Skip to main content

Facilitated my first "Spotify" team health check - with a semi-remote team!

As part of bringing the (remote) teams together, we're going to try 'team health checks' a la Spotify-style.  The goal is threefold:
  1. Provide a venue for teams to communicate together, a safe forum to let their voice be heard.
  2. Provide senior leadership with a "safe" dataset that gives them 'the feeling' of the team
  3. Provide action items to address the low points
The initial team meeting to present the concept went well - everyone seemed genuinely interested, and a few team members had done similar things with previous employers.

So today was the first health check...here's how it went down...

We asked the team members to review the list of topics (cards) before the meeting, and this was the agenda (2-hour time slot):
  • Start the meeting focusing on my role as facilitator
  • Go through each topic - any we want to remove?
  • Go through them again, but vote and discuss vote results
  • Look at the results, pick focus area(s)
  • Determine action items
  • Was this worthwhile?
The 2-hour timeslot was just enough time (started 4m late, finished 7m early), and I think with the modifications below would be adequate.
  1. I reiterated the goals of the meeting
    1. Conversation between the team members was the primary value
    2. The subjective data generated was also primary, but to people outside the team (senior leadership)
    3. Action items were the secondary value items
  2. This step of reviewing the topics - I won't do that again - the act of explaining the topics/presenting differing views fueled conversation that I think is best done all at once
  3. Going through the topic list (the remote folks had the powerpoint screen shared - I had the card data displayed) generated only a few comments at first...but very soon the majority of the team was participating.
    1. Everyone took a moment to read and think, then voted.
    2. We used Slack to vote.  The team has a private (dev/qa only) channel (safety zone), so one team member entered the topic as a message, and then everyone 'voted' using red/yellow/green hearts (only emoticon that had all colours).
    3. I tallied the votes on the whiteboard in a grid as the team members started throwing out comments like, "I voted red because...", or "I voted green because...".
    4. Once the comments dried up, we moved on.
    5. I tried to keep my input to a minimum.
  4. When we reviewed the results, there were 3 items almost tied for "last place" - the "worst" of these was picked as the thing to discuss.  Unfortunately we were at the 90 minute mark by this point.
  5. It was a large problem, so we threw out some ideas and generated some high-level action items and owners.  Really, the action item was 'gather more data, and we'll meet again to form action items'.  Better than nothing!
As we were wrapping up, I asked them to vote (same red/yellow/green) on whether or not the team members found the meeting useful.  Hands down all green!  Probably would have been better to have them vote later on without me in the room? (however in earlier meetings I made it clear that if it wasn't useful we'd not continue)

So my takeaways...
  1. "I've never done this before" was my main concern, but now I feel that even a "bad" health check would reveal a lot to the team about themselves - this process is worth doing regardless of how "well" you think it will go
  2. I learned SO MUCH about team perspectives/perceptions, and really felt like this was a big step in me stretching my own boundaries
  3. I learned SO MUCH about different ways to look at problems/situations - for example, the learning topic:  You can learn stuff for yourself (active self-improvement), the knowledge of others around you (absorption), from specific projects (exposure to different tech/products), etc.  (before I only thought of it as "books/articles (self) or teaching (courses)"

Comments

  1. As an update, we just did a fully-remote team health check, and it was equally excellent. The only change was that I tried to get everyone to follow the 'if you're talking, on camera' rule.

    I believe part of the success lies in the 'honeymoon effect', i.e. people are so relieved to have the opportunity that their impressions are favourably coloured, so will be interesting to see how it pans out in future.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

DFSR - eventid 4312 - replication just won't work

This warning isn't documented that well on the googles, so here's some google fodder:


You are trying to set up replication for a DFS folder (no existing replication)Source server is 2008R2, 'branch office' server is 2012R2 (I'm moving all our infra to 2012R2)You have no issues getting replication configuredYou see the DFSR folders get created on the other end, but nothing stagesFinally you get EventID 4312:
The DFS Replication service failed to get folder information when walking the file system on a journal wrap or loss recovery due to repeated sharing violations encountered on a folder. The service cannot replicate the folder and files in that folder until the sharing violation is resolved.  Additional Information:  Folder: F:\Users$\user.name\Desktop\Random Folder Name\  Replicated Folder Root: F:\Users$  File ID: {00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000}-v0  Replicated Folder Name: Users  Replicated Folder ID: 33F0449D-5E67-4DA1-99AC-681B5BACC7E5  Replication Group…

Fixing duplicate SPNs (service principal name)

This is a pretty handy thing to know:

SPNs are used when a specific service/daemon uses Kerberos to authenticate against AD. They map a specific service, port, and object together with this convention: class/host:port/name

If you use a computer object to auth (such as local service):
MSSQLSVC/tor-sql-01.domain.local:1433

If you use a user object to auth (such as a service account, or admin account):
MSSQLSVC/username:1433

Why do we care about duplicate SPNs? If you have two entries trying to auth using the same Kerberos ticket (I think that's right...), they will conflict, and cause errors and service failures.

To check for duplicate SPNs:
The command "setspn.exe -X

C:\Windows\system32>setspn -X
Processing entry 7
MSSQLSvc/server1.company.local:1433 is registered on these accounts:
CN=SERVER1,OU=servers,OU=resources,DC=company,DC=local
CN=SQL Admin,OU=service accounts,OU=resources,DC=company,DC=local

found 1 groups of duplicate SPNs. (truncated/sanitized)

Note that y…

Logstash to Nagios - alerting based on Windows Event ID

This took way longer than it should have to get going...so here's a config and brain dump...

Why?
You want to have a central place to analyze Windows Event/IIS/local application logs, alert off specific events, alert off specific situations.  You don't have the budget for a boxed solution.  You want pretty graphs.  You don't particularly care about individual server states.  (see rationale below - although you certainly have all the tools here to care, I haven't provided that configuration)

How?
ELK stack, OMD, NXlog agent, and Rsyslog.  The premise here is as follows:

Event generated on server into EventLogNXlog ships to Logstash inputLogstash filter adds fields and tags to specified eventsLogstash output sends to a passive Nagios service via the Nagios NSCA outputThe passive service on Nagios (Check_MK c/o OMD) does its thing w. alerting
OMD
Open Monitoring Distribution, but the real point here is Check_MK (IIRC Icinga uses this...).  It makes Nagios easy to use and main…