We had a training session about the problems of scrum application at work. One of the point in the presentation was, about the crowd sourcing the meaning in the team.
One of the exercise he was describing was, what people list the tasks, that they are normally doing. Then have another person ask 9-why question, so we can figure out, what is the underlying motivation of each task.
I think that would be an interesting exercise to do, but I do not agree with the reasoning behind it given. The reasoning was, that this way we could crowdsource the meaning of the team.
I don't really understand the reason, why would a team need a common meaning. I think having a different motivations in the team can be healthy. I know I am not really going to be motivated by architectural excellence - I am just not that technical type. I am much more likely to be motivated by how to simplify something.
So having people with multiple motivations would actually cover more of the field.
It is also not likely, that it is that easy to separate the motivations in the working and personal life. It is not like they change so much. And if any of my coworkers would be motivated by the money or prestige - as long as it does not negatively effect the team (and if they think long-term it would not), I do not care.
I mean, I am called the socialist worker at home, because I basically never put more than 8h per day at work.
Later in the presentation there was a mention of the team charter, which seems to go a bit in my direction. The part of the team charter are also roles of people in the team and the positive and negative points of the people. Which is what I think we need - but I would go further. We also need the people with different goals and inspiration in the team.