Some indications your agile transformation is taking on more water than it's bailing out

I'd like to begin this post by confessing an opinion that is especially awkward because of my chosen profession: I'm not a huge fan of agile transformations. In fact, I think they generally suck, not only in execution and outcome, but in what they do to people.

By way of some context, I come to this opinion after years of agitating for adoption of agile practices in companies I worked for, and later as a consultant with my own business. I began my "agile journey" some eighteen years ago (oh, do I feel old...) first with learning and practicing the venerable eXtremeProgramming framework, then Scrum when I could. Certainly, I was a huge fan of empirical process control, and read very widely on the topic of how it came to be and the theories that informed it. Word to the wise: If you haven't read Fred Brooks Jr.'s Mythical Man-Month or Takeuchi & Nonaka's 1986 HBR paper, The New New Development Game, do yourself a favour and read them. It will give some flavour as to how we got here and why we're messing it up.

My dislike of agile transformations is less about what they promised to be in those golden halcyon days of yore in the early 2000s and more about the cynical messes[1] they've become today with, as one colleague hilariously characterizes, the proliferation of LeSS, SAFe, DADs. I don't say this to impugn the motives of the respective creators - they're all smart folks who have a lot of experience, more than me, but I've seen what their ideas have wrought, and it unfortunately appeals directly to a base leadership urge for formulaic delegation of change. The consequences aren't good, and I'd posit that if we're to put forward a definition of what a successful agile transformation looks like, very few if any organizations have achieved it. The reason for this is quite simply because change is difficult and rarely proceeds according to plan or bold decrees.

Accordingly, here are my brief thoughts on why, despite the best of intentions, the agile transformation you may find yourself leading, or embroiled within, won't change much. Let me know if you find simpatico with them, or have other thoughts:

1. It began with an edict or proclamation from leadership, which, while inspiring did not answer a fundamental question: "How? By what method will we achieve this change?"[2] (Hint: It's not by adopting a framework or model)

2. When asking around, there are as many definitions of what it means to be "Agile" as there are respondents. Ditto for "Quality".

3. The edict or proclamation was accompanied by a set of guiding values that all were to abide and live by, despite not having much say in how they were devised. On closer inspection, the values also tended to be more characteristics of an aspirational future-state. In response to questioning "How? By what method?", typical responses included "adoption of an agile-mindset", "authenticity", and "teamwork".

4. The transformation was framed as a "team effort" that everyone would enjoin, but in reality seemed more fixated on changing what people do in specific departments and not the processes, policies, and procedures that have them doing the wrong things righter.

5. It's apparent that despite words to the contrary, most changes are being made in small, localized areas without consideration of who is impacted, or what changes would need to occur in other areas to enable the change.

6. As a consequence of focusing on local optimizations, change tends to be done to people, rather than with them.

7. Unsurprisingly, people on teams are the LAST to be consulted on how to improve the system, and when they are, their responses aren't taken seriously, or are left aside out of fear of not being recognized as the one who came up with the idea. (See #10)

8. HR places job adverts for Scrum Masters, Lean Six Sigma Black Belts, and Agile Coaches to fix errant teams with predictable results. Notably, no one can really articulate the difference between the jobs or how they're not contracted staff augmentation and replacements.

9. Hiring practices under the transformation remain almost unchanged, with resume keyword searches deployed to troll vast databases, invariably catching those that put every buzzword imaginable on their CV, no matter how improbable. Mutterings of "poor quality candidates" can be heard in certain quarters.

10. Despite the deleterious and corrosive effect of performance appraisals, bonuses, and incentive programs have on teamwork and cooperation, leadership remains galvanized around them. During the transformation, two distinct periods can be observed like clockwork where morale crashes and teamwork takes a back-seat to plumping up the commitments documents in the HR database: In the spring and fall.

11. Leadership has not taken steps to learn the theory they are advocating. The transformation is equated to something that is purchased from consultants (eg. SAFe) as opposed to something that begins with themselves through intensive learning of new theory and teaching that theory to others. (ProTip: Pick up the latest edition of W.E. Deming's The New Economics. That's your roadmap to transformation.)

12. Several months or years in, good people have either left the organization in frustration or been forced out for being difficult, unwilling, or just not "getting it" - with those remaining appearing to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. 

13. Finally, after all the pain, toil, and effort, to the outside observer, nothing has actually changed in the organization's overall system. Not a sausage. A change of guard usually happens next, with a VP or some firebrand outsider ascending to the C-Suite with promises to remake what's wrong. And the process begins anew.

In summary, these thirteen points are just a skimming of what I believe holds a lot of transformations underwater, and they share a common root in what Deming referred to as the tyranny of the prevailing style of management. Changing this requires the participation of an engaged leadership because they have the most ability to alter the system. This necessitates learning "new" theory, practising it, and teaching others. It's hard, but I think gratifying work, and it's what intrinsically motivates me to do what I do every day. In much the same way I can't imagine developing software without agile practices, I cannot imagine helping my customers transform without sharing systems thinking theories for process improvement.

[1] Ackoff, Russell. "The future of operational research is past". In: The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol 30, pp.93-104. "Managers are not confronted with problems that are independent of each other, but with dynamic situations that consist of complex systems of changing problems that interact with each other. I call such situations messes. Problems are extracted from messes by analysis. Managers do not solve problems, they manage messes."

[2] Deming, W. Edwards, edited by Orsini, Dr. Joyce Nilsson. The Essential Deming: Leadership Principles from the Father of Quality (p. 69). McGraw-Hill Education. Kindle Edition. "After listening to a corporate executive expound on all the ways in which he was going to improve his enterprise, Deming would ask, “By what method?” This disarmed most people. How is it that you plan to improve? Somehow, once executives had decided that they wanted to improve, the rest would fall into place, they thought. It never does."