2023-12-10

Is Agile Over With?

A Friday night LinkedIn post on December 1 caught fire – 1.3 million impressions (views of some kind) in the first four days, over 200 reposts and more than 500 comments in that period, and lots more since then. The claim? That the Agile movement is in decline. Not that agility is not needed, but that the movement is waning.

The Data

We went through the comments and here are what people were saying in response. See the table:

Observations

Among the responses, leadership is far and away the top issue cited as being important for “Agile” to work, or to achieve actual agility, depending on how you look at it.

Another prevalent comment was that frameworks are very problematic: that agility arises from behavior and attitudes, not from following steps, defining certain roles, or any other pro forma approach.

One thing is clear: there are a lot of people who feel that the Agile “frameworks” are counterproductive.

There was also widespread commentary around managers seeking to maintain a command-and-control system, while layering “Agile” processes or practices on top. Alongside that was the feeling that many managers are focused on output first, and outcomes or value second – which would be a symptom of how managers are being measured or the personality type that is being promoted to manager.

One thing is clear: there are a lot of people who feel that the Agile “frameworks” are counterproductive.

In support of these claims, there were claims that the culture of organizations is often not a good fit, implying that to create agility, one might need to shift the organization’s culture – that is, the expectations and behaviors that leaders communicate, demonstrate, and incentivize.

On a different topic, there were fairly widespread opinions that “Agile” as it is communicated or defined is not quite right. Examples were claims that “Agile” too simplistic, not effective, or that it dismissed the need for accountability, or that it has been used as an excuse for recklessness or ignoring the need for verification.

There were fairly widespread opinions that “Agile” as it is communicated or defined is not quite right.

A lot of people said that Agile is fine, but that people (companies) don’t do it right. To us, that reinforces the view that critical elements are missing when people apply Agile ideas, or that the ideas are actually too simplistic, or both: if a lot of people “don’t do it right”, then it either must be very hard, or it must not be taught or communicated well. One cannot blame the companies in all cases: some of the problem must reside with those who teach or explain “Agile”.

There were quite a few people who said that “Agile is fine – nothing to see here”. To us, that means that in those cases, whatever they are doing is working, and they are also using what they believe are “Agile” approaches. That is not a proof, however, that “Agile” works: it is only proof that “Agile”, as some people interpret it, does not prevent success. We strongly suspect that in those cases, the individuals make all the difference: perhaps they are effective leaders, and they have internalized values and ideas that are essential for true agility.

We strongly suspect that when “Agile” works, the individuals make all the difference – not Agile itself.

And there were a lot of people who simply said that the post validated what they had already been thinking.

Our Conclusions

This is pretty validating to us, and the comments were very much aligned with the conclusions that the Agile 2 team reached after our 2020 months-long retro on the state of the Agile movement. One of the primary realizations that the Agile 2 team had was that leadership style is actually the central issue for true agility. That is why Agile 2 has so many principles related to leadership. And this is important: Agile 2 is just an attempt to highlight behaviors that tend to promote agility: it is not intended to say “Follow these principles and you will be agile”. That would be a very poor use of what Agile 2 provides. Instead, read books about leadership. Find a mentor who has been an effective leader who you admire. Discuss the topic with others. Reflect on your own behaviors and outcomes.

The process of defining your own approach causes you to think things through, and that thought process is actually far, far more important than the process that you end up with.

We also feel that the focus on frameworks has been a severe impediment to true agility. As Agile 2 says, frameworks are a useful place to look for ideas, but then you should define your own approach. That’s really important: the process of defining your own approach causes you to think things through. That thought process is actually far, far more important than the process that you end up with. It is the thought process that creates a sense of responsibility for the work, and puts you in the position of being able to tailor the approach as things evolve.

The journey is more important than the destination. Don’t take a shortcut.

Questions People Asked

A lot of people posted questions, instead of opinions. These can be summarized as follows:

1. How can a company actually become agile? – is there a process for getting there?
2. What is good leadership? – what does that translate into?
3. How did we get to this point, at which the Agile movement is struggling?
4. How can one transition one’s career from an Agile role?

Let’s take these one at a time:

How To Become Agile – In a True Sense

If agility is mostly behavioral, then achieving agility is a learning journey.

But just like when you go to college and there is a learning process, consisting of lectures, papers, and exams, there can be a process for becoming more agile.

Agile 2 Academy has defined such a process, but it is not the only way. It is our way. You can define your own. Please check out our way, to get ideas. It is called Constructive Agility, and we sell a complete suite of tools for helping, called the Constructive Agility System. If you are interested in using our process, please contact us for support using the form at the bottom of the Constructive Agility System page.

What Kinds of Leadership Are Actually Needed

Some Agile frameworks champion a certain style of leadership. However, our research has shown that for technology product companies, a range of leadership styles are needed. Leadership is a complex topic, and it is situational: there is no “best” or universally applicable leadership style. To become a better leader, one must embark on a learning journey. That is why learning about leadership is one of the pillars of Constructive Agility.

How the Agile Movement Got Into Trouble

From the responses posted and summarized at the start of this newsletter, there seems to be a consensus that frameworks are part of how we got here. Another root cause is that managers failed to internalize “Agile values” or learn about it – they treated it as something to procure or install, apart from themselves.

One might conclude that the frameworks contributed to that thinking – if not directly causing it – by providing easy shrink-wrapped access to things called “Agile certifications” and “Agile frameworks”. If not for those, managers might have had to actually learn about agility and try to understand it. But we will never know for sure.

How to Transition Out of “Agile” Roles

At Agile 2 Academy we have helped companies to shift people from “Agile” roles such as Agile coach and Scrum Master to other roles. In doing that, there will be some people who cannot transition, but so far our experience is that more than 90% of people in those roles can transition. They transition to supervisory or management track roles that have accountability for results, and that carry some authority. But their Agile experience has taught them to be servant leaders rather than authoritarian leaders. That is very helpful.

It is not enough though. Servant leadership is an important ingredient of effective team leadership, but the research of Nicole Forsgren, documented in her book Accelerate, indicates that transformational leadership is what product development teams need.

More than 90% of people in Agile roles can transition to true leadership roles.

People in roles of team responsibility also need to understand how the work is done: they cannot simply focus on process and soft skills – they don’t need to be experts in everything, but they need to be able to have intelligent conversations about all issues.

Thus, there is potentially a lot of learning that must occur to enable someone to transition from an Agile role, which tends to be very narrowly focused, to a broader supervisory role. Organizations must be willing to provide people with the learning opportunities and support in order to make a transition from Agile roles to true leadership roles.