Competence and Discipline: The Pillars of Excellence
You may know several companies that tried out lean-agile practices like Scrum or Kanban, and it didn’t work out. Then, everyone says that in the good old waterfall-ish days, everything used to be way better, the new frameworks are malfunctioning, or agile approaches are not suited because the given company is so unique. However, when I look back at the projects I worked for, I observed something different. If the projects were successful or were running comparatively smoothly, the people involved showed competent and disciplined behavior. Over time, I came to the point where I called both factors the Pillars of Excellence.
Interestingly, I found both factors positively reinforcing. Meaning, if competence used to be on a high level, discipline often was as well. And on the opposite, if competence used to be on a low level, discipline used to be, too. So I invite you to do a deep dive into my understanding behind competence and discipline.[1]
A Closer Look at Competence
When talking about competence, I distinguish between domain knowledge, methodical maturity, technical excellence, and creative problem-solving capabilities. For instance, you are about to build new software with end-user interaction. Domain knowledge would mean how much you know about your users, customers, suppliers, and processes. Meaning, in this case, it’s the degree of knowing WHAT you must do to satisfy user and customer needs.
Knowing WHAT to do is only half of the cake. One must also know HOW to do it. That’s where we come to methodical maturity and technical excellence. Assume you are using agile software development methods and frameworks like Scrum in combination with user stories as backlog items. Methodical maturity is the way how mature you are in doing Scrum or even beyond, and, e.g., how advanced your team is in writing and working with user stories. Technical excellence may be the way how you design your deployment pipeline, which programming languages and frameworks you are using, or how appropriate your software architecture is.
Still, something is missing. Assuming that any process of creation only requires to know WHAT and HOW comes too short. The element that is missing is the human factor[2], which, in this context, we can also call creativity or creative problem-solving. If creative problem-solving capabilities were not needed, everything would be a deterministic process that could be done by a machine. Therefore, the need for creativity leads us to what I would call “Können” in German. A similar English term might be mastery. It acts as the glue between all the other elements, thus correlates positively with them.
Consequently, creative problem-solving profits from methodical maturity, technical excellence, and better domain knowledge. It’s because the more knowledge and capabilities you have, the more options you discover how to solve a given problem. And indeed vice versa: the more problems you can solve creatively, the faster you gain more knowledge, as well as technical and methodical skills. Again, as it is with competence and discipline, also here it’s a bi-directional, positively reinforcing process.
A New Understanding of Discipline
When I talk about discipline, I often receive strange looks because most people think of discipline in terms of a command and control style. Especially in the context of agile, a lot of people believe that agile translates to “do whatever you want” and “all-day happy hour” — the exact opposite to discipline. Well, these assumptions are simply not correct. Because agile provides a lot of degrees of freedom, disciplined ways of working are essential to succeed with agile. And most of the time, for example, the implementation of Scrum fails with a lack of discipline as a crucial root cause.
To be clear: discipline does not mean blind obedience or blind followership. Instead, it aims at continuous (self-)improvement and includes a constant moral and ethical questioning of one’s position. Without the moral-ethical corrective on a personal level, discipline is at high risk to degenerate into a dangerous focus on pure activity and functioning in the system. It fells apart from generating outcomes for the good. You can take the holocaust as an extreme example where a negative form of discipline led to the death and suffering of millions of people. Therefore, it is essential to rethink the term discipline and describe how it should arise.
The days of running the gauntlet in the Prussian army are definitely over. Therefore I say, it is time to understand discipline in a modern and positive way. I call it positive discipline or positive self-discipline. Meaning, discipline must be the result of intrinsic motivation under an ethical and moral corrective where one takes responsibility for themselves. Everything else is behavior enforced by extrinsic motivators, a malfunctioning system, or pseudo-transformational leadership.[3] There, people do something they don’t want to do or shouldn’t do.
However, let us focus on extrinsic motivators only because everything else would lead to an excessive discussion that may be far away from building excellence in one’s company. Extrinsically motivated behavior, in the long run, often leads to frustration, cynicism, and sub-optimal work results. It may also lead to a situation where people leave your company. I am not saying that everything must be 100% intrinsically motivated. Of course, reality is always a mixture of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. But especially from a leadership perspective, it is the very task for a leader to ensure that the lion’s share is about intrinsic motivation.
A short example of positive self-discipline in an agile setting: the writing of user stories does not degenerate into the writing of plain tasks for developers. It means that people feel an inner drive for delivering excellence at any level and continuous improvement for the good in the long term. The example of writing user stories may seem to be little. But always keep in mind that even a large house is build of many small bricks. And every crumbling small brick contributes to the instability of the large house. Meaning, every crumbling brick is an observable artifact of a lack of positive self-discipline, which leads to less outcome. Or take the broken window theory: it is more likely to find another broken window in a neighborhood where there already is a broken window. Thus, it is crucial always to keep all windows fixed.[4]
Linking Discipline with Competence
Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan found with their Self-Determination Theory that competence, autonomy, and relatedness are strongly correlating with intrinsic motivation. I consequently decompose competence in line with their theory, which defines competence as being able to solve problems, control the outcome, and experience mastery. Relatedness is about willing to have social relationships and caring for others. Autonomy means having the freedom to decide by yourself or at least to be able to choose between options, meaning to act in harmony with one’s integrated self.[5]
Interestingly, the popular Spotify Engineering Culture uses a similar definition of autonomy.[6] It further combines autonomy with alignment as two dimensions. Traditionally, we regard alignment and autonomy as two opposite poles where we use alignment in a negative connotation of being controlled.
Now the Spotify model uses alignment positively. I see their definition in line with positive (self-)discipline because the Spotify model also describes alignment as a result of intrinsic motivation. The Spotify model says further, that when people show a high degree of alignment paired with a high degree of autonomy, people show and develop creative problem-solving capabilities. That’s because everyone is motivated to go in the same direction to tackle and overcome upcoming challenges. The following illustration shows how I put competence, autonomy, and alignment together.
One can see that the Self-determination Theory and the Spotify model help to understand the link between competence and discipline. I also added purpose as a crucial factor for intrinsic motivation.[7] If people see purpose in what they are doing, they tend to be intrinsically motivated. Purpose has a lot to do with the prevailing leadership style as well. For instance, Authentic Transformational Leadership aims at providing purpose under consideration of high moral-ethical standards.[3] And that’s precisely in line with my definition of positive self-discipline. Interestingly, the Spotify model of autonomy and alignment makes use of a leadership role as well.
However, purpose is a very subjective term. Following Steven Reiss with his model of 16 basic desires, one may derive purpose out of desires like status, honor, power, or even eating.[8] Also, the elements of the Self-determination Theory, competence, autonomy, and relatedness, may influence a perceived feeling of purpose.
In the opposite direction, I say that positive self-discipline is directly linked with creative problem-solving. The more a person focusses on generating results and outcomes led by intrinsic motivation, the more this person tends to develop a particular type of creativity to solve problems that stand in her way.
The Role of Leadership
Let us take a look at the role of leadership since I used the term before. Indeed, the discipline and competence of people are heavily influenced by their surrounding system. Additionally, it’s both pillars that are influenced by the character traits of a person and their mindset. A leader must try to influence the surrounding system, e. g., by changing structures. Additionally, a leader may influence the mindset of people by being a role model — of course, in an ethical and moral positive way following Authentic Transformational Leadership.
Because the most challenging, if not impossible, thing to do by leadership is to influence character traits, it is wise to choose people with character traits that seem to fit up front. But what does “fit” mean? Taking a look at the following illustration makes it clear.
I think competence is something that can be learned more natural than being disciplined. It heavily relies on experience. You may challenge my opinion, but I believe that discipline relies heavier on a person’s inner dispositions then competence. And that is what “fit” means: choose people with an attitude towards positive self-discipline over people who just have gained some knowledge due to their work life. Because discipline and competence are interdependent, people who are disciplined by nature may acquire the needed competence anyway and even tend to improve further in the long term.
If you have the wrong people, it doesn’t matter if you discover the right direction; you still won’t have a great company. Great vision without great people is irrelevant.
Jim Collins. “Good to Great”, p. 42.
My argumentation here is in line with Jim Collins’ book Good to Great. Collins model proposes a mature leadership style and what he calls “first who, then what.” Meaning, choosing the right people. Therefore, if you want to build excellence, mature leadership must ensure a system that allows people to grow. Additionally, it requires the right people that have the capabilities on board to operate at excellence — namely positive self-discipline.
Finding the Right People
To make one thing clear, all of this has nothing to do with only having precisely one type of personality in your team or company. Quite the opposite is true. Positive self-discipline knows many flavors. You will find a bright bouquet of flowers with bold colors when searching for people with that attitude. And that’s what makes it difficult. Steven Reiss talks about self-hugging behavior. Meaning, we value people most who are like ourselves.
Consequently, the personal development of a leader and therefore — and again — mature leadership becomes an even more crucial role: only a mature leader can value people of different kinds. Meaning, and according to the ideas of Leadership Agility by William B. Joiner and Stephen A. Josephs, only leaders with a developed personality can zoom out to see the bigger picture. Diverse teams are worth it. And if we take an honest look inside ourselves, we know that it’s tough to value opinions that differ from our own.
Besides the difficulty of valuing diverse opinions, there is another thing that makes the “first who, then what” principle difficult. My mother puts it as follows.
Man schaut den Menschen immer nur vor die Stirn.
“One’s always looking at people’s forehead, only.” My mother.
Sad but true, my mother is right. You never know what people are thinking and who they are. This phenomenon is well known as asymmetric information within the principal-agent theory.[9] Following the theory, the only thing that one can do is to apply signaling and screening mechanisms, meaning sorting out the lemons. Also, these approaches are limited. For example, radical constructivism tells us that we will always end up with only a subjective impression of reality, no matter how many methods we are using.[10] Therefore, it is still necessary to also rely on the good old gut feeling and common sense. Again, this brings the maturity of leaders into play. The more mature a leader is in terms of self-development, the more she may be able to sense if the person applying for a job is the right one.
The Agile Manifesto
Let’s close this article by coming back to agile. Since I think the big thing about the Agile Manifesto is that it is reduced to its essentials, I also think one important point is missing.[11,12] Therefore, I suggest adding a fifth value statement as follows:
Competence and Positive (Self-)Discipline over Hierarchy and Control.
From my point of view, this statement summarizes everything I was writing about in this article. The overcoming of hierarchy and control addresses a modern understanding of leadership in terms of enabling people to let their competence and discipline grow. Or take Scrum, for example. The Scrum Guide explicitly defines the Scrum Master role to ensure a disciplined way of working in the long run. And the best Scrum Masters are not those who wield the whip, but those who understand to motivate people to be disciplined by themselves, that is positive self-discipline.
Finally, the additional value statement makes also clear that agile is not about an all-day happy hour event. As I said at the beginning of this article, being successful with agile requires competence and discipline, which, by the way, is the same as in the old waterfall-ish days. And only when competence and positive self-discipline are in place, a team or company can bring it to excellence. It has never been any different.
Footnotes
[1] All illustrations and hypotheses based on my very own assumptions, opinions, and experiences. There is no underlying scientific research except the books and papers I’ve read. However, I do not claim to write a scientifically correct article. Instead, I am interested in encouraging others to think critically. For this reason, I am happy if you may challenge my article and provide feedback.
[2] If you want to know more about my definition of the term human factor, you may read my previous article Don’t Step into the Three Traps of the Newtonian Mindset.
[3] The differentiation between Pseudo-Transformational Leadership and Authentic Transformational Leadership is essential to understand when talking about leadership. Learn more about it at Wikipedia or read my article Leadership: History Matters.
[4] Learn more about the Broken Window Theory at Wikipedia or read the book The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell.
[5] Learn more about the Self-determination Theory at Wikipedia.
[6] Learn how the Spotify Engineering Culture makes use of alignment and autonomy by watching a YouTube video (3m6s).
[7] Daniel H. Pink describes purpose as one primary driver for intrinsic motivation in his famous book Drive.
[8] Learn more about the Reiss Model of 16 Basic Desires, also called Reiss Motivation Profile, at explorable.com.
[9] Learn more about the Principal-Agent Theory and Asymmetric Information at Wikipedia.
[10] Learn more about (Radical) Constructivism at Wikipedia.
[11] Get to know the Agile Manifesto of Software Development by visiting the page of its founders.
[12] Read the article The Discipline of Agile by Scott W. Ambler, one of the authors of the Agile Manifesto of Software Development. He argues that agile is a disciple that requires discipline.
Book Recommendations
Transformational Leadership
Bernard M. Bass (†), Ronald E. Riggio
Leadership Agility: Five Levels of Mastery for Anticipating and Initiating Change
William B. Joiner, Stephen A. Josephs
The Responsibility Process: Unlocking Your Natural Ability to Live and Lead with Power
Christopher Avery
Who Am I? The 16 Basic Desires That Motivate Our Actions and Define Our Personalities
Steven Reiss
The Normal Personality: A New Way o Thinking about People
Steven Reiss
Denkwerkzeuge der Höchstleister: Warum dynamikrobuste Unternehmen Marktdruck erzeugen
Gerhard Wohland, Matthias Wiemeyer
How Real is Real?
Paul Watzlawick
Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…And Others Don’t
Jim Collins
The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference
Malcolm Gladwell
Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness
Richard M. Ryan, Edward L. Deci
Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation
Edward L. Deci
Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
Daniel H. Pink
