I want more agility. How can I move my organisation towards that goal?
What about classic change management?
The need for change is nothing new. I remember learning the 8-step model at university. But how does an Agile transformation differ from "classic" change management?
It makes sense to start with the relationship to change management. Why? Because all agile methods build on what already exists - for example, one could argue that the foundation of modern agile methods was laid by the TPS (Toyota Production System) in the 1950s. Accordingly, it is not wrong to also reference the 8-step model (Kotter, 1996) as a starting point for Agile transformations. All well and good, but how does this apply?
When you talk about a transformation or about a classic change, you convey a sense of finitude. One "does" a transformation and "ends" a transformation successfully. But this is not agile’s purpose. Why?
The goal of an agile transformation is to build continuous flexibility into the organisation. Aligning the organisation in such a way that it automatically recognises the urgency for change - the culture develops so that one does not try to remain in the status quo with closed eyes for as long as possible, but rather approaches new challenges with an open mind. It is also important to adjust the organisation in order for change initiatives to organically gain the necessary support - the structure must be opened up so that people can empower themselves. Sounds like chaos?
As always, simple, shared and binding rules are needed so that the constant flexibility does not become a constant restlessness that tears the organisation apart. It should be clear nowadays that lethargy is not an option.
Once the transformation flywheel has been set in motion, the first 3 steps of the 8-step model should no longer be a challenge as the organisation is conditioned to continuously execute the first 3-steps of the model automatically.
Find the problem.
If your organisation doesn't have problems, then it probably doesn't exist anymore. Every organisation has problems. How do you tackle the right problem?
Ask yourself if you have really found the problem or just a symptom. Often we feel we know what the problem is, but instead we’re dealing with a symptom. Finding the underlying issues is not easy. Sometimes it takes a while for the real problem to emerge. Is a symptom good enough?
A serious symptom can be good enough. However, it needs to be where the shoe pinches. If your organisation has to really bend over backwards for more agility, it is reasonable to assume that aspects such as culture and structure are not at their best. Still "push full steam ahead"?
This is not necessarily advisable. If an organisation does not yet live agile-compatible thinking, pointing out problems too transparently can lead to a downright allergic reaction. Instead of progress, you then get regression. How can you tell how far the culture has come?
An agile-compatible culture promotes the making of entrepreneurial decisions in a transparent environment. Decisiveness at all levels, high transparency before and during decisions, and adequate execution of decisions reflect positive patterns. If there is uncertainty in this regard, what is the best way to deliver the finding?
The problem should have a certain severity, but not be too threatening. The problem should be somewhat within the traditional area of responsibility, but also concern multiple domains in the organisation. The problem should not have any proven simple solutions, but at the same time focus on achievable improvements.
Without the will, there is no way.
If the leaders of the organisation don't want it, it won't work. How do you overcome appearances and start being?
If the leaders of your organisation do not want agility, then the initiative will not have sustainable success. Why and what are the possible solutions?
The primary problem is that agility cannot radiate in the organisation without leadership support. In a certain microcosm, agility will work, but in the bigger picture, agility will always face insurmountable obstacles and contradictions. This is because the necessary mindset or positive patterns cannot be truly established. It is a classic "doing agile" and not "being agile" case which erodes agility instead of promoting it. It is important to add that one should nevertheless not be dogmatic about this - one grows into agility and achieving an agile organisation is not a walk in the park.
The solution here is: accept limitations, limit agility to microcosms and continuously prove that agile methods bring better results.
But shouldn't we also want agility at the leadership level today? Yes, in the optimal case, management roles have also recognised the signs of the times - provided the organisation moves in a volatile and complex market environment - and wants to change something. The theoretical understanding can be easily acquired. Even "classically respected" magazines like HBR regularly bring up agility. So if you can win the leadership stage, you need a problem to solve. Once you have identified the problem, it is advisable to think about scenarios with the leadership stakeholders early on, as agility is not absorbed by the organisation without resistance.
I have leadership support and a problem - will the organisation just embrace agility? Of course not. The biggest challenge is to make the change "sustainable".
Roll out agility.
Operationalise agility. A difficult task. Not the most difficult, but a difficult one. How do I get going?
There is no need to reinvent the wheel. In fact, you should probably avoid doing so, as you cannot benefit from the lessons you have already learned. It is also helpful to fall back on established patterns. But how exactly should one proceed?
One should be guided by the following three things:
What does our own "attack vector" look like? Large or small? Incremental or radical? Prescriptive or co-creative?
What are our competitors doing? What patterns seem to work in our domain/industry and what doesn't seem to work?
Which concepts from established methods and frameworks do we want to be guided by? Which concrete methodologies do we need and which tools correspond to the culture of our organisation?
These three points interact - you can imagine them in your mind's eye like a triangle - and you then define your position in the triangle.
Accordingly, based on the answer to the first question, it may be that you only get started on two out of five business areas, for example, and then let agility radiate from there.
Based on the answer to the second question, the structure of the organisation may be cut somewhat differently or incentive systems set distinctly.
Based on the answer to the third question, different method modules are applied, for example, in the day-to-day business and at the portfolio level - one is inspired by an established method/framework for the day-to-day business and another is applied at a higher portfolio level.
This custom-fit needs to be rolled out. It is advisable to proceed incrementally and to have an adaptive roadmap. Why? So that one can react adequately to obstacles that arise.
Overcome obstacles.
Obstacles are everywhere. Overcoming obstacles is, next to recruiting leadership support and creating "sustainable agility", probably the most challenging task to becoming agile. How to tackle them?
Obstacles can come from all directions at any time. Accordingly, there are three premises that can be particularly helpful.
Create transparency and keep it high. Without transparency, obstacles are seen too late and may be misidentified. Before the pandemic, one could have advised "Gemba" here - "floor-walking", "going to the frontlines". Since this is no longer possible or, in most cases, ineffective, reporting that is as lightweight and unadulterated as possible with short coordination cycles are much more effective.
Keeping leadership on board. Without leadership support, you don't stand a chance from a big picture agility perspective. Accordingly, it is vital to demonstrate a high level of transparency towards the leadership stakeholders and to keep them continuously informed. This ensures that their trust in the initiative remains constant and that they can advocate for the initiative among their stakeholders, also allowing them to proactively advise and assist in solving obstacles.
Maintain good risk management. Certain obstacles will require difficult decisions to be made. Effective risk management is very helpful in assessing the impact of these decisions. Interactions and dependencies must also be able to be interpreted from a risk perspective. Risk management is thereby also conducive to the first two premises, or rather - as with almost everything in a complex world - there is an interaction.
If one takes these three premises into account and has chosen an incremental and adaptive roadmap (see last and penultimate post), obstacles will always arise, but one will be able to solve them convincingly.
Is everything now peace, joy and happiness? Of course not.
Sustainable agility.
Shouldn't agility be "sustainable" anyway? Yes, but in practice, it often isn’t. What exactly is meant by this and how do I make agility sustainable?
When you think you have successfully implemented agility, you then have to think about making it sustainable.
But you probably can't really tell until a year or two after the rollout is "complete" whether the culture and mindset are also evolving positively.
Here lies the crux - don't let up and remain attentive. But why does this take so long?
You can compare an Agile transformation to a birth. The organisation is reborn, rejuvenated and can rethink what is outdated. But especially at the beginning, it is not yet strong, must be able to learn and needs support.
The organisation acts with agility, but it cannot yet reflect on its actions.
If the organisation has a bad upbringing as an agile toddler, these negative patterns will remain ingrained later.
Accordingly, it is important to get into a healthy learning mode after the establishment of the tools is complete so that the positive patterns can be reflected and anchored.
Just like in the classroom, a few troublemakers can have a huge impact on the learning experience. It is important to remain attentive to this.
The patterns for recognising and solving obstacles discussed in the last post can help.
To continue with this example: Teachers (= leaders) also need to be coached to prevent the organisation from slipping into passive agility.
Maintaining an effective corporate culture is one of the most difficult entrepreneurial tasks.
But if this task is avoided, the organisation will not be successful in the medium to long term.
Note: Corporate cultures are individual; accordingly, there is also a different measure of "effectiveness"; although of course certain universal positive patterns such as "collaboration" exist.
In summary, it is important not to see an agile transformation as a project with a fixed beginning and end.
The idea of an agile transformation is that in the long run, it is the last transformation. As you embed the foundations for more flexibility in the organisational DNA.
At the same time, this needs to be coached in the long term, otherwise, sustainable agility cannot take root.
This important point is often forgotten.
