You're leading a hybrid financial services project where the product team works in two-week sprints while infrastructure changes follow a stage-gate process due to strict change control requirements. A senior developer who has been with the organization for 12 years is resisting the agile practices, insisting that 'proper engineering requires complete upfront design.' This developer's influence is causing other team members to question the hybrid approach. In the last sprint review, this developer publicly criticized the incremental delivery model in front of executives. The product owner has privately asked you to remove this person from the team. What is the most appropriate action?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct answer is A. Option A is correct because it demonstrates servant leadership by first seeking to understand the root cause of resistance, which may stem from legitimate technical concerns or past experiences, then providing coaching and evidence to address misconceptions (ECO People Task 1.4 - Empower team members and stakeholders). This preserves valuable organizational knowledge while potentially converting a resistor into an advocate. Option C is the main distractor as it seems practical but actually avoids addressing the resistance, creates silos, and doesn't leverage the developer's expertise for the agile work. It also doesn't resolve the influence issue since the developer remains on the project and continues to undermine the approach. Option B is premature without attempting coaching, and Option D assumes lack of knowledge rather than exploring deeper concerns or values conflicts.

More People Questions