The Role of Assertiveness in Agile Software Team Communication

110 15. Федоров, А. (2008). Фразеологический словарь русского литературного языка: около 13000 фразеологических единиц. Publisher: Астрель. 16. Хайруллина, Р.Х. (2008). Фразеологическая картина мира: от мировоззрения к миропониманию. Publisher: Уфа. CZU 81`342.4 THE ROLE OF ASSERTIVENESS IN AGILE TEAM COMMUNICATION Liliana COȘULEAN, Master of Arts, Lecturer, Alecu Russo Balti State University [email protected] https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2811-6569 Rezumat: Comunicarea eficientă în echipele Agile se bazează pe interacțiuni structurate, care pot fi analizate prin Teoria Actelor de Vorbire. Această lucrare explorează modul în care actele ilocuționare ale lui Searle – asertive, directive, comisive, expresive și declarații – modelează activitățile Agile precum stand-up-urile, planificarea sprintului, retrospectivele și reviewurile. Înțelegerea funcției actelor de vorbire în cadrul Agile îmbunătățește claritatea, angajamentul și colaborarea. De asemenea, clasificările alternative, inclusiv actele locuționare, ilocuționare și perlocuționare ale lui Austin, precum și teoriile lui Bach & Harnish și Brown & Levinson, oferă perspective suplimentare asupra dinamicii echipelor, strategiilor de politețe și comunicării indirecte. Actele de vorbire directe predomină în comunicarea Agile datorită transparenței și eficienței lor, dar cele indirecte sunt utile pentru diplomație și adaptabilitate culturală. Această abordare lingvistică ajută echipele Agile să își optimizeze strategiile de comunicare, îmbunătățind colaborarea și procesul de învățare continuă. Cuvinte-cheie: comunicare Agile, Teoria actelor de vorbire, acte ilocuționare, vorbire directă și indirectă, întâlniri Agile, analiză lingvistică, colaborare în echipă. Assertive communication is a critical skill in Agile team environments, enhancing collaboration, conflict resolution, and decision-making. By fostering a culture where individuals can express their thoughts clearly and respectfully, Agile teams can cultivate healthier work dynamics, improve transparency, and achieve greater efficiency in their projects. This becomes even more essential in diverse, global teams where English serves as a common language. For non-native English speakers, assertive communication can be challenging—not just because of language barriers, but also due to cultural differences in communication styles. Learning to balance clarity and politeness while confidently expressing ideas is key to ensuring every voice is heard in Agile discussions. The roots of assertive communication can be traced back to both linguistics and psychology, where foundational theories have shaped our understanding of how language influences human interaction. From a linguistic perspective, John Searle’s Speech Act Theory (1969) provides valuable insights into how communication functions not just as the exchange of information, but as a form of action. Searle categorized speech into various acts highlighting that when we speak, we are not merely describing reality but actively shaping it. In the current research we intended to demonstrate that in the context of Agile teams, assertive communication aligns with the “assertive” speech act, where individuals confidently express beliefs, share knowledge, and contribute to decision-making processes. Complementing the linguistic framework, the field of cognitive-behavioral psychology, led by figures like Albert Ellis and Aaron T. Beck, introduced assertiveness as a behavioral skill essential for mental well-being and effective interpersonal relationships. Ellis’s Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) and Beck’s Cognitive Therapy emphasized the importance 111 of rational thinking and clear self-expression. Their work underscored that assertiveness is not merely about speaking up but doing so in a way that is respectful of both oneself and others – a principle that resonates strongly with Agile values such as respect, courage, and openness. Figure 1. Assertiveness pyramid In the current research we will make an introspection into professional communication in Agile management styles with a n emphasis on speech acts related to different forms of this specific form of communication. To start with, Agile communication is an interactive and iterative process that relies on clear, direct, and adaptive exchanges between team members, stakeholders, and customers. From a linguistic perspective, aligning with Searle’s Speech Act Theory, speech is not just informative but performative – driving decisions, commitments, and actions. Agile ceremonies like stand-ups, retrospectives, and sprint reviews function as structured speech acts that facilitate alignment and continuous improvement. Austin’s Original Three Speech Act Categories (1962). Before Searle, J.L. Austin introduced the first model, dividing speech acts into three levels: 1. Locutionary acts → The act of saying something (literal meaning). E.g.: “Can you send me the report?” (Just the words being spoken) 2. Illocutionary acts → The intended function behind the words. E.g.: Requesting the report to be sent. 3. Perlocutionary acts → The effect the words have on the listener. E.g.: The listener actually sending the report. A decade later, Searle expanded on J.L. Austin’s Speech Act Theory, classifying speech acts into five categories: 1. Assertives → Statements that convey information or describe reality. E.g.: “The sprint is ending tomorrow.” 2. Directives → Requests or commands that try to get someone to do something. E.g.: “Please complete the report by Friday.” 3. Commissives → Commitments to a future action. E.g.: “I will fix the bug by the end of the day.” 112 4. Expressives → Show emotions, attitudes, or feelings. E.g.: “I appreciate your hard work on this feature.” 5. Declarations → Statements that change reality when spoken. E.g.: “I declare this project completed.” Effective Agile communication balances assertiveness (clear expression of ideas) with cooperative discourse (active listening and feedback), ensuring that discussions lead to meaningful outcomes. When teams communicate with clarity and intent, they foster transparency, trust, and agility in problem-solving. Below there is a brief description of specific forms of communicative contexts in Agile that will be analyzed further in more detail: 1. Stand-up (also called Daily Scrum, Daily Stand-up Meeting); a short daily meeting (typically 15 minutes) where team members share updates on their work, discuss blockers, and align on priorities. It helps maintain transparency and keep the sprint on track. 2. Sprint Planning (also called Iteration Planning, Agile Planning Meeting): a meeting held at the beginning of a sprint where the team discusses and selects backlog items to work on, defines sprint goals, and plans how to complete the work efficiently. 3. Retrospectives (Sprint Retro, Agile Reflection, Continuous Improvement Meeting): a team discussion at the end of a sprint focused on reflecting on what went well, what didn’t, and how to improve processes for the next sprint. The goal is continuous learning and adaptation. 4. Reviews (also called Sprint Review, Demo, Show-and-Tell): a session where the team presents completed work to stakeholders, gathers feedback, and discusses potential adjustments. It ensures alignment between the development team and business goals. To better understand the role of communication in Agile teams, we refer to Speech Act Theory, which explains how language is not just a tool for exchanging information but a means of performing actions. By linking this linguistic framework to key Agile activities, we can analyze how different types of speech acts—such as making commitments, giving directives, and providing feedback—shape collaboration, decision-making, and continuous improvement within Agile workflows. Agile activities, such as stand-ups, sprint planning, retrospectives, and reviews, rely on the above-discussed specific speech acts to structure team interactions and drive collaboration. Here’s how each activity aligns with speech act categories: STAND-UPS 1. Commissives: Team members commit to tasks (“Today, I will complete the API integration.”). 2. Assertives: Individuals report progress and blockers (“Yesterday, I finished the UI design.”). Function: Stand-ups enable alignment by using statements that establish accountability and share factual updates. SPRINT PLANNING: 1. Directives: The Product Owner and team negotiate work distribution (“Let’s prioritize this feature for the next sprint.”). 2. Commissives: Developers commit to completing backlog items (“I will take ownership of this user story.”). Function: This session drives decision-making through requests, agreements, and commitments. RETROSPECTIVES: 1. Expressives: Team members reflect on the sprint (“I appreciated how well we collaborated last sprint.”). 2. Directives: Suggestions for improvement are made (“We should improve our testing process.”). Function: Retrospectives foster learning by combining self-expression with actionable suggestions. SPRINT REVIEWS: 1. Assertives: The team demonstrates completed work (“This feature now meets all acceptance criteria.”). 2. Expressives: Stakeholders provide feedback (“This is a great improvement for user experience.”). 113 Function: Sprint reviews validate progress and encourage constructive feedback. Each Agile activity serves as a structured speech event, where specific speech acts (assertives, directives, commissives, and expressives) shape team collaboration. Understanding Agile communication through this lens helps teams engage more effectively, ensuring that discussions lead to clear commitments, informed decisions, and continuous improvement. Bearing in mind what the main points of the assertiveness pyramid are, we have broken down the processes into more specific parts that match the pyramid levels. Thus, we could single out the following cases of both successful and flawed communication in Agile: AGILE Communication Success Failure Issue Expressing Opinions Clearly “I believe this approach will help us meet the sprint goal more efficiently.” “Whatever you all decide is fine with me.” The person is vague or overly passive, which can lead to poor decision-making because their valuable input is not heard. “In my opinion, we should prioritize this task because it has a higher business impact.” “I’m not sure if this is right, but maybe we could try something else… or not, it’s okay.” Setting Boundaries “I understand the urgency, but I won’t be able to deliver this by tomorrow without compromising quality.” “Sure, I’ll get it done by tomorrow, no problem.” (Even when overloaded) Agreeing to unrealistic deadlines or extra work without considering personal limits can cause burnout and lower-quality outcomes. “I’m currently at capacity. Can we discuss reallocating some of these tasks?” “I guess I can take on more tasks, even though I’m already behind.” Giving Constructive Feedback “I noticed the code review process was delayed last sprint. Maybe we can set clearer deadlines to improve this.” “This feature is just bad.” (Blunt criticism without helpful suggestions) Either being overly harsh or avoiding feedback altogether can harm team morale and prevent growth. “I appreciate your effort on this feature, but I think we could enhance the user experience with a simpler design.” “It’s fine, no feedback.” (When there are clear areas for improvement) Making Requests Politely but Firmly “Could you clarify the acceptance criteria for this story so I can proceed confidently?” “I don’t know, maybe if you have time, could you possibly look at this?” Being too indirect may result in the request being ignored, while being too forceful can create tension. “I’d like us to revisit the backlog prioritization to ensure alignment with the latest business goals.” “You need to fix this now.” (Demanding without respect) Acknowledging others while Standing your Ground “I see your point, and it makes sense. However, I still feel that we should consider the potential technical debt.” “You’re wrong. This is the only way to do it.” Dismissing others’ input or avoiding conflict leads to poor collaboration and missed opportunities for better solutions. “I respect your opinion, but based on the data we’ve gathered, I think a different approach would be more effective.” “Yeah, you’re probably right.” (Quickly agreeing just to avoid conflict, despite having valid concerns) 114 Taking Ownership “I’ll take responsibility for this task and ensure it’s completed by the end of the sprint.” “That’s not my fault, someone else handled that part.” Shifting blame or avoiding responsibility damages trust and accountability within the team. “I missed that issue in the last deployment. I’ll address it and improve my testing process moving forward.” “I didn’t notice the bug, but it’s probably because the requirements weren’t clear.” Table 1. Successes and failures in Agile communication In Agile and Scrum environments, direct speech acts are the dominant mode of communication, as they align with Agile principles of transparency, efficiency, and collaboration. As a result, Agile promotes clarity, quick decision-making, and open feedback, all of which require direct statements. For instance, a team member might say, “I will complete this task by tomorrow” (Commissive) or “We need to fix this bug before the release” (Directive). By using direct speech acts, teams ensure that responsibilities, expectations, and issues are communicated without ambiguity, which in turn reduces the risk of misunderstandings and delays. Nevertheless, indirect speech acts also play a role in maintaining diplomacy and fostering a positive team atmosphere, particularly in diverse, multicultural environments where communication styles vary. For example, instead of directly stating, “You missed some edge cases”, a more tactful approach might be, “It might be helpful to check if all edge cases are covered.” Similarly, rather than saying, “Your approach is incorrect”, a team member might suggest, “Could we consider a different approach for this feature?”. In this way, indirect formulations soften criticism, making feedback easier to accept while still encouraging improvement. To ensure effective assertive communication in Agile, it is essential to balance both styles. On the one hand, direct speech acts should be used for commitments, decisions, and feedback, ensuring clarity and efficiency. On the other hand, indirect speech acts are useful for softening criticism, making suggestions, and maintaining politeness in sensitive discussions. That being said, clarity should always be paired with respect—being direct should not come across as rude or dismissive. Furthermore, teams should adapt their communication style based on their culture and dynamics—some teams may value a highly direct approach, while others function better with a mix of direct and indirect communication. Ultimately, there are a few recommendations for assertive communication in Agile: ✓ Use direct speech acts for commitments, decisions, and feedback to avoid ambiguity. ✓ Use indirect speech acts when softening criticism, making suggestions, or maintaining politeness in sensitive discussions. ✓ Balance clarity with respect – being direct should not mean being rude or dismissive. ✓ Adapt to the team’s culture – some teams may prefer a more direct style, while others benefit from a mix of direct and indirect communication. In conclusion, assertiveness in Agile is about being clear, confident, and respectful, using the right balance of directness and diplomacy to foster productive and positive team interactions. By finding this balance, Agile teams can create an environment where communication is both effective and supportive, ultimately leading to stronger collaboration and better results. References: 1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press. 168 p. 2. Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. MIT Press. 324 p. 3. Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. International Universities Press. 356 p. 115 4. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press. 345 p. 5. Cockburn, A. (2006). Agile Software Development: The Cooperative Game (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley. 504 p. 6. Ellis, A. (1994). Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy: Revised and Updated. Citadel Press. 560 p. 7. Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The Definitive Guide to Scrum. Scrum.org. 30 p. 8. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press. 203 p.