Agile Leaders' Guide to Success Amidst AI Disruption - Part I (Things get worse before it gets better)

In a world where GenAI has ignited the industry's imagination, a growing concern emerges – the belief that no role is immune, not even those of Scrum Masters, Agile Coaches, or what I like to call Agile Leaders. The notion that technology can replace the human touch in guiding organizations towards success is gaining momentum, and it's a matter of genuine concern.

Now, you might expect me, as an Agile Leader, to be outraged by this idea. But I'm not angry; I'm genuinely worried. It's about being Agile; it's about embracing change and not becoming inflexibly bound to our ways. So, I've taken a step back to reflect on the industry, and the more I observe, the more concerned I become.

Let's face it; we are gradually heading toward potential obsolescence. We've turned our noble profession into a rigid process. While Agile coaching has evolved, instead of refining, we're leaning towards decline. So, what's gone wrong?

To quote Rolf Dobelli, we've acquired "Chauffeur Knowledge" – we're theorists who seldom experiment. Admittedly, some of us may be constrained by organizational policies, becoming part of the constrained organization. We talk about symptoms but often miss the underlying problems.

Unearthing these problems is a complex task, one that cannot be covered in a single post. So, I've decided to embark on a series: "What Agile Leaders Must Do to Thrive in the Era of Artificial Intelligence."

Let's begin with a common yet neglected problem, the "Things Get Worse Before It Gets Better" fallacy. When we start transforming, we have plans, and we talk about challenges, we talk about trainings, but seldom about the outcome. We do talk about the vision or the outcome that is idealistically possible, just like a theorist, but not what we are aiming to achieve through experiments. We've used transformation challenges as shields, but it's time to lower our defenses.

Things may indeed get worse before they get better, but does this 'worse' phase have a timeline? Do we strive for small and quick wins that provide tangible feedback on our experiments? We often adhere to processes, assuming everything will fall into place. But that's not always the case. We need to start experimenting and targeting quick wins. While we may not achieve all our envisioned success overnight, we can begin winning.

When we acknowledge that things get worse before they improve, it makes sense. Frameworks, strategies, and new ways of working can reveal problems that make things temporarily 'worse.' The issue is letting them remain worse for an extended period. We must identify these problems and experiment to achieve results. Quick wins not only underscore the significance of human intelligence and collaboration but also serve as a powerful motivator for the organization.

So, what's the action plan? Create a realistic timeline for quick wins. For instance, if you're leading a team through transformation and have introduced retrospection, pinpoint the "time to value" – when the team starts openly discussing failures, improvements, and challenging the status quo. These may seem like small victories, but they reflect the team's agility. Tie these to tangible business outcomes. Use data to highlight the business impact – even small savings from avoiding a failure can contribute to the bottom line.

As we prepare to thrive in this age of technological revolution, let's think more like humans. Use technology to gain insights and become the indispensable human your organization needs. In the upcoming editions of this series, we'll delve deeper into retrospection and other critical aspects. Stay tuned!