In agility we talk about self-organized and empowered teams. But what happens when reality clashes with an organizational culture that doesn't support them?
My answer today would be no. Among other things, because if the problem is structural (a toxic boss or executive), any attempt is most likely to be shut down or even punished. Toxic cultures tend to shield those who sustain them and penalize those who question them. And if external help is sought without executive backing acknowledging the problem, there is no real room to maneuver.
But I wonder whether there are dynamics or practices that can be useful for easing tensions, opening conversations, and generating micro-actions of care. The other day I came across a dynamic called "The Elephant in the Room" and it made me think.
Each team member writes on an anonymous note something that bothers or worries them ("fear of speaking up", "pressure at deliveries", *"lack of listening"…). Then, the notes are grouped in silence, patterns are sought, and the team decides what it wants to work on.
The idea is simple: put difficult topics on the table without pointing fingers at anyone.
The problem I see is that it may be useful in the short term, but a team really cannot and should not carry alone the responsibility of changing an entire organization's culture.
What can a team do in an environment like this?
Comments (6)
Log in to your Scrum Manager area to comment
Juan Palacio ★
30 Sep 2025 04:43Production metrics are the concern of the technical or product team, but "engagement", absenteeism, or turnover metrics are the concern of HR, so they are not usually combined into a single view. Besides, since this is personal and sensitive data, displaying it on a visible board can create discomfort, pressure, and comparison between teams.
Not sure, maybe I'm wading into a minefield :-)
Las métricas de producción son cosa del equipo técnico o de producto, pero las de “engagement”, absentismo o rotación son cosa de RR.HH. por lo que no es habitual integrarlas en una única vista. Aparte de que al ser datos personales y sensibles, mostrarlos en un tablero visible puede generar incomodidad o presión y comparación entre equipos.
No sé, igual es meterse en un jardín :-)
Automatic translation · View original
Dolores Santayana
30 Sep 2025 06:56Well, I don't agree, Juan. HR measures those metrics at the company-wide level, but I measure my own team's, because I'm the one who can act directly with them.
Pues no estoy de acuerdo Juan, esas métricas RRHH las mide a nivel global de compañía, pero yo mido las de mi propio equipo porque soy quien tengo la posibilidad de actuar directamente con ellos.
Automatic translation · View original
Marta Berné ★★
30 Sep 2025 14:32That was my thinking too. I was also a bit doubtful because of what Juan said: there may be friction within the team. Is it possible to measure an overall view of the team without putting down names and surnames?
Este era mi pensamiento, también me asaltaba un poco la duda por lo que dice Juan: puede haber fricciones en el equipo. ¿Se puede medir una visión general del equipo, sin poner nombres y apellidos?
Automatic translation · View original
Jorge Sánchez López ★★★
30 Sep 2025 08:44I love the can of worms you're opening with the idea of displaying them on a visible board. Uff, I think we're getting into state secrets territory, like salary policy, etc.
This could make a good post on this topic.
Me encanta el posible melón que abres de mostrarlos en un tablero visible, uff creo que entramos en secretos de estado como son la política de sueldos, etc.
Da para una post en este tema.
Automatic translation · View original
Dolores Santayana
30 Sep 2025 06:55Great question, Marta. We actually track that team "health" separately, but it never occurred to me to integrate it into the agile board. Maybe it's because we've never measured a project's success while also treating team health as a fundamental part of the numbers we look at.
Qué buena pregunta Marta, nosotros precisamente registramos esa “salud” del equipo por otro lado, pero no se me había ocurrido integrarlo en el tablero ágil. Será porque nunca medimos el éxito de un proyecto considerando también la salud del equipo como parte fundamental al pensar en números.
Automatic translation · View original
Jorge Sánchez López ★★★
30 Sep 2025 06:59Honestly, after a lot of observing and analyzing the teams I've been part of, I think they don't show up because we mix two systems with different rhythms and owners. On the board we measure operational flow; motivation lives in the social system. If we don't connect them, we become shortsighted.
Why they get left out
Incompatible cadences: flow is daily; climate has weekly/monthly pulses. Nobody wants "noise" in the daily.
Diffuse ownership: delivery is managed by the team; well-being usually sits with HR or with "nobody". Without an owner, there's no metric.
Fear and psychological safety: publishing eNPS next to velocity can feel punitive. People self-censor.
Poor definitions: we measure "happiness" without operationalizing it; it ends up being decorative or gets gamified.
Privacy and ethics: sensitive data in a public team space creates risks (and distrust).
Blindness to cause and effect: we treat motivation as "desirable" or non-essential when it isn't directly linked to velocity and quality.
How to integrate them without breaking anything
Two visible planes: Delivery Board and Energy Board. Together, but not mixed.
Few indicators, well defined:
Anonymous weekly pulse (1-5) on energy and perceived workload.
Interruptions per sprint and focus changes (a proxy for fatigue).
Quarterly autonomy/psychological safety (validated scale).
Clear rituals: review the pulse in the retro (trend, not the raw data); if it drops for two iterations, trigger an experiment.
Explicit counter-metrics: if Throughput (throughput = number of work items completed per unit of time) rises, watch the pulse and defects; if WIP grows, activate limits and slack to absorb variability.
Ethical guardrails: anonymity, consent, and use for improvement, not for individual evaluation.
Simple experiments: "energy tile" (a visual block on the team board that shows, in a very simple way, the trend of the team's energy/motivational state. It makes the invisible visible without invading privacy) on the Kanban (3-week trend), a meeting limit, an uninterrupted time block, 10% recovery time.
My sense is that they're absent because we confuse rhythm, ownership, and safety. When we design the how (cadences, owner, ethics) and not just the what (KPIs), motivation indicators fit in and become a real lever for sustainable performance.
Sinceramente, tras mucho observar y analizar los equipos en lo que he participado, creo que no aparecen porque mezclamos dos sistemas con ritmos y dueños distintos. En el tablero medimos flujo operativo; la motivación vive en el sistema social. Si no los conectamos, nos quedamos miopes.
Por qué se quedan fuera
Cadencias incompatibles: el flujo es diario; el clima tiene pulsos semanales/mensuales. Nadie quiere “ruido” en el daily .
Propiedad difusa: delivery lo gestiona el equipo; bienestar suele estar en HR o en “nadie”. Sin dueño, no hay métrica.
Temor y seguridad psicológica: publicar eNPS al lado de la velocidad puede sentirse punitivo. La gente se autocensura.
Definiciones pobres: medimos “felicidad” sin operacionalizarla; acaba siendo decorativo o se gamifica.
Privacidad y ética: datos sensibles en un espacio público del equipo generan riesgos (y desconfianza).
Ceguera a los causa/efecto: tratamos motivación como “deseable” o no imprescindible cuando no está directamente enlazado a velocidad y calidad.
Cómo integrarlos sin romper nada
Dos planos visibles: Tablero de Entrega y Tablero de Energía. Juntos, no revueltos.
Pocos indicadores, bien definidos:
Pulso semanal anónimo (1-5) sobre energía y carga percibida.
Interrupciones por sprint y cambios de foco (proxy de fatiga).
Autonomía/seguridad psicológica trimestral (escala validada).
Rituales claros: revisar el pulso en la retro (tendencia, no el dato crudo); si baja dos iteraciones, activar experimento.
Contramétricas explícitas: si sube Throughput (rendimiento = número de elementos terminados por unidad de tiempo), vigilar pulso y defectos; si el WIP crece, activar límites y holgura para absorber la variabilidad.
Guardarraíles éticos: anonimato, consentimiento y uso para mejora, no para evaluación individual.
Experimentos simples: “tile de energía” (es un bloque visual en el tablero del equipo que muestra, de forma muy simple, la tendencia del estado energético/motivacional del equipo. Sirve para hacer visible lo invisible sin invadir la privacidad) en el Kanban (tendencia 3-semanas), límite de reuniones, franja sin interrupciones, 10% de tiempo de recuperación.
Mi sensación es que no están porque confundimos ritmo, propiedad y seguridad. Cuando diseñamos el cómo (cadencias, dueño, ética) y no solo el qué (KPIs), los indicadores de motivación caben y se vuelven palanca real de rendimiento sostenible.
Automatic translation · View original