The Babylonian confusion of terms in agility - and the conclusion I draw from it

Definition: What is "agility"? Agility is the agility, manoeuvrability or mobility of organizations and people or in structures and processes. One reacts flexibly to unforeseen events and new requirements. [1] (translated)

Agile working optimizes the way teams work together and create added value for customers. Agile working enables teams to set goals autonomously and achieve them through customized processes and the use of technology. An important focus of agile working is continuous learning and adaptability to changing market conditions. [2] (translated)

Agility is a philosophy, mindset and methodology that aims to make organizations more flexible, adaptable and customer-centric. It emphasizes iterative development, close collaboration, continuous improvement and the ability to adapt quickly to changing circumstances. [3] (translated)

Agility** is the ability of an organization to both react flexibly and act proactively. Agility is based on the perception of trends and ever faster changing conditions in the business environment. Anticipating these is the trigger for taking the initiative, introducing necessary changes and adapting to changing markets. [4] (translated)

... at this point I lost the desire to research what results are offered to me when I ask google the question: "What is agility?".

Agility is the optimization of working methods, an organizational characteristic, a philosophy, a way of thinking, a method, a skill. This applies to teams or even entire organizations. It aims to make the target structure more flexible, more adaptable, more customer-oriented, more proactive, more adaptive. Further research would lead to an even more colorful bouquet of attributions of meaning.

The situation, which F?rster and Wendler [5] already identified in 2012 as fuzzy and opaque and thus benevolently as a possible field for further research, has not improved. Agility as a term is definitionally clear on a tiny common denominator, but what this means for organizations and the people working in them remains arbitrarily open.

At the time, F?rster and Wendler defined agility as follows:

Despite the plethora of concepts subsumed under this umbrella term, researchers agree on key characteristics of agility such as time, cost, competence, flexibility and quality. Other undisputed characteristics of agility are the reactive and proactive response to market changes with a focus on customer satisfaction.

All clear?

Always under pressure to explain

I don't want to supplement and expand the meta-study of that time with the literature that has enriched the field since then and thereby receive further confirmation of what we already know anyway. Rather, I have been looking for a way of dealing with it for years.

In practice, the confusion of terms presents me with the challenge that, when discussing agility with other people, I always have to assume that they have their own view of the subject, which in all likelihood differs from my own and is unknown to me.

So I am always expected to explain myself. My image of agility is, of course, within the loose framework that the consensus understanding of the term provides. However, it is very detailed and goes well beyond this in many aspects.

The challenge it really poses can best be grasped by trying to create an analogy with a more familiar but comparably unclear term.

House, hut or a place under the bridge?

There are several comparable terms with blurred meanings. Let's try "accommodation", even if it doesn't seem very obvious at first.

Accommodation** (also Obdach or Bleibe) is a sheltered place (building, lodging, tent, vehicle, etc.) that is used at least for overnight stays. Most accommodation is used for living. [6] (translated from German wikipedia)

If I approach someone with the wish to provide me with "accommodation", this can be a whole house, a hut, a cave or even just a place under a bridge. The boundary condition, the guarantee of a certain amount of protection (usually) for overnight stays, leaves a lot of scope for implementation.

At the same time, however, I also have individual expectations, which are very heterogeneous. Personally, I would be disconcerted if I were offered accommodation under a bridge. But even the offer of a suite in a five-star hotel would cause irritation.

In our social environment, we have found a way of dealing with this blurring. We are aware of this and are often able to make an appropriate assumption about each other's expectations based on the situation.

Let's move on to the concept of agility. In terms of definition, this is just as vague as "accommodation", but we use it very differently. Every coach or consultant has a sharpened picture of what they want to be understood by it and claims to get to the heart of the matter. If a client approaches them with a request for an agile transformation, it is completely clear to them what needs to be done and what the final state of the organization should look like.

Coming back to accommodation, this would correspond to the situation where, when I am confronted with the question of providing accommodation, I assume as a matter of course, without considering the context, that I have to provide a penthouse with three rooms, a maisonette, a roof terrace and a jacuzzi. I may also make demands on the environmental parameters: For me, accommodation is generally located on a traffic-calmed street and within walking distance of a flowing body of water.

However, the person who makes this request to me expects a hut with a tamped floor and an insect-free straw sack so that they can make a reasonably comfortable bed.

The customer's understanding of agility and that of the coach are usually just as fundamentally different. If things go well, these different expectations are uncovered in an assignment clarification and an attempt is made to find a common path. This compromise is then something between a penthouse and a hut and is still called agility.

Unfortunately, we have not (yet) drawn the conclusion from this that we should deal with the concept of agility in a similar way to that of accommodation.

Ambiguity that leads to polarization

The reasons for this situation are understandable. There has never been one team or one person who could have exercised definitional power over the term "agility" in companies and thus wrested more clarity from it. At the same time, in times of obvious, rapid change in all aspects of our lives - be it the world of work, society or geopolitics - the narrow core meaning of organizational agility naturally resonates. As a result, everyone who operates in such a context in the broadest sense and wants to overcome the associated challenges uses the term "agility".

And that is a terrible shame. It is precisely from the considerations of how I can set up an organization to be agile, customer-oriented, innovative and proactive that many approaches can be derived that are beneficial, but also those that only solve the problems superficially, temporarily or not at all. Each of these approaches is sold under the umbrella term "agility", regardless of its actual effect.

As a result, we repeatedly (perhaps even increasingly frequently) encounter people who no longer appear receptive to "agility". They associate impressive negative experiences with it and lose accessibility to different, perhaps effective approaches that are also labeled "agility". The accommodation on offer may not live up to expectations. However, we are generally prepared to accept that one hotel can be better than another and do not necessarily conclude from a bad experience that I never want to stay away from home again - with agility, this second chance is rarely given.

The absurd situation arises that people get into a conflict about whether they find "agility" good or bad, but without realizing it, they are talking about largely different concepts. And no one has the authority to seriously claim that one unloved concept has less to do with agility than the other, which has led to perceived success.

We bow to popularity

For a long time, I shied away from drawing any conclusions from this realization - which is not really new. I found my way of dealing with it by doing exactly what I described above: I have always carefully explained what I mean by agility and what implications this view has for people and organizations.

It doesn't seem smart to use a term that has multiple meanings and needs to be clarified at the beginning of every discussion in order to establish a basis for discussion. We go to this trouble because the term is popular.

Its popularity is based on the fact that "agility" suggests a promise of salvation. Those who are agile gain the ability to be successful in a rapidly changing and ambiguous world that gives birth to permanent threats.

The various forms of agility are usually differentiated from one another by their view of the challenges that need to be overcome in order to achieve this ability. The spectrum ranges from project-like trivial approaches to the requirement to change individual attitudes and develop new cultural characteristics in the organization.

Consultants and coaches are often happy to leave it up to the companies themselves to decide how bitter a pill they have to swallow to achieve change. However, the active ingredient always remains the same in communication: "agility". Any other medicine is hardly noticed by the public.

Enlightened management

So that the bar is not set too low, I have decided to speak of "enlightened management" in this context. "Enlightened" is actually based on the mindset and values of the Enlightenment.

I got the idea from W. Edward Deming in his classic book "Out of the crisis" [7]. He puts the term in the context of a management style that has a sustainable and long-term effect.

What I mean by this will not remain a secret. While I will attempt to write a book on "Enlightened Management" in 2024, my articles will regularly present excerpts of my thoughts on the subject.

I look forward to your feedback, your suggestions and your critical analysis of the topic! All this will help me a lot!

Happy new year!

Sources

[1] Bendler, Oliver, “Agilit?t”, 7.1.2019, Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon, https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/agilitaet-99882/version-368852

[2] Mitson, Rober, “Was bedeutet Agiles Arbeiten wirklich? Eine Erkl?rung und praktische Tipps”, https://www.sherpany.com/de/ressourcen/agile-fuehrung/agiles-arbeiten/was-ist-agiles-arbeiten/#:~:text=Agiles Arbeiten bef?higt Teams%2C autonom,Anpassungsf?higkeit an sich ?ndernde Marktbedingungen, retrieved on 18.12.2023

[3] Simschek, Roman, “Agilit?t: Was ist Agilit?t? - Agilit?t Definition”, https://www.agile-heroes.com/de/magazine/was-ist-agilitaet/ , retrieved on 18.12.2023

[4] “Agilit?t”, https://refa.de/service/refa-lexikon/agilitaet , retrieved on am 18.12.2023

[5] F?rster, Kerstin; Wendler, Roy, “Theorien und Konzepte zu Agilit?t in Organisationen”, Dresdner Beitr?ge zur Wirtschaftsinformatik, Nr. 63/12, Universit?t Dresden

[6] Wikipedia, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unterkunft , retrieved on am 18.12.2023

[7] Deming, William E., “Out of the Crisis”, MIT, 1982