? It's quite an open one there. Well, seeing as Luke, Luke floated the word ego, I'll start there. I would say, for me, the first, the first thing that I see when when I know first thing I notice when I see good collaboration is you don't really see a lot of ego. So whatever status there is, whether it's sort of hierarchy, or even if it's just sort of social respect or even personal respect, you don't see the difference. And I think one thing that I kind of almost mentioned with the first question around encouraging people to share a problem and collaborate is, for me, a big part of collaboration is is optionality. So I don't, you can't force collaboration. I could force cooperation. And I can force coordination, but I can't force collaboration in my opinion. I know there are people out there that would disagree with me based on technical definitions of collaboration, but I, from what I see, I can't force that. And, and I think that's a big part of the ego thing I can't force someone to let go of their ego they have to want to or be willing to. And then we're all, then we're all feeling a much higher level of psychological safety to interact with one another to to challenge each other to question assumptions to embrace the idea that that the impossible might be possible. And to, to go past what might seem like an easy win to look for something deeper or bigger or more impactful to give away my idea to somebody else for it to be built on and not look to claim the credit for having that idea. I feel safer to do that. I don't need to score points. I don't need to come out of this with the credit. I think look like I do have a sort of nasty habit of picking on words and what does collaboration look like. There are things you can something can look like collaboration, but it doesn't feel like collaboration. And so it's not so much when I'm when I'm trying to see is their collaboration. It's not so much what I'm looking for is what I'm feeling in the room, which might sound a little bit touchy feely but it's that sense of people looking a little bit insecure about whether they're doing enough. There's always a sense of a little bit of apology because they don't feel like they're doing enough. Because historically we've been expected to do our bit, but actually doing our bit, when we're collaborating is sometimes not filling the airspace. Sometimes it's not the least in the airspace. So generally speaking people feel a little bit uncomfortable. I've got, I've got a fragment of the, of the Ted talk but I can't remember which one it was. I'll tell you later on, but it was about comparing the, the effectiveness of teams, solving problems when they had a stranger in the team they were more effective when they had a stranger in the team than when they all they were all friends. This is interesting, but what was more interesting for me was that, that even though that group with a stranger in were more effective, they were less comfortable while doing it. So they were kind of acting a little bit above comfortable or outside of the comfort zone, possibly because of the stranger. I think there's an element of that in there as well. If that makes sense. Jeff, thank you. Do you mind if we, if we go to the floor and see if anyone wants to delve into that a bit more. I prefer that rather than me just carry on what things. Kathy, we've got Ian, T, Woffershand, Rizd and David Krull. Cool, so Ian T, thanks Shane. Hi, yeah, thanks. Myself, so hopefully you can hear. Yeah, I was just going to ask about in general, given that senior execs and we're talking about kind of collaboration in general, I think around 70% of senior execs are alpha. And so obviously different approaches needed to coach. How do you deal with those? So we're back to dealing with people again. But the interesting, I'm keen to see more and more of today's studies on this because my, it may well be that I'm biased by the samples that I'm coming across. I'm seeing that percentage of alpha within the boardroom shifting. I would say it shifted certainly in my 20 year career. And people with those skill sets, the greater emotional intelligence, greater listening skills, greater enabling skills are progressing up because the problems that people are facing and having to solve are different to the ones that were there when the alpha is dominated. But again, that's just my experience. But the, if you have got a group of people, so I'm going to extrapolate your question here and tell me if I'm abusing this. But if you've got a group of people who aren't naturally collaborating, either because there's a lot of tension or there's a lot of sort of conflict in there or positioning ego or what have you. The one thing that I think is a great place to start is, is to try and find out the mutual benefit the common why because what is it, there's a question if Amanda has a compelling why can can tolerate almost any how it most people are willing to sacrifice a little bit of themselves. If the collective that they're part of is good enough, big enough, meaningful enough, impactful enough. And I didn't choose that word sacrificing likely because being part of any team does require a certain trade off. If I'm going to be part of the team properly, but really in this team, I do have to sacrifice a little bit of myself a little bit of selfish need a little bit of not completely. But I do have to sacrifice a little bit of myself and the key to the successful teams is that what each individual gets back from that trade off is bigger, better, more meaningful, more purposeful than what they're trading away. And that goes for even at the board level, even with those alphas, if they can get something better in return. They'll do it. Did I abuse your question there. No, cool. That was good. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. It was a devil cruel. How does. David. Yeah. Thanks. Jeff said something really interesting about. Unpicking language. And he said it almost apologetically. And actually I think what he said there was really key. So when we're having conversations with people, we're trying to understand their perspective. We don't understand their perspective. We don't understand how they're constructing whatever it is we're discussing. We're going to be completely unable to address their needs and their wants. So I think this habit of reflecting on the language that we're using is absolutely key. I mean, the word deal with people sounds like you can just dismiss those people but actually key stakeholders are really important. You're the product owner of agility within that organization. You don't understand what your customers and stakeholders want. How are you able to deliver an effective product? So I just wanted Jeff to sort of talk a little bit more about deconstructing ideas and the importance of that in reflective and effective practice. Particularly in this area of where communication with somebody is difficult. And so I feel compelled to play the other side of the other argument. This is just a sort of almost floor in my character, if you like. I'll happily make a really strong point. But then as soon as people start agreeing with me, then I feel compelled to make the alternative point. I'm a bit weird like that. So I picked out those words from Luke a while ago and he had a reason for it and there is a reason for it. And it's not so much that the words dealing with were meant to deal with. But my point is to be able to replay that back to that person without me putting my judgment on it. But to ask them whether that is impacting their view subconsciously. And I think that one thing that the most common, the most common language aspect that comes out for me above all is the difference between should and want. So a lot of people use the word, you know, I should be doing that. I need to do that. I ought to be doing that. I must do that. That sense of obligation and obligations are powerful thing. It is, but it's nowhere near as powerful as want. And if I can play back to people that the fact that I'm hearing a lot of obligatory language and what they're talking about, not to explain themselves to me because they don't need to explain or justify themselves to me. But it can hold the mirror up to them in terms of why perhaps they aren't as making as much progress as they would like or they aren't as fulfilled as they would like. And what would it take for them to shift this from a should to a want. But then we have, then we open another problem, another kind of worms in the, as soon as they're aware that I'm listening for their words, they're very careful about the words they use. The good news is the more people talk, the more they lose their attention. So if you're a good listener, and you stay quiet long enough, you can eventually give them something that they can use to reflect themselves. Geoff and David. Great conversation. Do you mind if we move on? I'm just conscious we had so many questions and trying to get a balance between asking the questions that we had already and also getting some follow up questions. Thank you. So the next one that we had was, how do you get teams to focus on the actual problem before jumping to this solution? That's, yeah, that is a good question. It's a really important question. And my, my, my instinct, my instinctive place to start is this sort of natural reason why we do you jump to a solution. And so I usually have this conversation with a team that's, that's starting out or a scrum master that's, that's trying to set up a new team or working with this team that they don't give them a chance and they just, they just won't make a decision. They don't know they want to be told what to do. And so, you know, I give them a chance, but then I have to tell them. This idea of all that while there is uncertainty about what to do or the solution to go for. We have anxiety people don't like knowing people don't like not knowing the answer and not knowing what's going to happen. But when, when any, anything that vaguely resembles a possibly acceptable solution to get rid of that anxiety and newly self-organizing team will or say, okay, yeah, let's do that, just to close out the uncertainty and move on. And that might be fine. You know, and in many ways, that's kind of an agile approach, right, it's good enough, let's move on and then we can iterate and get it better later on. But we have attachment to our decisions. And it's very hard to go back on what we decided before, for fear of looking like that we've made a mistake and so on. So, and, and often it's the, the more extroverted people that have those first opinions out there and the introvert and more introverted people don't get ahead and so we don't have a well rounded view. So it's generally a very suboptimal decision that we make. So allowing teams or giving the teams the tools and the space and the confidence to actually sit in that discomfort for a little bit longer is really, really valuable. And if we're in the complex space, we need multiple options. Ideally, we want to be running multiple experiments in parallel, but at least we want multiple options. And one thing, well, a couple of things that can help that one is normalization. So letting people know that it is absolutely normal for them to want to close out uncertainty and anxiety by making a decision. That's normal. And once it's normal, we stop judging ourselves for it. And some teams will actually say, well, we don't want to be normal, we want to be better than normal. So we've got an excuse to push themselves outside of their comfort zone. The other thing that helps for me here is, is, is rituals. So you think, think, think back to the very first retrospective that you were part of, you know, how, how much divergent thinking did your team really engage in or did they come up with one thing. They thought, yeah, we should do something about that. And then there's, you know, we'll do something about that. And that's it. So let's go forward. But having a bit of structure. So this is where, you know, Esther and Diana's agile retrospective structure, which really, really helpful for teams is saying, okay, well, don't worry about down the line. Just start thinking about what's going on. What problem do you want to solve, then start a bit of time gathering some data, then do a bit of, you know, generating insights and then decide what to do. So going into that ritual allows people that sense of comfort that lowers the anxiety levels. And another ritual that I, that I wrote about years ago in Scrum Mastery, I picked up from a guy called Lee Devin, was the rule of seven. And knowing that we've got a rule that says we can't make a decision until we've come up with at least seven options allows us to be a little bit silly, allows us to be a little bit loose, because we've got a rule. The rule is we need to have multiple options. And coming up with seven options is quite difficult. But it allows us to get past the blindingly obvious. And open ourselves up. And I'll stop there again in case I'm just waffling too much and you want to target or guide. Waffling's great. And really like, again, pulling out a bit there, the power of the Scrum Master and how important the Scrum Master can be in helping people to find these rituals and normalization. Thank you, Jeff. So, Shane, has anyone raised their hand to ask a question on this? Yeah, Kathy, we've got Nikki Bennett. And then Mark Evans. Okay, so let's go to Nikki first. Thanks, Shane. So I guess it's a question around brave spacing. So a lot of what we've talked about tonight seems to be psychologically safe and mechanisms and brave spacing. So do you have any other tips on that? Yeah, dedicated time. So dedicated time to be collaborative to explore a dedicated space that doesn't necessarily need to be offsite, but an actual space where we can go. It could be a virtual breakout room, for example. And I'm much more likely to be crazy to be innovative to be creative in a group of four than I am a group of 54. So making it easy for people to get into that kind of mindset. And trust, if I trust people, I'm more likely to explore and try something a little bit crazy. Working agreements, which you might say, if you've got trust, you don't need them, but trust isn't binary. Trust goes on a scale. So those working agreements can support trust while it's developing and while we're growing as a team. And sometimes a little bit of fun can help. One fun technique that I roll out quite often is the psychopath, psychopath approach, which is how can we make this situation worse? What I find is a lot of people find it much easier to think about how to destroy something than to build it up. And if we're really struggling to get creative or to be collaborative or come up with some new ideas, coming up with how you can make it worse immediately gives you some ways of stopping that risk from happening. And you then can flip it and then you're into a bit of rhythm, got a bit of momentum in terms of some forward thinking. Brilliant. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Nikki. Thanks, Joe. And Matt, was it? It was just as you kind of touched upon it towards the end, but truthfully you might have kind of answered it there with Nikki. So I'm not sure, but it was in and around experimentation. You mentioned there, you know, you want to have ideally multiple experiments running at the same time. That's your ideal kind of situation. How do you encourage that kind of level of experimentation to go up? How do you nurture that? How do we make that, you know, a more natural thing? As I said, you might have answered some of it with some of the stuff that you said to Nikki, but any other tips on sort of growing? So it's not necessarily that multiple parallel experiments are a good thing, but they are in the right context. In the wrong context, multiple parallel experiments are a horrendous waste of time. So it's about helping leaders understand, make sense of the context. So the connecting framework, talking about the connecting framework with leaders being able to work out. Okay, we're in this situation. I know it probably is the right thing to get some experts together, do some analysis, find out some good practices and make a decision. But if you're on the wrong side of that line, you're going to get waste either way. And I think I haven't yet come across a leader that doesn't get the logic in that. The question then is, how good are we at knowing which side of the line we're on? And so then we can talk a lot about cognitive biases in that if we don't mean none of us see the world as it is, we see the world through our own lens and through our own experiences and we hear what we want to hear and we hear what we expect to hear and we see what we expect to see. And so I can talk to leaders at a logical level about cognitive biases and they get the concept that they see things that perhaps others don't see because that's what they expect to see. And so if that's the case, then which is the worst side of the line to be wrong on. What I mean by that is, if it turns out that I should have run multiple parallel experiments, but I ended up doing some analysis. Is that worse than I should have done some analysis, but I did multiple parallel experiments. And generally the worst kind of wrong leads you to thinking well I should probably err on the side of experimentation. You factor into account that my cognitive biases historically lead me towards analysis problem solving using my experience and my expertise that I'm probably seeing more of that than I should be. Then logically I should be a little bit more this way. But I'd also couple that with empathy in that if I was a leader, if I was somebody who had the purse strings, I would feel much safer getting some experts together and spending my money on that and spending my money on experiments. Unless those experiments were cheap and quick, safe to fail. Did that answer your question Matt? Yeah, it's a good take on it to be honest. So yeah, probably not the way I would have looked at it. So thank you. Brilliant. Thank you guys, great conversation. So I'm going to suggest that we move on to another question unless I get a shaking head from Shane or Jack. I can't see any hands raised at the moment. Okay, let's move on then. Thank you. So next and possibly last question depending on how quickly we answer it might have time for two. Is there a way that you measure collaboration in teams? Measuring metrics, metrics always, always introduce dysfunctional behavior. And while it's kind of true, you get what you measure. Once you start measuring something, the behavior changes. So I'm hesitating because I don't want this to sound like this is a plug. But what I've tried to do with this team mastery book is not so much provide some kind of metric scale. But what I've done is created a number of what I call milestone cards where these are sort of significant events, tangible events within a team's growth. So they've sort of taken a step forward in terms of their ability to be a really, really good team. And those are not necessarily linear. So it's not like a case of this is your first milestone engine next milestone, you know, you're at maturity level one maturity. It's not like that. But there are a number of things that a team think, right, well, if we do that, that's a really good sign that we're a great team. We're showing appreciation for one another, for example, might sound like a really sort of fluffy high level thing, but asking for help. That's a that's a that's a sign that a team is prepared to and it's probably pretty good at collaborating if we can ask each other for help, we're more likely to be an effective collaborative team. So I asked the team what they would be looking for what what would be their signals that they are collaborating effectively. And then look for examples of them on a daily basis or a sprint by sprint basis. So what is what when you ask this team what what's their experience of being part of a really good collaborative team. Give me some things that they notice or what isn't there when they aren't collaborating, for example, and capture them and then look for examples of them or work towards them. Right. Yeah. So decide what it is that you care about and then look for signals as to whether they're happening or not. Yeah. And I think collaboration, while there are some common hallmarks, I think depending on the contacts and depending on the team and depending on the maturity and the mix of people in the team collaboration might look different from team to team. And it's not I don't think it's it's if I came along with it with the standard textbook definition of collaboration said to the team right aim for that. I don't even if it was a brilliant definition. I don't think it would be anywhere near as powerful as a team saying this is what we think collaboration is. And that's what we're aiming for. But I might be wrong. Great. Thank you. And a real watch out for coaches and scrum masters. I think that we don't give other people our own definitions of things. But I wonder if I think I'm getting signals that someone wants to ask a question. Shane. Yeah, definitely. There's a couple of hands raised. I've got Andrew Kendall. I would like to ask a question. And then we've got a couple more. Okay. Andrew. Jeff, I was just going to say looking for signals for for collaboration and cognitive like cognitive biases. I suppose metrics and analysis are typically used to try and inform people to challenge maybe collect those sorts of biases. Do you think? Yeah, what, what would you say to someone that would say like show me it. There was looking for like more structured evidence about past improvements in collaboration. Unfortunately, we're not the best judges of our own biases. We can get better at it through reflection and through developing our emotional intelligence, but nothing beats having somebody that we trust and respect. Look out for that for us. This is a really simplistic example, right, but I've got dreadful knees, dreadful knees from sporting injuries over the years. And so now now my knees are so bad I can I can dislocate my knee playing darts right is they're just awful. And so the amount of times I have to go through rehab and exercises to build up the muscles again and I'm lazy. Generally, I skip my exercises and I know this about myself. Right. And I might some of my cognitive biases, you know, I can rationalize why I haven't got time to do these things in the morning or do it later. But one one trick that I have is I basically hand over power to my kids. So when I'm going through this, I will draw up my exercise routine and I will put it on display and I will ask my kids to hold me to account. So if they see me skipping something or if they see me not doing what I should be doing, they can they can call me on it. It's quite a silly example because it's not really work related. But if we if we if we've got an idea, if we're asking for feedback from our colleagues, people that we respect, people that we're contributing towards success with. And we lost Jeff. Sorry. Oh, I thought I think I lost you. It might have been me. I think we all did. Did leave you. Yeah, just just literally 30 seconds or so. What was the last thing you heard me say? Kids. Kids will be needed to account if you skip something. Okay. So it's kind of a silly thing. But it's quite powerful for me because it comes back to my personal values of I don't want to be the kind of parent that says to their kids, you can't do your homework. But the people that I care about that power makes it easy for me to stick and get past my cognitive biases, taking that into the workplace and the team. And we're, we've hopefully we've said so little wrong we've got something collective that we're working towards this bigger than what I selfishly want. Then I can, by getting other people to help me see my cognitive biases and inviting them to give me feedback on them and knowing that it's not a judgment a personal judgment. I'm broadening myself awareness by bringing other people in. And if someone starts that process, then it says to everybody else in the team, you can do that too. It's not a weakness to ask for people to help you build up your weaknesses. And, and that's something that I absolutely see in the great teams that I work with. And I've been interested in whether you guys see something similar in the great teams that you see. So that's a great question. And I'd like to point there about you, you going first often say that the scrum masters even today I said that you need to go first. And Shane, someone had the hand up, I think. Yes, Georgia. Yeah, well, in the meantime, I think it's been covered. I just wanted to throw on the table a small example of kind of measurements. We just put up, well, basically it was hard to find a collaboration part. So we just basically put an open season, whenever you notice a collaboration moment, just put it on a sticky post it on the wall. And if you feel like it specifically say why it was valuable. And at the end of pick a pick a time sprint or whatever, we would look at those and then seeing which of those were really valuable to people because it just supported that behavior. So it's not a measurement per se and we didn't say, hey, let's get more of these or let's get at least 20 of these. But it was kind of towards that towards that goal. Okay, yeah. And the visualization, I think it's a powerful aspect of that as well. Yeah, excellent point. Yeah, and I would I would actually argue that the biggest value was people had no idea what other people are grateful for. And what other people consider the useful collaboration. Yeah, good point. Good point. That's great and get great to get different ideas from you there as well George. Thank you. Shane, am I right in thinking or maybe Jack that we need to wrap up? We have scheduled them for quarter to main. Yeah. I think we should keep Jeff up all night. You got enough beer in that shed. I've got the drakes now. Can't keep them up with those knees. So Jeff, what do you think I'm conscious that I think we said we'd finish at quarter to so. Shall we call it a day there? Yeah, you've got a burning final question. And I guess quite a few select one. Shall we choose one and we'll just do a really quick answer to this one then. What's the first thing you do when you're brought into work with a dysfunctional team versus a new team? Not treat them like a dysfunctional team. Because I've had so many experiences with teams that have been viewed as dysfunctional. The problem team. And they just haven't had their needs met. They haven't been set up for success. And it's kind of like a kid acting out in a way. And so I would actually try and treat them like a new team, give them a chance to start afresh. Go back to basics, try and find out what would they like to do? What would they like to be? What do they need to get there? And learn a little bit about each other again. So I would probably treat them as a new team. Yeah, that's great. And really showing that generosity and something we always need to bring as coaches and scrum masters. Yeah. Thank you, Jeff. So I'd just like to wrap up by first of all saying thank you. I'm sure that everybody else feels the same. It's been really interesting to hear you speaking really enlightening. And I'd like to invite you also just to give us a bit of chat about your book because it feels to me like a lot of the stuff we've talked about tonight. It really resonates with the topic of your book. So can you just tell us a few more words about that? Sure. And we've left it to the end so people can can ignore this bit if they don't like sales pitch. So I got word from the printers today that Blaston Blaston they've been operating with a skeleton staff this week to get it all printed and I should be getting my first copies delivered tomorrow. So it's it's it's following a very similar format to scrum master and product mastery. So it's real stories that have been anonymized. This time, slight difference in that I invited people to collaborate with me virtually remotely, even before we had to be remote and to share their stories. And it's it's focusing on the hallmarks of all the great teams that I've seen over the last 20 years, some from software some from outside software. It's focusing on the fact that great teams have a habit of self improvement. They focus on quality. They have a hallmark of unity. They're audacious. They're brave, but they don't forget about delivering. And as well as those stories, there's 50 of these milestone cards that I mentioned, things that the great teams that I've seen tend to tend to hit, and they're quite significant in their development. And you your team may choose to aim for them and might think, yeah, yeah, we've done that. That's that's a good thing. But there's some blank templates in there as well, because every team is going to be different. And yeah, if you're interested, hook me up, check my website. I'm not going to sell it anymore. Definitely look forward to that. And I know that you've got some little cards in there as well that you can like put out and. Yes. Yeah. Awesome. Right. Thank you very much, Jeff. And I propose that we will have a round of applause. I don't know whether we can do that with our cameras off. Can we do that? We can have a cheers, right? Yeah. Well. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Jeff. Great session, guys. Welcome back to Jack. Is it? I'm not sure. Guys. Feel free if you need to, please feel free to drop off. But what we really want to do in fashion, we want to make sure we're getting your feedback and we're improving for next thing. So I'm going to ask if you can stay, it'll only take five minutes to have access to a computer or a phone. That would be awesome. We're just going to do a very quick online feedback session, which I'll let Shane take you through. If you happen to drop off, I will share the link afterwards. It would be awesome if we could get your feedback now while it's fresh in your hands. Can I pass over to Shane? Yeah, not a problem. Jackie, you want to share the code and stuff like that for Mentimeter? Excellent. So normally we try and get this feedback, you know, with some post-its, some sharpies. But we're going to try menti.com at this time around since we're all remotes. So this is real simple. You can just go to your internet browser on your phone or on your laptop. Type in www.menti.com and then you'll be presented with the request to enter this code. So just enter in the code 565977. And then you should, there we go, we've already got some people starting to input. Perfect. We've got some Mary Poppins. So yeah, definitely had somebody's key was coming off insightful, inspiring, lightning. Super calorofragilistic. Excellent. So just got a few more moments. I think we've got covers everyone. Jack, can you move to the next feedback? So that one word that you entered quite nicely looked at what went well. We also want to kind of, we don't know what can we improve as a meet-up, as a community. So if you can enter some things that we can work on improving on this entry. Virtual pizza. Do you reckon we could get downloads to deliver to everyone's location? Does virtual pizza come with you? Maybe a virtual beer or a cooler. Lots and lots of virtual pubs springing up everywhere. Is that a club, Scott? The world's end. That's my favourite name. Yeah, we had Geetan Sweden try to do karaoke. Paul Goddard and I are doing a live version of the actual pubcast tomorrow in the social distance. Ah, very clever. So I think that's all that we've got some more coming in. I think we had 35 on the first one. Just a quick shout out in the remote sessions thing. Joanna Massraff is a single parent who can't go out to meet-ups and has set up every three weeks a kind of remote sharing session. And it's called the Hive Remote. Really good, really good talks. You know, John the Drew, great speakers, speakers from Australia and things. And that's kind of set up. It happens every three weeks. And it's really good if you're not in Edinburgh or, you know, and it's really good now whilst we're all in COVID lockdown. Yeah, I've been down a few times. They're great. I even did one from the gym. Interesting. Right. So again, we'd really like to understand what you'd like to see in the future in terms of topics that we can bring to the hard-of-agile meet-up. So again, if you can just touch your thoughts. Somebody sounded like they're having fun. How's that locking going? Well, that wasn't feedback for us. Hope for that. Excellent. Something I've really enjoyed recently, you know, more often is getting to meet people's extended and immediate families. So getting to meet a lot of my colleagues, children, partners. It's starting to, I think, build that sort of better understanding of who people on my team are and even people outside my team. So I think we'll move, and this is the final and last bit of feedback that we're going to ask for. Jack's going to, oh, this is actually the last bit, isn't it, Jack? Yeah, I thought there was a fourth bit of feedback. So I think I'll hand back to Kathy just to wrap up. Is it me or is it Scott? My apologies, it's Scott. I think it's crazy Scott. I want to end this in a bit of a positive beat. We're in a time of change, and we are the change agents. We are the change people. We're in a time where people need to end work, be more human, and we are the people that, you know, humanize work. I predict that, you know, although maybe some people have had their contracts and things stopped initially and there's a bit of a shock in the system. You know, pretty soon that, you know, out of the COVID crisis that, you know, the things that we do are going to be really valued. So I just wanted to, you know, where people are going to be kind of scared of the future or scared for the roles. You know, this community has got real leadership in this time and going forward. And if anything, COVID is just accelerating the better place that we for years have been trying to get people to. There's a lot of hope out there. We will get through this, and I think this is going to make it stronger. And I just really want this all to end on that happy note, you know, we're doing the right thing.