Leadership Continues to Fail Agile Programs

The 14th State of Agile Report Challenges section continues (an annual finding) - A lack of Leadership Participation. This is an outcome owned by the three principal constituencies on Agile programs: Teams, Middle Management and Leadership. Saying Leadership is not participating sufficiently isn't all on Leadership to resolve.

There are many reasons for this recurring outcome. There's no one general solution, but there are actions each constituency can take to improve working conditions and outcomes. Let's remember that change (with respect to Agile and on Agile programs) is healthiest and more persistent when it's evolutionary versus "We're going Agile by December 31, xxxx", a goal I have seen repeated annually in some organizations.

1. Leadership: Sponsors and stakeholders continue to believe Agile is an "IT Thing" and all that's required of them is to show up at PI Planning kick-off and approve funding for team rooms (and pizza.) There's also a gross mis-understanding of what "Agile Transformation" requires: It's not the technical teams (and managers) who are participating in transformation, it's everyone involved in solutioning including leaders and stakeholders. SAFe does a decent job calling this out but not as dramatically or as emphatically as needed. Other scaling frameworks (and team frameworks) are more ambiguous (or avoid the topic, entirely.)
2. Middle Management: Middle managers for technical programs are primarily found amongst developers, technical leads, and participants in other technical disciplines. They almost always lack the professional training, coaching and mentoring required to be successful in their new roles. It's not their fault that they're unprepared to manage effectively - They're leadership, too. Those who promoted them without co-developing a Professional Development Plan (and supporting Personal Development Plan) including mentoring are at fault. These culprits are usually the Leadership constituency who continue to believe a promotion to management is a reward. (Ask a newly minted middle manager on a fast moving Agile program, and you're likely to hear the opposite.)
3. Teams: We continue to emphasize (and teach) an inward focus for teams. This serves no one well (especially the other 2 constituencies, but the teams are losing here, too.) A healthy Agile program maintains a lightweight tension and a persistent dialogue between constituencies including a recognition that everyone needs to defer their personal and collective biases in favor of facilitating increasingly prolific team outcomes. While there are no stars or heroes on Agile programs, those closest to the work are best positioned to determine success. Teams lead, too. Middle management is often at a loss to support teams (and individuals) as these managers literally go from developing or leading technical deliverables to being "people managers" over a weekend. Team members quickly learn to avoid or placate these managers. No one is happy.

Closing in on 20 years after The Agile Manifesto, and with ample proven guidance to resolve the challenges cited above, we continue to flail, fume and point fingers. Time for leaders within each constituency to inspect their expectations.