My experience with organizations of all sizes and types over the past decade has shown me that there's a growing commitment to dense and procedural governance versus giving teams "...the environment and support they need,?and trust them to get the job done." (Agile Manifesto 101)
I've been corroborating my experience with industry standard reports and state-of-the-industry webinars including The State of Agile Report (for the past decade.) I talk to people, too. <insert smiley face> Let me freely admit that "Your experience may vary", but, I believe the pendulum has swung away from trusting people to governing people behind a facade of Agile and Lean dogma. What has been your experience? I really want to know.
I've tried to work out the conditions under which this occurred. My view is (certainly) biased since it's only myself at the keyboard today. I have a talk to present in a few weeks where I will share the same observation, some data, and recommendations. Here's where I come down on all this (so far.) I believe complacency (primarily in leadership and middle management) had led to an over-reliance on excessive governance.
- Agile/Agile Ways of Working was working before The Agile Manifesto was crafted, (and, The Manifesto has been beneficial.) Many of us had already figured out that small, self-organizing AND empowered/trusted teams had the potential to accelerate work with higher levels of quality and with the potential for innovative outcomes. (I know this personally from firsthand experience as a developer, a manager and a leader of teams and programs.)
- As Agile has gone mainstream over the past decade and Enterprise and Business Agility have emerged as new rallying cries ("We will be an Agile Organization in ___!", repeated annually at one client) Program Management has been instituted on top of teams and teams of teams as (yet) another voice in effort to "... get the job done." (Agile Manifesto 101 * 2) However well-intentioned these (additional) teams, managers, leaders, meetings, and metrics may be, they're a burden to the teams performing the work. Teams know this (and they feel it, too.)
- A modern Agile Lifecycle Management (ALM) tool provides transparency and accountability (plus foreshadowing, if you spend invest a little more time) in lieu of programmatic governance and implied or explicit oversight (accompanied by another form of governance and metrics.) I admit that many people outside of Agile Teams refuse to use their ALM or believe (vocally) that "... teams cook the data." (Got Trust!?) A modern automobile dashboard is more complicated than these tools (so what's excuse for ignoring them?)
- I believe complacency (originating in leadership and management and percolating in governance) is the major cause of Agile Bloat. The allure of Agile (now, on steroids, with the promise of Enterprise and Business Agility, and with a DevOps chaser) makes transformation appear simple and formulaic (when the opposite is true, on a good day.) There are ample success stories, but there are also many futile attempts to copy what worked elsewhere assuming it will work "here." More evidence of complacency. I see organizations outsourcing (Agile-related) critical-thinking and decision-making to consultancies (and assuming all will end well.) Another complacency data point (where the consultancy is usually blamed for adverse outcomes.)
I will leave you with this thought (and hope that you comment, below.) Still working this all out...
When I used to market myself as an engagement lead (before The Agile Manifesto was developed and available) I would answer the question "Why you?" with "I can help deliver more with the same number of people and in less time." That response got me some epic, character-forming (and sleep-depriving) opportunities. (This occurred over several decades. Good coffee was always involved, too.) With the addition of a commitment to people and quality, isn't this what we want from our commitment to Agile (and less governance?) Inquiring minds want (and need) to know.
