And identifying and analysing impediments is a well know part of "retrospectives" within agile projects.
BUT: This seems to be in contradiction to the findings of Neuroscience.
In the moment I am "refactoring" the filing system of my documents and - again - I found this article which still is fascinating me:
"The Neuroscience of Leadership" (Breakthroughs in brain research explain how to make organizational transformation succeed) by David Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz, see:
http://www.strategy-business.com/media/file/sb43_06207.pdfHere an extract of this article:
quoteLet’s go to Mike, our pharmaceutical CEO.
One of Mike’s direct reports, Rob, has hired only three
of his targeted six new team members this year. If Mike
asks Rob why he didn’t reach the goal, he will focus
Rob’s attention on the nonperformance. As a result of
this attention, Rob might make new cognitive connections
(also known as reasons) as to why he didn’t find the
new people. For example, “All the really good people are
taken by other companies,” or “I don’t have time to do
the kind of recruiting we need.” Although these reasons
that people were not hired might be true, they do little
to support or foster any change.
A more useful place to focus Rob’s attention is on
the new circuits he needs to create to achieve his objectives
in the future. Mike could ask Rob, “What do you
need to do to resolve challenges like this?” Mike’s questioning
might provoke Rob to have an insight that he
needs to remind himself of his annual objectives more
regularly, to keep his eyes on the prize. If Mike regularly
asked Rob about his progress, it would remind Rob to
give this new thought more attention.
...
In a brain that is also constantly pruning connections while
making new ones, positive feedback may play a key
functional role as “a signal to do more of something.” As
neuroscientist Dr. Thomas B. Czerner notes, “The
encouraging sounds of ‘yes, good, that’s it’ help to mark
a synapse for preservation rather than pruning.”
At the organizational level, Mike wants to change
the way thousands of people think. A common
approach would be to identify the current attitudes
across the group through some sort of cultural survey.
The hope would be that identifying the source of the
problem would help solve it. Based on what we now
know about the brain, a better alternative would be for
Mike to paint a broad picture of being more entrepreneurial,
without specifically identifying the changes that
individuals will need to make. Mike’s goal should be for
his people to picture the new behaviors in their own
minds, and in the process develop energizing new mental
maps that have the potential to become hardwired
circuitry. Mike would then get his team to focus their
attention on their own insights, by facilitating discussions
and activities that involve being entrepreneurial.
After that, Mike’s job would be to regularly provide
“gentle reminders” so that the entrepreneurial maps
become the dominant pathways along which information,
ideas, and energy flow. He also needs to catch the
team when they get sidetracked and gently bring them
back. The power truly is in the focus, and in the attention
that is paid.
Perhaps you are thinking, “This all sounds too easy.
Is the answer to all the challenges of change just to focus
people on solutions instead of problems, let them come
to their own answers, and keep them focused on their
insights?” Apparently, that’s what the brain wants. And
some of the most successful management change practices
have this type of principle ingrained in them.
end quote
