Easy Agile Podcast Ep.17 Defining a product manager: The idea of a shared brain

In this insightful episode, we dive deep into one of the most common frustrations in engineering and dev teams: retrospectives that fail to drive meaningful change. Join Jaclyn Smith, Senior Product Manager at Easy Agile, and Shane Raubenheimer, Agile Technical Consultant at Adaptavist, as they unpack why retrospectives often become checkbox exercises and share practical strategies for transforming them into powerful engines of continuous improvement.

Want to put these insights into practice? We hosted a live, hands-on retro action workshop to show you exactly how to transform your retrospectives with practical tools and techniques you can implement immediately.

Key topics covered:

• Common retrospective anti-patterns and why teams become disengaged
• The critical importance of treating action items as "first-class citizens"
• How to surface recurring themes and environmental issues beyond team control
• Practical strategies for breaking down overwhelming improvement initiatives
• The need for leadership buy-in and organizational support for retrospective outcomes
• Moving from "doing agile" to "being agile" through effective reflection and action

This conversation is packed with insights for making your retrospectives more impactful and driving real organizational change.

About our guests

Jaclyn Smith is a Senior Product Manager at Easy Agile, where she leads the Easy Agile TeamRhythm product that helps teams realize the full benefits of their practices. With over five years of experience as both an in-house and consulting agile coach, Jaclyn has worked across diverse industries helping teams improve their ways of working. At Easy Agile, she focuses on empowering teams to break down work effectively, estimate accurately, and most importantly, take meaningful action to continuously improve their delivery and collaboration.

Shane Raubenheimer is an Agile Technical Consultant at Adaptavist, a global family of companies that combines teamwork, technology, and processes to help businesses excel. Adaptavist specializes in agile consulting, helping organizations deliver customer value through agile health checks, coaching, assessments, and implementing agile at scale. Shane brings extensive experience working across multiple industries—from petrochemical to IT, digital television, and food industries—applying agile philosophy to solve complex organizational challenges. His expertise spans both the technical and cultural aspects of agile transformation.

Transcript

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability while maintaining the authentic conversation flow.

Opening and introductions

Jaclyn Smith: Hi everyone, and welcome back to the Easy Agile Podcast. Today I'm talking to Shane Raubenheimer, who's with us from Adaptavist. Today we're talking about why your retrospectives keep failing and how to finally fix them. Shane, you and I have spent a fair amount of time together exploring the topic of retros, haven't we? Do you want to tell us a little bit about yourself first?

Shane Raubenheimer: Yeah, hello everyone. I'm Shane Raubenheimer from Adaptavist. I am an agile coach and technical consultant, and along with Jaclyn, we've had loads of conversations around why retros don't work and how they just become tick-box exercises. Hopefully we're going to demystify some of that today.

Jaclyn Smith: Excellent. What's your background, Shane? What kind of companies have you worked with?

Shane Raubenheimer: I've been privileged enough to work across multiple industries—everything from petrochemical to IT, to digital television, food industry. All different types of applied work, but with the agile philosophy.

Jaclyn Smith: Excellent, a big broad range. I should introduce myself as well. My name is Jaclyn. I am a Senior Product Manager here at Easy Agile, and I look after our Team Rhythm product, which helps teams realize the benefits of being agile. I stumbled there because our whole purpose at Easy Agile is to enable our customers to realize the benefits of being agile.

My product focuses on team and teamwork, and teamwork happens at every level as we know. So helping our customers break down work and estimate work, reflect—which is what we're talking about today—and most importantly, take action to improve their ways of working. I am an agile coach by trade as well as a product manager, and spent about five years in a heap of different industries, both as a consultant like you Shane, and as an in-house coach as well.

The core problem: When retrospectives become checkbox exercises

Jaclyn Smith: All right, let's jump in. My first question for you Shane—I hear a lot that teams get a bit bored with retros, or they face recurring issues in their retrospectives. Is that your experience? Tell me about what you've seen.

Shane Raubenheimer: Absolutely. I think often what should be a positive rollup and action of a sequence of work turns out to normally become a checkbox exercise. There's a lot of latency in the things that get uncovered and discussed, and they just tend to perpetually roll over. It almost becomes a checkbox exercise from what I've seen, rather than the mechanism to actively change what is happening within the team—but more importantly, from influences outside the team.

I think that's where retros fail, because often the team does not have the capability to do any kind of upward or downstream problem solving. They tend to just mull about different ways to ease the issues within the team by pivoting the issues rather than solving them.

I think that's where retros fail, because often the team does not have the capability to do any kind of upward or downstream problem solving. They tend to just mull about different ways to ease the issues within the team by pivoting the issues rather than solving them.

Jaclyn Smith: Yeah, I would agree. Something that I see regularly too is because they become that checkbox, teams get really bored of them. They do them because they're part of their sprint, part of their work, but they're not engaged in them anymore. It's just this thing that they have to do.

It also can promote a tendency to just look at what's recently happened and within their sphere of influence to solve. Whereas I think a lot of the issues that sometimes pop up are things that leadership need to help teams resolve, or they need help to solve. It can end up with them really focusing on "Oh well, there's this one bit in how we do our code reviews, we've got control over that, we'll try to fix that." Or as you say, the same recurring issues come up and they don't seem to get fixed—they're just the same complaints every time.

Shane Raubenheimer: Absolutely. You find ways that you put a band-aid on them just so you can get through to the next phase. I think the problem with that is the impact that broader issues have on teams is never completely solvable within that space, and it's no one else's mandate necessarily to do it. When an issue is relatable to a team, exposing why it's not a team-specific issue and it's more environmental or potentially process-driven—that's the bit that I feel keeps getting missed.

When an issue is relatable to a team, exposing why it's not a team-specific issue and it's more environmental or potentially process-driven—that's the bit that I feel keeps getting missed.

The pressure problem and overwhelming solutions

Jaclyn Smith: Yeah, I think so too. The other thing you just sparked for me—the recurring issue—I think that also happens when the team are under pressure and they don't feel like they have the time to solve the problems. They just need to get into the next sprint, they need to get the next bit of work done. Or maybe that thing that they need to solve is actually a larger thing—it's not something small that they can just change.

They need to rethink things like testing strategies. If that's not working for you, and it's not just about fixing a few flaky tests, but you need to re-look at how you're approaching testing—it seems overwhelming and a bit too big.

Shane Raubenheimer: Absolutely. Often environmental issues are ignored in favor of what you've been mandated to do. You almost retrofit the thing as best you can because it's an environmental issue. But finding ways to expose that as a broader-based issue—I think that should be the only output, especially if it's environmental and not team-based.

The problem of forgotten action items

Jaclyn Smith: Something I've also seen recently is that teams will come up with great ideas of things that they could do. As I said before, sometimes they're under pressure and they don't feel they have the capacity to make those changes. Sometimes those actions get talked about, everyone thinks it's a wonderful idea, and then they just get forgotten about. Teams end up with this big long backlog of wonderful experiments and things that they could have tried that have just been out of sight, out of mind. Have you seen much of that yourself?

Shane Raubenheimer: Plenty. Yes, and often teams err on the side of what's expected of them rather than innovate or optimize. I think that's really where explaining the retrospective concept to people outside fully-stacked or insular teams is the point here. You need, very much like in change management, somebody outside the constructs of teams to almost champion that directive—the same way as you would do lobbying for money or transformation. It needs to be taken more seriously and incorporated into not just teams being mini-factories supporting a whole.

You transform at a company level, you change-manage at a company level. So you should action retrospective influences in the same way. Naturally you get team-level ones, and that's normally where retrospectives do go well because it's the art of the possible and what you're mandated to do. I think bridging the gap between what we can fix ourselves and who can help us expose it is a big thing.

I see so much great work going to waste because it simply isn't part of the day job, or should be but isn't.

You transform at a company level, you change-manage at a company level. So you should action retrospective influences in the same way.

Making action items first-class citizens

Jaclyn Smith: Yeah, absolutely. I know particularly in the pre-Covid times when we were doing a lot of retros in person, or mostly in person with stickies on walls, I also found even if we took a snapshot of the action column, it would still end up on a Confluence board or something somewhere and get forgotten about. Then the next retro comes around and you sort of feel like you're starting fresh and just looking at the last sprint again. You're like, "Oh yeah, someone raised that last retro, but we still didn't do anything about that."

Shane Raubenheimer: I think Product Owners, Scrum Masters, or any versions of those kinds of roles need to treat environmental change or anti-pattern change as seriously as they treat grooming work—the actual work itself. Because it doesn't matter how good you are if the impediments that are outside of your control are not managed or treated with the same kind of importance as the actual work you're doing. That'll never change, it'll just perpetuate. Sooner or later you hit critical mass. There's no scenario where your predictability or velocity gets better if these things are inherent to an environment you can't control.

Product Owners, Scrum Masters, or any versions of those kinds of roles need to treat environmental change or anti-pattern change as seriously as they treat grooming work—the actual work itself.

Jaclyn Smith: Yeah, that's true. We've talked about action items being first-class citizens and how we help teams do that for that exact reason. Because a retro is helpful to build relationships and empathy amongst the team for what's happening for each of them and feel a sense of community within their team. But the real change comes from these incremental changes that are made—the conversations that spark the important things to do to make those changes to improve how the team works.

That action component is really the critical part, or maybe one of two critical parts of a retro. I feel like sometimes it's the forgotten child of the retro. Everyone focuses a lot on engaging people in getting their ideas out, and there's not as much time spent on the action items and what's going to be done or changed as a result.

Beyond team-level retrospectives

Shane Raubenheimer: Absolutely, consistently. I think it's symptomatic potentially of how retros are perceived. They're perceived as an inward-facing, insular reevaluation of what a team is doing. But I've always thought, in the same way you have the concept of team of teams, or if you're in a scaled environment like PI planning, I feel retrospectives need the same treatment or need to be invited to the VIP section to become part of that.

Because retrospectives—yes, they're insular or introspective—but they need to be exposed at the same kind of level as things like managing your releases or training or QA, and they're not.

Jaclyn Smith: Yeah, I think like a lot of things, they've fallen foul of the sometimes contentious "agile" word. People tend to think, "Oh retros, it's just one of those agile ceremonies or agile things that you do." The purpose of them can get really lost in that, and how useful they can be in creating change. At the end of the day, it's about improving the business outcomes. That's why all of these things are in place—you want to improve how well you work together so that you can get to the outcome quicker.

At the end of the day, it's about improving the business outcomes. That's why all of these things are in place—you want to improve how well you work together so that you can get to the outcome quicker.

Shane Raubenheimer: Absolutely. Outcome being the operative word, not successfully deploying code or...

Jaclyn Smith: Or ticking the retro box, successfully having a retro.

Shane Raubenheimer: Yeah, exactly. Being doing agile instead of being agile, right?

Expanding the scope of retrospectives

Jaclyn Smith: One hundred percent. It also strikes me that there is still a tendency for retros to be only at a team level and only a reflection of the most recent period of time. So particularly if a team are doing Scrum or some version of Scrum with sprints, to look back over just the most recent period. I think sometimes the two things—the intent of a retro but also the prime directive of the retro—gets lost.

In terms of intent, you can run a retro about anything. Think about a post-mortem when you have an incident and everyone gets together to discuss what happened and how we prevent that in the future. I think people forget that you can have a retro and look at your system of work, and even hone in on something like "How are we estimating? Are we doing that well? Do we need to improve how we're doing that?" Take one portion of what you're working on and interrogate it.

You can run a retro about anything. I think people forget that you can have a retro and look at your system of work, and even hone in on something like "How are we estimating? Are we doing that well? Do we need to improve how we're doing that?" Take one portion of what you're working on and interrogate it.

Understanding anti-patterns

Shane Raubenheimer: Absolutely. You just default to "what looks good, what can we change, what did we do, what should we stop or start doing?" That's great and all, but without some kind of trended analysis over a period of time, you might just be resurfacing issues that have been there all along. I think that's where the concept or the lack of understanding of anti-patterns comes in, because you're measuring something that's happened again rather than measuring or quantifying why is it happening at all.

I think that's the big mistake of retros—it's almost like an iterative band-aid.

I think that's the big mistake of retros—it's almost like an iterative band-aid.

Jaclyn Smith: Yeah. Tell me a little bit more about some of the anti-patterns that you have seen or how they come into play.

Shane Raubenheimer: One of them we've just touched on—I think the buzzword for it is the cargo cult culture for agile. That's just cookie-cutting agile, doing agile because you have to instead of being agile. Literally making things like your stand-up or your review or even planning just becomes "okay, well we've got to do this, so we've ticked the box and we're following through."

Not understanding the boundaries of what your method is—whether you like playing "wagile" or whether you're waterfall sometimes, agile at other times, and you mistake that variability as your agility. But instead, you don't actually have an identity. You're course-correcting blindly based on what's proportionate to what kind of fire you've got in your way.

Another big anti-pattern is not understanding the concept of what a team culture means and why it's important to have a team goal or a working agreement for your team. Almost your internal contracting. We do it as employees, right?

I think a lot of other anti-patterns come in where something's exposed within a team process, and because it's not interrogated or cross-referenced across your broader base of teams, it's not even recognized as a symptom. It is just a static issue. For me, that's a real anti-pattern in a lot of ways—lack of directive around what to do with retrospectives externally as well as internally. That's simply not a thing.

A lot of other anti-patterns come in where something's exposed within a team process, and because it's not interrogated or cross-referenced across your broader base of teams, it's not even recognized as a symptom. It is just a static issue. For me, that's a real anti-pattern in a lot of ways—lack of directive around what to do with retrospectives externally as well as internally.

Jaclyn Smith: Yeah, I think that's a good call-out for anyone watching or listening. If you're not familiar with anti-patterns, they're common but ineffective responses to recurring problems. They may seem helpful initially to solve an immediate problem, but they ultimately lead to negative outcomes.

Shane, what you just spoke about there with retrospectives—an example of that is that the team feel disengaged with retrospectives and they're not getting anything useful out of it, or change isn't resulting from the retrospectives. So the solution is to not hold them as frequently, or to stop doing them, or not do them at different levels or at different times. That's a really good example of an anti-pattern. It does appear to fix the problem, but longer term it causes more problems than it solves.

Another one that I see is with breaking down work. The idea that spending time together to understand and gain a shared understanding of the work and the outcome that you need takes a lot of time, and breaking down that work and getting aligned on how that work is going to break down on paper can look like quite an investment. But it's also saving time at the other end, reducing risk, reducing duplication and rework to get a better outcome quicker. You shift the time spent—development contracts because you've spent a little bit more time discovering and understanding what you're doing.

A common anti-pattern that I see there is "we spent way too long looking at this, so we're going to not do discovery in the same way anymore," or "one person's going to look at that and break it down."

The budget analogy

Shane Raubenheimer: I always liken it to your budget. The retrospective is always the nice shiny holiday—it's always the first to go.

I always liken it to your budget. The retrospective is always the nice shiny holiday—it's always the first to go.

Jaclyn Smith: It's the contractor.

Shane Raubenheimer: Yeah. It's almost like exposing stuff that everybody allegedly knows to each other is almost seen as counterintuitive because "we're just talking about stuff we all know." It often gets conflated into "okay, we'll just do that in planning." But the reality is the concept of planning and how you amend what you've done in the retrospective—that's a huge anti-pattern because flattening those structures from a ceremonies perspective is what teams tend to do because of your point of "well, we're running out of daylight for doing actual development."

But it's hitting your head against the wall repeatedly and hoping for a different outcome without actually implying a different outcome. Use a different wall even. I think it's because people are so disillusioned with retrospectives. I firmly believe it's not an internal issue. I believe if the voices are being heard at a budgeting level or at a management level, it will change the whole concept of the retrospective.

Solution 1: Getting leadership buy-in

Jaclyn Smith: I like it, and that's a good thread to move on to. So what do we do about it? How do we help change this? What are some of the practical tips that people can deploy?

Shane Raubenheimer: A big practical tip—and this is going to sound like an obvious one—is actual and sincere buy-in. What I mean by that is, as a shareholder, if I am basing your performance and your effectiveness on the quality and output of the work that you're promising me, then I should be taking the issues that you're having that are repeating more seriously.

Because if you're course-correcting for five, six, or seven sprints and you're still not getting this increasing, predictable velocity, and if it's not your team size or your attitude, it's got to be something else. I often relate that to it being environmental.

Buying into the outputs for change the same way as you would into keeping everyone honest, managing budgets, and chasing deadlines—it should all be part of the same thing. They should all be sitting at the VIP table, and I think that's a big one.

Buying into the outputs for change the same way as you would into keeping everyone honest, managing budgets, and chasing deadlines—it should all be part of the same thing. They should all be sitting at the VIP table.

Solution 2: Making patterns visible

Jaclyn Smith: I think so too. Something that occurs to me, and it goes back to what we were talking about right at the beginning, is sometimes identifying that there's a pattern there and that the same thing keeps coming up isn't actually visible, and that's part of the problem, right?

I know some things we've been doing in Easy Agile TeamRhythm around that recently, attempting to help teams with this. We've recently started surfacing all incomplete action items in retrospectives so people can see that big long list. Because they can convert their action items to Jira items or work items, they can also see where they've just been sitting and languishing in the backlog forever and a day and never been planned for anything to be done about them.

We've recently started surfacing all incomplete action items in retrospectives so people can see that big long list. Because they can convert their action items to Jira items or work items, they can also see where they've just been sitting and languishing in the backlog forever and a day and never been planned for anything to be done about them.

We've added a few features to sort and that kind of thing. Coming in the future—and we've been asked about this a lot—is "what about themes? What about things that are bubbling up?" So that's definitely on our radar that will be helpful.

I think that understanding that something has been raised—a problem getting support from another team, or with a broken tool or an outdated tool that needs to be replaced in the dev tooling or something like that—if that's been popping up time and time again and you don't know about it, then even as the leader of that team, you don't have the ammunition to then say "Look, this is how much it's slowed us down."

I think we live in such a data world now. If those actions are also where the evidence is that this is what needs to change and this is where the barriers are...

Solution 3: The power of trend analysis

Shane Raubenheimer: Certainly. I agree. Touching on the trend analytics approach—we do trend analysis on everything except what isn't happening or what is actually going wrong, because we just track the fallout of said lack of application. We don't actually trend or theme, to your point.

We do trend analysis on everything except what isn't happening or what is actually going wrong, because we just track the fallout of said lack of application.

We theme everything when we plan, yet somehow we don't categorize performance issues as an example. If everybody's having a performance issue, that's the theme. We almost need to categorize or expose themes that are outward-facing, not just inward-facing. Because it's well and good saying "well, our automated testing system doesn't work"—what does that mean? Why doesn't it work?

I think it should inspire external investigation. When you do a master data cleanup, you don't just say "well, most of it looks good, let's just put it all in the new space." You literally interrogate it at its most definitive and lowest level. So why not do the same with theming and trending environmental issues that you could actually investigate, and that could become a new initiative that would be driven by a new team that didn't even know it was a thing?

Jaclyn Smith: Yeah, and you're also gathering data at that point to evidence the problem rather than "oh, it's a pain point that keeps coming up." It is, but it gives you the opportunity to quantify that pain point a little bit as well. I think that is sometimes really hard to do when you're talking about developer experience or team member experience. Even outside of product engineering teams, there are things in the employee experience that affect the ability for that delivery—whatever you're delivering—to run smoothly. You want to make that as slick as possible, and that's how you get the faster outcomes.

Solution 4: The human factor

Shane Raubenheimer: Absolutely. You can never underestimate the human factor as well. If everything I'm doing and every member of my team is doing is to the best of not just their capability, but to the best of the ability in what they have available to them, you become jaded, you become frustrated. Because if you're hitting your head against the same issue regardless of how often you're pivoting, that can be very disillusioning, especially if it's not been taken as seriously as your work output.

If everything I'm doing and every member of my team is doing is to the best of not just their capability, but to the best of the ability in what they have available to them, you become jaded, you become frustrated.

We run a week late for a customer delivery or a customer project, and we start complaining about things like money, budget overspend, over-utilization. But identifying systematic or environmental issues that you can actually quantify should be treated in exactly the same way. I feel very strongly about this.

Solution 5: Breaking down overwhelming action items

Jaclyn Smith: We tend to nerd out about this stuff, Shane, and you're in good company. You've also reminded me—we've put together a bit of a workshop to help teams and people understand how to get the most out of their retrospectives, not just in terms of making them engaging, but fundamentally how to leverage actions to make them meaningful and impactful.

We've spoken a lot about the incremental change that is the critical factor when it is something that's within the team's control or closely to the team's control. That's how you get that expansion of impact—the slow incremental change. We've talked about sometimes those action items seem overwhelming and too big. What's your advice if that's the scenario for a team? What do you see happen and what can they do?

Shane Raubenheimer: I would suggest following the mantra of "if a story is too big, you don't understand enough about it yet, or it's not broken down far enough." Incremental change should be treated in exactly the same way. The "eat the elephant one bite at a time" analogy. If it's insurmountable, identify a portion of it that will make it a degree less insurmountable next time, and so on and so forth.

If we're iterating work delivery, problem-solving should be done in rapid iteration as well. That's my view.

Jaclyn Smith: I like it.

The "eat the elephant one bite at a time" analogy. If it's insurmountable, identify a portion of it that will make it a degree less insurmountable next time, and so on and so forth. If we're iterating work delivery, problem-solving should be done in rapid iteration as well.

Wrapping up: What's next?

Jaclyn Smith: I think we're almost wrapping up in terms of time. What can people expect from us if they join our webinar on July 10th, I believe it is, where we dive and nerd out even more about this topic, Shane?

Shane Raubenheimer: I think the benefit of the webinar is going to be a practical showing of what we're waxing lyrical about. It's easy to speak and evangelize, but I think from the webinar we'll show turning our concepts into actual actions that you can eyeball and see the results of.

With our approach that we took to our workshop, I think people will very quickly get the feeling of "this is dealing with cause and effect in a cause and effect way." So practical—to put that in one sentence, an active showing or demonstration of how to quantify and actually do what we've been waxing lyrical about.

the benefit of the webinar is going to be a practical showing of what we're waxing lyrical about. It's easy to speak and evangelize, but I think from the webinar we'll show turning our concepts into actual actions that you can eyeball and see the results of.

‍Jaclyn Smith: Excellent. That was a lovely summation, Shane. If anyone is interested in joining, we urge you to do so. You can hear us talking more about that but get some practical help as well. There is a link to the registration page in the description below.

I think that's about all we have time for today. But Shane, as always, it's been amazing and lovely to chat to you and hear your thoughts on a pocket of the agile world and helping teams.

Shane Raubenheimer: Yeah, it's always great engaging with you. I always enjoy our times together, and it's been my pleasure. I live for this kind of thing.

Jaclyn Smith: It's wonderful! Excellent. Well, I will see you on the 10th, and hopefully we'll see everyone else as well.

Shane Raubenheimer: Perfect. Yeah, looking forward to it.

Jaclyn Smith: Thanks.

Ready to end the frustration of ineffective retrospectives?

Jaclyn Smith and Shane Raubenheimer also hosted a live, hands-on webinar designed to turn retrospectives into powerful engines for continuous improvement.

In this highly interactive session, they talked about how teams can:

• Uncover why retrospectives get stuck in repetitive cycles
• Clearly capture and assign actionable insights
• Identify and avoid common retrospective pitfalls and anti-patterns
• Get hands-on experience with Easy Agile TeamRhythm to streamline retrospective actions
• Practical tools, techniques, and clear next steps to immediately enhance retrospectives and drive meaningful team improvements.

👉 Watch the recording here.

"It was a pleasure speaking with Ray about empowering teams and helping people reach their full potential" - Mat Lawrence

Mat Lawrence, Chief Operating Officer at Easy Agile is joined by Ray Arell. Ray currently works as the Director of Agile Transformations at Dell Technologies, is the host of the ACN Podcast, and the President Of The Board Of Directors for the nonprofit Forest Grove Foundation Inc.

Ray is passionate about collaborative and inclusive leadership, and loves to inspire and motivate others to achieve their full potential. This is exactly what Mat and Ray dive into in this episode.

Ray and Mat explore the concepts such as inclusive and situational leadership and the connection to agile ways of working, empowering the organisational brain, and fostering authenticity within teams.

This is a fantastic episode for aspiring, emerging and existing leaders! Lots of great tips and advice to share with colleagues and friends and understand the ways we can be empowering and enabling one another.

We hope you enjoy the episode!

Transcript:

Mat Lawrence:

Hi folks, it's Mat Lawrence here. I'm the COO at Easy Agile and I'm really excited today to be joined by Ray Arell. Before we jump into our podcast episode, Easy Agile would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land from which we're broadcasting today, the people of the Gadigal-speaking country. We pay our respects to elders past, present, and emerging, and extend that same respect to all Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander and First Nations people joining us today. Ray, thanks for joining us today. Ray is a collaborative and inclusive leader who loves to inspire and motivate others to achieve their full potential. Ray has 30 years of experience building and leading outstanding multinational teams in Fortune 100 companies, nonprofits, and startups. Also, he's recognized as a leading expert in large-scale agile adoptions, engineering practices, lean and complex adaptive systems. So Ray, welcome, really good to have you on the podcast today.

Ray Arell:

Thank you.

Mat Lawrence:

Love to get started by understanding what you enjoy most about being an inclusive leader and working with teams.

Ray Arell:

Yeah, so I've been in leadership probably for about 15 years, leading teams at different sizes. When you have the more intimate, smaller teams of maybe five or six people, upwards of teams that are upwards of several hundred people working within an organization that I might be the leader of. And what I enjoy the most about it is just connecting with the talented people that do the work. I mean, when you go into leadership, one of the things that you kind of transition from is not being the expert person in the room that's coding or doing hardware development or something else. You have these people who are now looking for direction or vision or other things in order for them to give them purpose in order to move forward with their day.

And I enjoy coaching. I enjoy mentoring. I mean, a lot of my technical side of me is more nostalgia now more than it is relevant with the latest technologies. There's something rewarding when you see somebody who can, if you think of Daniel Pink's work of autonomy, mastery and purpose, that they suddenly find that they are engaged with the purpose that we're doing as an organization and then the autonomy for them to just do their day and be able to work and collaborate with others. And that's always been exciting to me.

Mat Lawrence:

I can relate to that. Yeah. I think in our audience today we're going to have a mixture of emerging leaders, aspiring leaders, and experienced leaders. I'd love to tap into your experience and ideally rewind a little bit to earlier in your career when you were transitioning into being a leader. And I'd love to understand around that time, what were some of the successes that you saw in the approach that you take that you've been trying to repeat over the years?

Ray Arell:

Well, I think early on, I think, especially when you grow up through the technical ranks, and suddenly at least the company that I was with at the time, very expert-based culture, if you were the smartest person in the room, those are the people that they looked at and said, "Okay, we're going to promote you to lead, or we're going to promote you to manager or promote you into the leadership ranks." I think looking back on that, I think Ray 2.0 or Ray 3.0, whatever version I was at the time, that I very much led from that expert leadership stance, which is sort of I know what is the best way to go and approach the delivery of something, and everyone should be following my technical lead for however this product comes together.

And I don't think that was really a good approach. I think that constrained people because you ended up being more or less just telling people what to go do versus allowing them to experiment and learn and grow themselves in order to become what I had become as a senior technical person. And so I think lesson learned number one was that leading a team from an expert slant I think is probably not the best approach in order if you're going... especially if you think of agile and other more inclusive teamwork type of projects, you're going to want to give people more of a catalytic or a catalyst leader type of synergistic-based leadership style so that they can self-organize and they can move forward and learn and grow as an engineer.

Mat Lawrence:

Are there any times that stand out for you where you got it horribly wrong? I know I've got a few stories which I can happily share as well.

Ray Arell:

I'd love to hear some of yours. I think horribly wrong I think is... The question is is anything ever really not fixable, not recoverable? And in most cases, most of the issues that we've dealt with were recoverable. I think that looking at, and again, kind of back into that stance of well, am I creating a team or am I creating just a group of individuals that are just taking their work from the manager and I'm passing them out like cards type of thing... I think early on, probably the big mistake was just being too controlling, and the mistake of that control meant that I couldn't have a vacation. Others were dependent versus being interdependent on one another. And I think that made the organization run slower and not as efficient as it could be.

Mat Lawrence:

I've certainly been guilty of that same approach earlier in my leadership career where I became the bottleneck, absolutely.

Ray Arell:

Yeah. Exactly.

Mat Lawrence:

And to recognize that, it can be quite hard to undo, but it's definitely worth persevering with. Something else that I was fortunate to get some training in situational leadership, oh, probably nearly 10 years ago now. And that really opened my eyes to an approach, the way I was treating different people in my team. But I was treating them the way I first judged them. So if I saw [inaudible 00:07:01] an expert and a master, I would treat them as an expert and a master in all things. And [inaudible 00:07:05] if someone was less capable at that point in their career, I'd kind of assume the same thing. And so I would apply the same level of direction or lack of direction to those people for everything. And in situational leadership, the premise for those who don't know at home, is you change the level of direction that you give depending on the task at hand. Have you used that approach or something similar to guide how you include people in different ways?

Ray Arell:

Well, in order to include people, I think part of it is you need to... As you said, you were situationally looking at each person, and you were structuring it in a way that was from a way, an approach, of very individualized with somebody. I think the philosophy that I... Not everyone is very open or can communicate very well about their skills and their strengths, or in certain cases some people, they might be good at something but they don't exercise it because they themselves feel that that's not one of their strengths, but in reality is it is. So I think that when you're saying from a situational leadership perspective, when you hear somebody place doubt that they could be the one that could do something or to take up, say, even leadership of something, I think part of that just gets into that whole coaching and mentoring and really setting it up and helping them to be successful through that.

And I think from an inclusive perspective, I think there's a set of honesty that you have to bring into your work and humility about being humble about even what you've accomplished. Because in engineering in particular, you tend to see that when you put people into a room, the people who are newer will sit back, and they will yield to who they think has the more experience. And reality is that they came from, say, let's say they just got fresh out of college. They actually might have more skills in a particular area based upon what they just went through in their curriculum that we might not have. And so the question of how do we use the whole organizational brain in order to bring all of the ideas onto the table, I think at times it requires us to be able to be effective listeners and to sometimes just pause and allow people to have the floor and pick up the pen and not hog the space, if that makes sense.

Mat Lawrence:

It really does, and I think I've seen that in every company I've worked in to some level. I'd be really interested to tap into how you go about addressing that scenario. For the people who are listening that would face that situation, it might be the first time they've been a leader and seeing that scenario and observing it. Is there any advice you would give them to help change that dynamic?

Ray Arell:

Well, one, just becoming aware of it. I frequently doodle when I'm in a group of people, and what I'll do is I'll sit there and I'll put dots on a paper of where people are at in the room, and then I start drawing lines between those individual dots if I see the communication happening between certain players. And what's interesting is if you watch that over about a 15-minute period of time, you start to see this emergent pattern that maybe someone's domineering the conversation or they're the focus point of the conversation, and it isn't going around the full room. So then that's when you get to be a gatekeeper and you invite others into the conversation. And then you politely help the ones who are being dominant in the conversation to pause, to just give space and allow those other people to talk and to get that out.

And then I think the question of whether or not what the person says may sometimes be coherent or not coherent to the conversation, or maybe they're still trying to learn about just dynamics of everything. You just have to help to get, sometimes, to get that out of people, and use open words to basically open sentence... I mean, some open questions to pull that out from them. And I think that works really well.

Mat Lawrence:

I love that. I'm a doodler as well. I'm an artist originally in my early career, and I've worked my way into solving problems through tech a long time ago now, but I still can't... I need that physical drawing to help my mind think as much as anything else [inaudible 00:12:30] than just doodling on a pad.

Ray Arell:

Same here.

Mat Lawrence:

Something that you said a little earlier, we touched a little bit on inclusivity. In your LinkedIn bio you talk about being an inclusive leader who loves to inspire and motivate others to achieve their full potential. Something I'm really passionate about is that last part in particular, is helping people achieve their full potential. It's why I love being a people leader and a COO. You get to do that across a whole company. I'd love to first touch on the idea of being an inclusive leader. How do you define what it means to be one?

Ray Arell:

Well, inclusive leadership, there was an old bag that I used to have, a little coaching bag that I used to carry around with me. And at the very top of it said, "Take it to the team," was the motto that was at the top of it. And at the bottom of the bag it basically said, "Treat people like adults." Were the two kind of core things that I think part of what being inclusive is is that I have to accept the fact that, yeah, I'm a smart person, but do we get a better decision if we socialize that around the team? Do we see what other ideas or possibility thinking? Sort of in the lean sense, make the decision as late as you can.

It's more towards the Eastern culture of, well, if I keep the decision open, maybe we're going to find something that's cheaper or better or even just more exciting for our customers. And so I think part of that is knowing that you don't have to be the one that has to make the decision. You can let the team make the decision. And we all embrace because we're empowering ourselves with this was what we all thought, not just what Ray thought, which I think is cool.

Mat Lawrence:

There's a second part to that piece you talked about in your bio around helping motivate others to achieve their full potential.

Ray Arell:

Yeah, yeah.

Mat Lawrence:

Yeah. Let's talk about where that came from for you, that passion, and what are some of the ways you look to help emerging leaders reach their full potential?

Ray Arell:

Yeah, I mean, I was lucky enough when I joined Intel Corporation that Andy Grove was still running the organization at the time. As a matter of fact, he taught my Welcome to Intel class. At the time when I joined Intel, there was only about 32,000 employees. And here's the CEO, founder of the company teaching the Welcome to Intel class, which I thought was incredibly cool, a great experience to have. He oozed this leadership, whatever mojo or whatever it is he is got going out into the environment as he's talking about the company. But he was really strong on the one-on-ones, the time that you can spend with your manager or others within the organization because you can have a one-on-one with anyone within the company. And he encouraged that. And I think that helps to... When somebody is trying to figure it out, they're brand new to the company, and you get a standing invitation from the CEO that says, "You can come and have a conversation with me," I think that sets the cultural norm right up front that this is a place that's going to assist and help me along my career.

And I could tell you that there's been a number of different times that those developed into full-blown, "I'm the mentee and they're the mentors." And in those relationships over time, it's sort of like then you say, "Well, I'm going to pay that forward." Today I have at least six or seven mentees that have all sorts of questions about how do they guide through their career or if they had some specific area that they wanted to go focus on. And it's their time to pick my brain. And in certain cases, if I don't have the full answer, I can guide them to other mentors that can help them to grow.

Mat Lawrence:

I love that approach of pay it forward that you touched on there. It's definitely something that I've been trying to do in the last couple of years myself, and I wish I'd started sooner mentoring. I've had the privilege of working with some amazing leaders in my career who I've learned a lot from. And once I started mentoring, I realized how much I learned by being a mentor because you have to think. You really think about what these people are going through and not just project yourself onto them. And it validates the rationale about why you do things yourself, why you think that way. And it forces me to challenge myself.

And I think if there's anything... I talk to some of the younger people at work who are emerging leaders, and they're exceptional in their own way. They've all got very different backgrounds, but a lot of them don't feel like they're ready to be a mentor. They really are. They're amazing people. And I wonder, have you seen people earlier in their careers try and pass it forwards kind of early on or do people feel they have to wait until [inaudible 00:18:22]?

Ray Arell:

I think it depends. One, I think the education system, at least in the United States, has shifted a bit. When people go for their undergraduate degree, it used to be just they were by themselves, they did their book studies. Very little interaction or teamwork was created for this study. I mean, back when I got my electrical engineering degree, it was just me by myself. There might be occasional lab work and lab projects, but it wasn't something that was very much inclusive, nor did they have people step up into leadership roles that early. I look at now my daughter who's right now going to the university, and everything is a cohort group. There's cohorts that are getting together. The studying that they do, they each have to pick up leadership in some regards for some aspect of a project that they're working on. So I think some of the newer people coming into the workforce are sort of built in with the skills to, if they need to take up leadership with something, run a little program, run a project, they've been equipped to do it. At least that's what I've seen.

Mat Lawrence:

I love that concept. Something that I've been observing and I talk it about a lot with our leadership team and our mentor exec teams for the [inaudible 00:19:56] as well. A lot of the conversation that comes up is around team dynamics, team trust, agility within teams, and to generally try and empower teams, set them up so they can be autonomous, they are truly empowered and they're trusted to make great decisions and drive work forwards. You've got a lot of experience in agile and agile [inaudible 00:20:21] agile leader. In your experience leading agile teams, those adoptions and those transformations, I'd love to understand if you see there's a connection between being agile as a team and those traits that an inclusive leader will have. Is there a connection there in your mind between what it means to be agile and be an inclusive leader?

Ray Arell:

I think so. Because if you think of early on, they established that servant leadership was a better leadership style for agile teams. And so I think when we talk about transformation, some of the biggest failures that occur tend to be more based upon not agile, but on issues of trust and other sort of organizational impediments that had already existed there before they got started. And if they don't address those, their agile journey is painful.

I've heard people say that they've gotten Scrummed before, using it in a really kind of derogatory way of thinking that, well, instead of getting a team of empowered people to go do work within the Scrum framework, they end up being put under a micromanagement lens because the culture of the manager didn't shift, and the manager is using it as a daily way to making sure that everyone is working at 120% versus what we should be seeing in the pattern is that the team understands their flow. They're pulling work into the team. It's not being pushed. And those dynamics I think are something that if leadership doesn't shift and change the way that they work, then it just doesn't work in organizations.

Mat Lawrence:

In the many places that you've worked and coached and guided people on, you've started to come across... There's a term that we've started to use of agile natives where people who've really not known any different because so many companies in world are going through agile transformations, and that'll continue for a long time. But as some companies are born with agility at the forefront, have you experienced many people coming through into leadership roles that don't know anything but true agility and really authentic agility as you've just described?

Ray Arell:

Well, I think it's kind of interesting because as you talked about that phrase, I was thinking about it, about, well, if you knew nothing else... But I can also say that you could become native after you've been in the culture for a period of time as well. So you can eventually... That becomes your first reaction, your first habit is pulling more from the agile principles than you would be pulling from something else. Yeah, there are those people, but it's been interesting watching companies like Spotify or watching Salesforce or watching Pivotal, and I can just go down the list of companies that have started as an agile organization, they got large, and then suddenly the anti-patterns of a large company start to emerge within those companies. So even though the people within the smaller tribe are working in an agile way, the company slowly doesn't start to work in an agile way any longer. It falls underneath a larger context of what we see happening with the older companies.

And I think some of that could be the executive culture might be just coming in where they bring somebody from the outside who wasn't a native, and they have a hard time dealing with the notion that, well, we're committing to a delivery date sometime over here, and we think we're going to hit it. But no, we don't have what would be affectionately known as a 90% confident plan that says that we've cleared all risk out of the way. And yeah, it's going to absolutely happen on that day. And some of those companies get really... They feel that they have to commit everything to the street, and if they don't meet it, they've already glued those in to some executive bonus program, ends up driving bad behaviors, unfortunately,

Mat Lawrence:

Yes, I have been there. I'm assuming that in our audience, we're going to have people who are transitioning into more senior leadership roles. They're not emerging leaders, they've been doing it for a while, and they've probably run some successful agile teams at the smaller level as you've described. For those people who are moving into the more senior roles, maybe into exec positions, is there any guidance that you'd give them for navigating that change and trying to maintain, through agile principles and what it means to be agile, in those more senior roles?

Ray Arell:

Yeah, I think part of it is the work that you did as a smaller team, everything still can scale up. And I hate to use the word scale because I think scale is kind of... People kind of use it... What would be the right word? It's misused in our industry. I think values and principles are scale-free. You can still walk each day walking into your team and still embracing those 12 principles, and you're going to do good work. The question is though, is if you're doing that at the lower level, say with a Kanban board, the question is, what does it look like when you're at your executive desk? What is the method that you go pool? If you look at most of the scaled frameworks that are out today, there's very little guidance that's given to what should be in the day in the life of an agile executive. What should that look like?

And for me, if I think about the business team, the management team is working with the delivery teams daily. They should be doing that. So what are you going to put in place for that to facilitate and occur? What are you going to do about... stop doing these big annual budget processes. Embrace things like the beyond budgeting or other things where you're funding the organization strategically, and you're not trying to lock everything in on an annual cadence, but yet your organization beneath is working every two weeks. So you should be able to re-move your bets with any organization based upon the performance of each sprint. Can you do that?

The last one is probably the most important one, is impediments. And that is how fast does it take information to go from the lowest part of the organization to the highest point of the organization? And if that takes three weeks, two weeks, or even sometimes later for certain organizations, optimize that. How do you optimize an impediment that you can personally help to go remove for people so that they're not slowed down by it any longer, whatever that might be?

Mat Lawrence:

You're touching on something there, which I think is a fundamental part of being agile, which is that ability to learn and adapt, and you can only learn when you are aware of what's happening around you, you can observe [inaudible 00:28:39] to it.

Ray Arell:

Well, I said something a couple months ago, and everyone just went, "Why did you say... I can't believe you said that out loud." It's the quiet stuff out loud sometimes. [inaudible 00:28:53]. We were trying to get a meeting together to go fix one of these impediments, and all the senior leaderships was busy. They were busy. And my question was is if this isn't the most important thing right now for us, what do you do? Really, are you doing in your day if this one isn't the highest priority that you walk into? And the questioning senior leaders that maybe they're not paying attention to the right things, and sometimes speaking that truth to power is something we have to do every once in a while.

Mat Lawrence:

I agree. That level of candor is definitely required at all levels and being able to receive that feedback so you can learn and adapt as an individual, as we were talking about earlier, about being adaptive as a leader, but also as a team. There's a point that I'd like to touch on before we wrap up, which is as you climb up the career ladder and you get into a more senior position, and then you become responsible for a broader range of things, particularly as you start reaching that executive level, I've witnessed people struggle with the transition from being the person, as you talked about right at the start of this discussion, being that person who knows everything and who can direct and have all the answers into someone where I see your job changes to being the person who can identify what we know least about, what we as an exec team know least, where we're... have the least confidence, where we see the impediments and we don't know what to do with them.

How do you go about guiding people to embrace that? Because I think what I see is the fear that comes with that, almost a fear of exposure of, "Oh, I'm admitting to people I don't know what I'm doing." And I've been rewarded through my entire career by becoming more of an expert, and suddenly my job is to be the person who's confident enough to call out, this is what we don't understand yet. Let's get together and try and resolve it. When the risk is greater, the impact is greater, and you're responsible for more things, how do you help people transition into that higher-level role?

Ray Arell:

Well, I think part of it is can they let go of that technical side, having to have their hands dirty all the time? And I've seen certain leaders that, really, somebody needs to go back and say, "Are you really sure that this is the career that you're wanting to go to? You seem to be more into wanting to be into the nuts and bolts of things, and maybe that's the best place for you because you feel more comfortable in that space." The other aspect though, as they transition, I think is again, trust becomes critical. Trust the people that are working for you, that they're not coming in and being lazy and you have to go look over their shoulders all the time because you feel that they might not be being productive or other things. You have to have the ability to say that, look, that the people that you hired are talented, and they are moving us towards our goals.

I think what becomes more critical for the health of the organization is that you have to do a much better job at actually saying, "Okay, well, here is our vision," whether it be a product vision, whether it be the company's vision, whatever that might be, helping people to understand what that North Star is, and then reinforcing that not from a perspective of yourself, but a perspective from the customer. And I think this is where a lot of companies start to drift because they start to optimize some internal metric that, yeah, that'll build efficiency within your organization. But what does the customer think? And constantly being able to represent as, if you think of from an agile perspective, the chief product owner of the organization, to be able to represent this is what the customers need and want and to be able to voice that in the vision and the ambitious missions that are set up for the organization. Make it real for people.

And then the last part of that is not everything is going to happen and come true. If you read most executives' bios, there's lots and lots and lots and lots of mistakes. And I remember this of one leader, he was retiring. And I thought this wasn't most awkward time that he actually did this. He actually went up on the stage and he talked about his biggest failure. Now, throughout my career working with this person, I always wondered whether or not they were human. And then on the day of this person's exit, they finally decided to give you a few stories about mistakes that they made. And I think that he really needed to share those stories much, much earlier because I think people would've probably found... They would've been a little stressed working around him. And it would also show some vulnerability for you as a leader to say that you don't have everything figured out, and sometimes it's just a guess. We think that this is where the product needs to go.

And then as soon as you put it in front of the customers, they're going to tell you whether or not... If you take the Cano model and suddenly you're going to hit this is the most exciting thing since sliced bread, are they going to love it or are they going to go, [inaudible 00:35:12]. I'll take it if it's free. You get into this situation where it's like, well, we can't charge as much. But I think those stories become important and anchor organizations. One other aspect of this is I think that by having somebody who's approachable and can relay those stories effectively into the organization and talk about these things, I think then that opens the door for everyone else to do it as well. Because like it or not, humans are hierarchical in the way that we think about things. A lot of people manage up, so they mimic leaders. So be that leader that somebody would want to mimic.

Mat Lawrence:

I think that's great advice, Ray. The connection for me that's run through this whole conversation is around engaging with your work authentically, whether it's the team that you're trying to lead, whether it's the agile practices at whatever scale and level that you're operating at. And to build that trust to enable that to work requires that level of authenticity.

Ray Arell:

Yeah, exactly.

Mat Lawrence:

I would love, as we wrap up, for you to leave any final tips or advice for both current and emerging leaders on that topic. If there's a way beyond just sharing your own personal stories, how would you advise people? What would you leave them with to build some trust in their teams?

Ray Arell:

Well, a couple of things. Number one, you have to be mindful about who you are as a person. Again, like I was saying, that people manage up. And if you send out an email at three o'clock in the morning, and five minutes later your people were responding to you, then you're not being a really good role model of a good work-life balance. So a lot of your tendencies will bleed off into the organization. So regardless how you assess yourself, do an assessment of your leadership, where you think it is. Harvard Business Review, a long time ago, put off the levels of what they saw as leadership models. And the lowest level is the expert and the achiever-based leaders. And if you're one of those, those are not very conducive to a good agile or collaborative culture. So if you're currently setting in that slant, then you should look ways of being able to move yourself more to a catalytic or a synergistic-based leader.

And that journey's not an easy one because I went through that myself. It took years in order to pull away from some of those tendencies that you had as an expert leader. And as an example, an expert-based leader tends to only talk to other experts. If they perceive somebody not to be an expert of something, they tend to discount those individuals and not engage with them. And so again, the full organizational brain is what's going to solve the problem. So how do you engage the entire organization and pull those ideas together?

The other one is that as you go into, from an emergent leader perspective, I think you said it yourself earlier, and that's not just the bias of you're not an expert, I'm not going to talk to you, but any bias that you might have can affect the way that you lead and judge an individual, and really could limit or grow their career based upon maybe a snap judgment that you might have had. So I think you have to be mindful of your decisions that you're taking within the organization and especially the ones you're making of people. And so you got to be careful of those.

The last one is probably just... And this gets into the complex adaptive systems space. Not everything is cut and dry, black and white, or mechanistic, meaning that we can take the same product, redo it again and again and again, and we're going to get different answers. We're going to get different requirements. We're going to get different things. It's okay for that stuff to be there. And it's okay for the stuff that's coming out of our products to be different every once in a while, and specifically because everything, it's a very complex environment. Cause and effect relationships and complexity is, customer can change their mind, and we have to be comfortable with a customer changing their mind. Our customer might have new needs that come up.

And likewise, our employees, they sometimes will have change of thought or change of what they are excited about. How do you encourage that? How do you grow those individuals to retain them in the company, not to use them for the skill they have right now, but how do you play the long game there? And I know I'm getting a little long-winded here, but the thing that I see most, even with all the layoff notices that are going on right now, is that that company's not playing the long game. I think that's a bad move because all you're doing by letting an employee go is enabling your competitor with a whole bunch of knowledge that you should be retaining. So anyway, I'll cut it short there.

Mat Lawrence:

Right. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us today. It's been an absolute pleasure. I've really enjoyed the chat. So yes, thank you for joining me on the Easy Agile Podcast.

Ray Arell:

Awesome. Thank you for having me.

TL;DR

Henrik Kniberg, the agile coach behind Spotify's model, discusses how AI is fundamentally transforming software development. Key takeaways: AI tools like Cursor and Claude are enabling 10x productivity gains; teams should give developers access to paid AI tools and encourage experimentation; coding will largely disappear as a manual task within 3–4 years; teams will shrink to 2 people plus AI; sprints will become obsolete in favour of continuous delivery; product owners can now write code via AI, creating pull requests instead of user stories; the key is treating AI like a brilliant intern – when it fails, the problem is usually your prompt or code structure, not the AI. Bottom line: Learn to use AI now, or risk being left behind in a rapidly changing landscape.

Introduction

Artificial intelligence is fundamentally reshaping how software teams work, collaborate, and deliver value. But with this transformation comes questions: How do we maintain team morale when people fear being replaced? What happens to code quality when AI writes most of the code? Do traditional agile practices like sprints still make sense?

In this episode, I sit down with Henrik Kniberg to tackle these questions head-on. Henrik is uniquely positioned to guide us through this transition – he's the agile coach and entrepreneur who pioneered the famous Spotify model and helped transform how Lego approached agile development. Now, as co-founder of Abundly AI, he's at the forefront of helping teams integrate AI into their product development workflows.

This conversation goes deep into the practical realities of AI-powered development: from maintaining code review processes when productivity increases 10x, to ethical considerations around AI usage, to what cross-functional teams will look like in just a few years. Henrik doesn't just theorise – he shares real examples from his own team, where their CEO (a non-coder) regularly submits pull requests, and where features that once took a sprint can now be built during a 7-minute subway ride.

Whether you're a developer wondering if AI will replace you, a product owner looking to leverage these tools, or a leader trying to navigate this transformation, this episode offers concrete, actionable insights for thriving in the AI era.

About Our Guest

Henrik Kniberg is an agile coach, author, and entrepreneur whose work has shaped how thousands of organisations approach software development. He's best known for creating the Spotify model – the squad-based organisational structure that revolutionised how large tech companies scale agile practices. His work at Spotify and later at Lego helped demonstrate how agile methodologies could work at enterprise scale whilst maintaining team autonomy and innovation.

Henrik's educational videos have become legendary in the agile community. His "Agile Product Ownership in a Nutshell" video, created over a decade ago, remains one of the most-watched and shared resources for understanding product ownership, with millions of views. His ability to distil complex concepts into simple, visual explanations has made him one of the most accessible voices in agile education.

More recently, Henrik has turned his attention to the intersection of AI and product development. As co-founder of Abundly AI, he's moved from teaching about agile transformation to leading AI transformation – helping companies and teams understand how to effectively integrate generative AI tools into their development workflows. His approach combines his deep understanding of team dynamics and agile principles with hands-on experience using cutting-edge AI tools like Claude, Cursor, and GitHub Copilot.

Henrik codes daily using AI and has been doing so for over two and a half years, giving him practical, lived experience with these tools that goes beyond theoretical understanding. He creates educational content about AI, trains teams on effective AI usage, and consults with organisations navigating their own AI transformations. His perspective is particularly valuable because he views AI through the lens of organisational change management – recognising that successful AI adoption isn't just about the technology, it's about people, culture, and process.

Based in Stockholm, Sweden, Henrik continues to push the boundaries of what's possible when human creativity and AI capabilities combine, whilst maintaining a pragmatic, human-centred approach to technological change.

Transcript

Note: This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.

Maintaining Team Morale and Motivation in the AI Era

Tenille Hoppo: Hi there, team, and welcome to this new episode of the Easy Agile Podcast. My name is Tenille Hoppo, and I'm feeling really quite lucky to have an opportunity to chat today with our guest, Henrik Kniberg.

Henrik is an agile coach, author, and entrepreneur known for pioneering agile practices at companies like Spotify and Lego, and more recently for his thought leadership in applying AI to product development. Henrik co-founded Abundly AI, and when he isn't making excellent videos to help us all understand AI, he is focused on the practical application of generative AI in product development and training teams to use these technologies effectively.

Drawing on his extensive experience in agile methodologies and team coaching, Henrik seems the perfect person to learn from when thinking about the intersection of AI, product development, and effective team dynamics. So a very warm welcome to you, Henrik.

Henrik Kniberg: Thank you very much. It's good to be here.

Tenille: I think most people would agree that motivated people do better work. So I'd like to start today by touching on the very human element of this discussion and helping people maintain momentum and motivation when they may be feeling some concern or uncertainty about the upheaval that AI might represent for them in their role.

What would you suggest that leaders do to encourage the use of AI in ways that increase team morale and creativity rather than risking people feeling quite concerned or even potentially replaced?

Henrik: There are kind of two sides to the coin. There's one side that says, "Oh, AI is gonna take my job, and I'm gonna get fired." And the other side says, "Oh, AI is going to give me superpowers and give us all superpowers, and thereby give us better job security than we had before."

I think it's important to press on the second point from a leader's perspective. Pitch it as this is a tool, and we are entering a world where this tool is a crucial tool to understand how to use – in a similar way that everyone uses the Internet. We consider it obvious that you need to know how to use the Internet. If you don't know how to use the Internet, it's going to be hard.

"I encourage people to experiment, give them access to the tools to do so, and encourage sharing. And don't start firing people because they get productive."

I also find that people tend to get a little bit less scared once they learn to use it. It becomes less scary. It's like if you're worried there's a monster under your bed, maybe look under your bed and turn on the lights. Maybe there wasn't a monster there, or maybe it was there but it was kind of cute and just wanted a hug.

Creating a Culture of Safe Experimentation

Tenille: I've read that you encourage experimentation with AI through learning – I agree it's the best way to learn. What would you encourage leaders and team leaders to do to create a strong culture where teams feel safe to experiment?

Henrik: There are some things. One is pretty basic: just give people access to good AI tools. And that's quite hard in some large organisations because there are all kinds of resistance – compliance issues, data security issues. Are we allowed to use ChatGPT or Claude? Where is our data going? There are all these scary things that make companies either hesitate or outright try to stop people.

Start at that hygiene level. Address those impediments and solve them. When the Internet came, it was really scary to connect your computer to the Internet. But now we all do it, and you kind of have to, or you don't get any work done. We're at this similar moment now.

"Ironically, when companies are too strict about restricting people, then what people tend to do is just use shadow AI – they use it on their own in private or in secret, and then you have no control at all."

Start there. Once people have access to really good AI tools, then it's just a matter of encouraging and creating forums. Encourage people to experiment, create knowledge-sharing forums, share your own experiments. Try to role-model this yourself. Say, "I tried using AI for these different things, and here's what I learned." Also provide paths for support, like training courses.

The Right Mindset for Working with AI

Tenille: What would you encourage in team members as far as their mindset or skills go? Certainly a nature of curiosity and a willingness to learn and experiment. Is there anything beyond that that you think would be really key?

Henrik: It is a bit of a weird technology that's never really existed before. We're used to humans and code. Humans are intelligent and kind of unpredictable. We hallucinate sometimes, but we can do amazing things. Code is dumb – it executes exactly what you told it to do, and it does so every time exactly the same way. But it can't reason, it can't think.

Now we have AI and AI agents which are somewhere in the middle. They're not quite as predictable as code, but they're a lot more predictable than humans typically. They're a lot smarter than code, but maybe not quite as smart as humans – except for some tasks when they're a million times smarter than humans. So it's weird.

You need a kind of humble attitude where you come at it with a mindset of curiosity. Part of it is also to realise that a lot of the limitation is in you as a user. If you try to use AI for coding and it wrote something that didn't work, it's probably not the model itself. It's probably your skills or lack of skills because you have to learn how to use these tools. You need to have this attitude of "Oh, it failed. What can I do differently next time?" until you really learn how to use it.

"There can be some aspect of pride with developers. Like, 'I've been coding for 30 years. Of course this machine can't code better than me.' But if you think of it like 'I want this thing to be good, I want to bring out the best in this tool' – not because it's going to replace me, but because it's going to save me a tonne of time by doing all the boring parts of the coding so I can do the more interesting parts – that kind of mindset really helps."

Maintaining Code Quality and Shared Understanding

Tenille: Our team at Easy Agile is taking our steps and trying to figure out how AI is gonna work best for us. I put the question out to some of our teams, and there were various questions around people taking their first steps in using AI as a co-pilot and producing code. There are question marks around consistency of code, maintaining code quality and clean architecture, and even things like maintaining that shared understanding of the code base. What advice do you have for people in that situation?

Henrik: My first piece of advice when it comes to coding – and this is something I do every day with AI, I've been doing for about two and a half years now – is that the models now, especially Claude, have gotten to the level where it's basically never the AI's fault anymore. If it does anything wrong, it's on you.

You need to think about: okay, am I using the wrong tool maybe? Or am I not using the tool correctly?

For example, the current market leader in terms of productivity tools with AI is Cursor. There are other tools that are getting close like GitHub Copilot, but Cursor is way ahead of anything else I've seen. With Cursor, it basically digs through your code base and looks for what it needs.

But if it fails to find what it needs, you need to think about why. It probably failed for the same reason a human might have failed. Maybe your code structure was very unstructured. Maybe you need to explain to the AI what the high-level structure of your code is.

"Think of it kind of like a really smart intern who just joined your team. They're brilliant at coding, but now they got confused about something, and it's probably your code – something in it that made it confused. And now you need to clarify that."

There are ways to do that. In Cursor, for example, you can create something called cursor rules, which are like standing documents that describe certain aspects of your system. In my team, we're always tweaking those rules. Whenever we find that the AI model did something wrong, we're always analysing why. Usually it's our prompt – I just phrased it badly – or I just need to add a cursor rule, or I need to break the problem down a little bit.

It's exactly the same thing as if you go to a team and give them this massive user story that includes all these assumptions – they'll probably get some things wrong. But if you take that big problem and sit down together and analyse it and split it into smaller steps where each step is verifiable and testable, now your team can do really good work. It's exactly the same thing with AI.

Addressing the Code Review Bottleneck

Tenille: One of our senior developers found that he was outputting code at a much greater volume and faster speed, but the handbrake he found was actually their code review processes. They were keeping the same processes they had previously, and that was a bit of a handbrake for them. What kind of advice would you have there?

Henrik: This reminds me of the general issue with any kind of productivity improvement. If you have a value stream, a process where you do different parts – you do some development, some testing, you have some design – whenever you take one part of the process and make it super optimised, the bottleneck moves to somewhere else.

If testing is no longer the bottleneck, maybe coding is. And when coding is instant, then maybe customer feedback – or lack of customer feedback – is the bottleneck. The bottleneck just keeps moving. In that particular case, the bottleneck became code review. So I would just start optimising that. That's not an AI problem. It's a process problem.

Look at it: what exactly are we trying to do when we review? Maybe we could think about changing the way we review things. For example, does all code need to be reviewed? Would it be enough that the human who wrote it and the AI, together with the human, agree that this is fine? Or maybe depending on the criticality of that change, in some cases you might just let it pass or use AI to help in the reviewing process also.

"I think there's value in code review in terms of knowledge sharing in a large organisation. But maybe the review doesn't necessarily need to be a blocking process either. It could be something you go back and look at – don't let it stop you from shipping, but maybe go back once per week and say, 'Let's look at some highlights of some changes we've made.'"

We produce 10 times more code than in the past, so reviewing every line is not feasible. But maybe we can at least identify which code is most interesting to look at.

Ethical Considerations: Balancing Innovation with Responsibility

Tenille: Agile emphasises people over process and delivering value to customers. Now with AI in the mix, there's potential for raising some ethical considerations. I'm interested in your thoughts on how teams should approach these ethical considerations that come along with AI – things like balancing rapid experimentation against concerns around bias, potential data privacy concerns.

Henrik: I would treat each ethical question on its own merits. Let me give you an example. When you use AI – let's say facial recognition technology that can process and recognise faces a lot better than any human – I kind of put that in the bucket of: any tool that is really useful can also be used for bad things. A hammer, fire, electricity.

That doesn't have so much to do with the tool itself. It has much more to do with the rules and regulations and processes around the tool. I can't really separate AI in that sense. Treat it like any other system. Whenever you install a camera somewhere, with or without AI, that camera is going to see stuff. What are you allowed to do with that information? That's an important question. But I don't think it's different for AI really, in that sense, other than that AI is extremely powerful. So you need to really take that seriously, especially when it comes to things like autonomous weapons and the risk of fraud and fake news.

"An important part of it is just to make it part of the agenda. Let's say you're a recruitment company and you're now going to add some AI help in screening. At least raise the question: we could do this. Do we want to do this? What is the responsible way to do it?"

It's not that hard to come up with reasonable guidelines. Obviously, we shouldn't let the AI decide who we're going to hire or not. That's a bad idea. But maybe it can look at the pile of candidates that we plan to reject and identify some that we should take a second look at. There's nothing to lose from that because that AI did some extra research and found that this person who had a pretty weak CV actually has done amazing things before.

We're actually working with a company now where we're helping them build some AI agents. Our AI agents help them classify CVs – not by "should we hire them or not," but more like which region in Sweden is this, which type of job are we talking about here. Just classifying to make it more likely that this job application reaches the right person. That's work that humans did before with pretty bad accuracy.

The conclusion was that AI, despite having biases like we humans do, seemed to have less biases than the human. Mainly things like it's never going to be in a bad mood because it hasn't had its coffee today. It'll process everybody on the same merits.

I think of it like a peer-to-peer thing. Imagine going to a doctor – ideally, I want to have both a human doctor and an AI doctor side by side, just because they both have biases, but now they can complement each other. It's like having a second opinion. If the AI says we should do this and the doctor says, "No, wait a second," or vice versa, having those two different opinions is super useful.

Parallels Between Agile and AI Transformations

Tenille: You're recognised as one of the leading voices in agile software development. I can see, and I'm interested if you do see, some parallels between the agile transformations that you led at Spotify and Lego with the AI transformations that many businesses are looking at now.

Henrik: I agree. I find that when we help companies transition towards becoming AI native, a lot of the thinking is similar to agile. But I think we can generalise that agile transformations are not really very special either – it's organisational change.

There are some patterns involved regardless of whether you're transitioning towards an agile way of working or towards AI. Some general patterns such as: you've got to get buy-in, it's useful to do the change in an incremental way, balance bottom-up with top-down. There are all these techniques that are useful regardless. But as an agilist, if you have some skills and competence in leading and supporting a change process, then that's going to be really useful also when helping companies understand how to use AI.

Tenille: Are you seeing more top-down or bottom-up when it comes to AI transformations?

Henrik: So far it's quite new still. The jury's not in yet. But so far it looks very familiar to me. I'm seeing both. I'm seeing situations where it's pure top-down where managers are like "we got to go full-out AI," and they push it out with mixed results. And sometimes just completely bottom-up, also with mixed results.

Sometimes something can start completely organically and then totally take hold, or it starts organically and then gets squashed because there was no buy-in higher up. I saw all of that with agile as well. My guess is in most cases the most successful will be when you have a bit of both – support and guidance from the top, but maybe driven from the bottom.

"I think the bottom-up is maybe more important than ever because this technology is so weird and so fast-moving. As a leader, you don't really have a chance if you try to control it – you're going to slow things down to an unacceptable level. People will be learning things that you can't keep up with yourself. So it's better to just enable people to experiment a lot, but then of course provide guidance."

AI for Product Owners: From Ideation to Pull Requests

Tenille: You're very well known for your guidance and for your ability to explain quite complex concepts very simply and clearly. I was looking at your video on YouTube today, the Agile Product Ownership in a Nutshell video, which was uploaded about 12 years ago now. Thinking about product owners, there's a big opportunity now with AI for generating ideas, analysing data, and even suggesting new features. What's your advice for product owners and product managers in using AI most effectively?

Henrik: Use it for everything. Overuse it so you can find the limits. The second thing is: make sure you have access to a good AI model. Don't use the free ones. The difference is really large – like 10x, 100x difference – just in paying like $20 per month or something. At the moment, I can particularly strongly recommend Claude. It's in its own category of awesomeness right now. But that of course changes as they leapfrog each other. But mainly: pay up, use a paid model, and then experiment.

For product owners, typical things are what you already mentioned – ideation, creating good backlog items, splitting a story – but also writing code. I would say as a PO, there is this traditional view, for example in Scrum, that POs should not be coding. There's a reason for that: because coding takes time, and then as PO you get stuck in details and you lose the big picture.

Well, that's not true anymore. There are very many things that used to be time-consuming coding that is basically a five-minute job with a good prompt.

"Instead of wasting the team's time by trying to phrase that as a story, just phrase it as a pull request instead and go to the team and demonstrate your running feature."

That happened actually today. Just now, our CEO, who's not a coder, came to me with a pull request. In fact, quite often he just pushes directly to a branch because it's small changes. He wants to add some new visualisation for a graph or something in our platform – typically admin stuff that users won't see, so it's quite harmless if he gets it wrong.

He's vibe coding, just making little changes to the admin, which means he never goes to my team and says, "Hey, can you guys generate this report or this graph for how users use our product?" No, he just puts it in himself if it's simple.

Today we wanted to make a change with how we handle payments for enterprise customers. Getting that wrong is a little more serious, and the change wasn't that hard, but he just didn't feel completely comfortable pushing it himself. So he just made a PR instead, and then we spent 15 minutes reviewing it. I said it was fine, so we pushed it.

It's so refreshing that now anybody can code. You just need to learn the basic prompting and these tools. And then that saves time for the developers to do the more heavyweight coding.

Tenille: It's an interesting world where we can have things set up where anyone could just jump in and with the right guardrails create something. It makes Friday demos quite probably a lot more interesting than maybe they used to be in the past.

Henrik: I would like to challenge any development team to let their stakeholders push code, and then find out whatever's stopping you from doing that and fix that. Then you get to a very interesting space.

Closing the Gap Between Makers and Users

Tenille: A key insight from your work with agile teams in the past has been to really focus on minimising that gap between maker and user. Do you think that AI helps to close that gap, or do you think it potentially risks widening it if teams are focusing too much on AI predictions and stop talking to their customers effectively?

Henrik: I think that of course depends a lot on the team. But from what I've seen so far, it massively reduces the gap. Because if I don't have to spend a week getting a feature to work, I can spend an hour instead. Then I have so much more time to talk to my users and my customers.

If the time to make a clickable prototype or something is a few seconds, then I can do it live in real time with my customers, and we can co-create. There are all these opportunities.

I find that – myself, my teams, and the people I work with – we work a lot more closely with our users and customers because of this fast turnaround time.

"Just yesterday I was teaching a course, and I was going home sitting on the subway. It was a 15-minute subway ride. I finally got a seat, so I had only 7 minutes left. There's this feature that I wanted to build that involved both front-end and back-end and a database schema change. Well, 5 minutes later it was done and I got off the subway and just pushed it. That's crazy."

Of course, our system is set up optimised to enable it to be that fast. And of course not everything will work that well. But every time it does, I've been coding for 30 years, and I feel like I wake up in some weird fantasy every day, wondering, "Can I really be this productive?" I never would have thought that was possible.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Agile Teams

Tenille: I'd like you to put your futurist hat on for a moment. How do you see the future of agile teamwork in, say, 10 to 15 years time? If we would have this conversation again in 2035, given the exponential growth of AI and improvements over the last two to three years, what do you think would be the biggest change for software development teams in how they operate?

Henrik: I can't even imagine 10 years. Even 5 years is just beyond imagination. That's like asking someone in the 1920s to imagine smartphones and the Internet. I think that's the level of change we're looking at.

I would shorten the time a little bit and say maybe 3 or 4 years. My guess there – and I'm already seeing this transfer happen – is that coding will just go away. It just won't be stuff that we humans do because we're too slow and we hallucinate way too much.

But I think engineering and the developer role will still be there, just that we don't type lines of code – in the same way that we no longer make punch cards or we no longer write machine code and poke values into registers using assembly language. That used to be a big part of it, but no longer.

"In the future, as developers, a lot of the work will still be the same. You're still designing stuff, you're thinking about architecture, you're interacting with customers, and you're doing all the other stuff. But typing lines of code is something that we're gonna be telling our kids about, and they're not gonna believe that we used to do that."

The other thing is smaller teams, which I'm already seeing now. I think the idea of a cross-functional team of 5 to 7 people – traditionally that was considered quite necessary in order to have all the different skills needed to deliver a feature in a product. But that's not the case anymore. If you skip ahead 2 or 3 years when this knowledge has spread, I think most teams will be 2 people and an AI, because then you have all the domain knowledge you need, probably.

As a consequence of that, we'll just have more teams. More and smaller teams. Of course, then you need to collaborate between the teams, so cross-team synchronisation is still going to be an issue.

Also, I'm already seeing this now, but this concept of sprints – the whole point is to give a team some peace of mind to build something complex, because typically you would need a week or two to build something complex. But now, when it takes a day and some good prompting to do the same thing that would have taken a whole sprint, then the sprint is a day instead. If the sprint is a day, is there any difference between a sprint planning meeting and a daily standup? Not really.

I think sprints will just kind of shrink into oblivion. What's going to be left instead is something a little bit similar – some kind of synchronisation point or follow-up point. Instead of a sprint where every 2 weeks we sit down and try to make a plan, I think it'll be very much continuous delivery on a day-to-day basis. But then maybe every week or two we take a step back and just reflect a little bit and say, "Okay, what have we been delivering the past couple of weeks? What have we been learning? What's our high-level focus for the next couple of weeks?" A very, very lightweight equivalent of a sprint.

I feel pretty confident about that guess because personally, we are already there with my team, and I think it'll become a bit of a norm.

Final Thoughts: Preparing for the Future

Henrik: No one knows what's gonna happen in the future, and those who say they do are kidding themselves. But there's one fairly safe bet though: no matter what happens in the future with AI, if you understand how to use it, you'll be in a better position to deal with whatever that is. That's why I encourage people to get comfortable with it, get used to using it.

Tenille: I have a teenage daughter who I'm actually trying to encourage to learn how to use AI, because I feel like when I was her age, the Internet was the thing that was sort of coming mainstream. It completely changed the way we live. Everything is online now. And I feel like AI is that piece for her.

Henrik: Isn't it weird that the generation of small children growing up now are going to consider this to be normal and obvious? They'll be the AI natives. They'll be like, "Of course I have my AI agent buddy. There's nothing weird about that at all."

Tenille: I'll still keep being nice to my coffee machine.

Henrik: Yeah, that's good. Just in case, you know.

---

Thank you to Henrik Kniberg for joining us on this episode of the Easy Agile Podcast. To learn more about Henrik's work, visit Abundly AI or check out his educational videos on AI and agile practices.

Subscribe to the Easy Agile Podcast on your favourite platform, and join us for more conversations about agile, product development, and the future of work.