Agile washing

Real agility is recognised by the small ‘a’

Why is agile still on everyone’s lips after such a long time? The frequently quoted Agile Manifesto was published over two decades ago – just to give you a rough idea.

And yet the same buzzwords are constantly flying around our ears and the relevant vocabulary seems to be omnipresent: there is hardly a post on business networks without Agile phrases, acronyms from the related ‘new work bubble’ or another colouring from the ‘Agile ink box’. However, it’s not just on the relevant social media channels, but also in the companies themselves that you come across the supposed ‘always pass’ terms.

In fact, some of these terms wear off after a while and are replaced by others in the hope that they will become more effective – zeitgeist doesn’t just apply to fashion, but also to management fashions.

Agile, however, persists and the impression is vehemently created that anyone who is not already agile or has at least started their own agile transformation has already lost. But… what actually?

What is the purpose of the ongoing hype? What does it change after such a long time? And would anything happen if we simply ignored it?

An appropriate name for the phenomenon

Time and again, posts are flushed into business social media timelines that lament all kinds of effects in companies from an agile point of view, such as the ignorance of values, and call this ‘agile washing’.

So the phenomenon already has a name, very good. And with a common understanding of it, it can now be discussed. The analogy to ‘green washing’ is initially obvious:

💡 Companies primarily do façade work without really changing anything.

In the following text, the aim is to look at the situation with a sharper eye and support this understanding. An attempt not only to raise awareness of the benefits that can actually lie behind the practices of ‘agile washing’, but also how to recognise true agility and the demand for it in the first place.

What exactly is agile washing?

The practices of agile washing are primarily aimed at creating a correspondingly agile image and, if at all, at using agility to address an actual problem.

Today, I often see organisations that look agile on the surface, but are not: for example, relevant practices can be observed, vocabulary is used, sometimes even competitive certificates are presented. However, nothing has changed when it comes to the actual problems – the companies are only supposedly agile.

If you take a closer look around these companies, the promises that they thought they would benefit from by introducing agile practices have not materialised and you often search in vain for suitable evidence. But they have neither become faster nor (qualitatively) better. There is no trace of the desired innovation, not to mention the hoped-for competitive advantages. In short:

💡 There is nothing to be found of actual agility apart from an organisational appearance.

Caution, danger of confusion!

The agile cloak of invisibility sometimes hides problems and shortcomings in value creation even better than was previously the case. As a result, things that should actually be brought to the attention of organisations so that they can be addressed continue to slumber in secret. This can be problematic – not only for larger companies, but increasingly also for SMEs, which are desperately looking for suitable ways out under the guise of a shortage of skilled labour and all too often fall into the agile trap.

At first glance, well-done agile washing and genuine agility look confusingly similar. However, if you take a closer look, you can recognise that they have completely different problems in their sights: While true agility can offer a way to increase the responsiveness of teams and companies in dynamic environments, well-crafted agile washing is primarily aimed at faking an appropriate image. You could also call it fraudulent labelling.

And there are actually (at least) two perspectives from which this approach can be useful for companies:

1. You want to be perceived as an attractive employer. A correspondingly agile image works better in the labour market and can be an effective attempt to counter the shortage of skilled workers, for example.
2. An internal company narrative is nurtured: ‘We are agile too – no need to look around, dear employees’.

💡 The ongoing visualisation of agile vocabulary has created a ‘cultural compulsion to conform’.

It is simply good manners to offer current and future employees an agile working environment. Or to put it another way: If you are not agile (transformed), you lose appeal with talent. And the fact that you also play along is something you like to show off.

💡 Agile washing as a ‘measure against skills shortages’ and to ‘prevent redundancies’, you could say.

Just the spirit of the times. And so it’s not just a convenient distraction from actual problems for the naïve applicant, but also stabilises conditions within the company and tends to manifest the status quo instead of bringing a breath of fresh air.

Back to basics – clean language helps

When reading the introduction, did you notice that I used ‘Agile’ as a noun? Probably not, which shows how naturally ‘Agile’ has become part of everyday language. Crazy really, isn’t it?

A good trick in this case is not to approach it from the Anglicism. Why?

Because it could reduce the whole bubble around ‘agile’ to what it should actually be: a simple adjective. Not a loaded ‘Agile’, but simply: agile.

The search for a definition then reveals the following information¹:

• Who or what should be flexible and why?
• Which problems could benefit from agile behaviour and what could these be in concrete terms?
• Which shortcomings should be addressed with more agility?

I’m sure you can easily think of more questions.

Getting to know real agility

True agility cannot be introduced or made. Flexible action is almost automatic when it can help: often in the presence of dynamic problems and all the more likely the better the immediate context reacts in a dynamic-sensitive way and provides conditions that can be conducive, such as compatible decision-making frameworks.

Note: This only increases the probability and is not to be understood causally. Flexibility is not feasible, but must always be observed as a reaction to dynamics. The capacities that make corresponding behaviours more likely can be more or less sustainably held and/or learned organisationally.

💡 If agility is clearly not ‘working’, this is more a reflection of dysfunctional management tools than unwilling employees or their mindset.

The fact that you are on the wrong track can often be exposed relatively quickly:

If agility is perceived as a foreign body, as something that threatens value creation instead of improving it, compensation mechanisms, which could also be called anti-patterns, typically develop. Some of these already occur in the initiation of undertakings that would benefit from flexible approaches:

• Preparation phases (e.g. sprint zero)
• Staffing decisions (role XY is only needed before / after)
• Functional equalisation (the way discipline XY works is not compatible with the procedure)
• (Local) optimisations due to efficiency requirements
• Predefined Definition of Done
• Pseudo-decisions and appeals

Coupled with a pinch of hindsight bias and confirmation bias, this favours an ideal breeding ground for really good theatre.

Some typical indicators of agile behaviour

The chance of a new dysfunctional setup is therefore high. At least if you don’t take a closer look. But where is agile behaviour actually appropriate and how can it be observed?

The ability to react flexibly is mainly helpful where no knowledge is (yet) available or where continuous change is to be expected. In uncharted territory, so to speak. If this is the case, the following behaviours can typically be observed:

• proximity of the team(s) to the market and to users of the work results (or the desire for this) – the use of a method or a label does not qualify
• Balancing internal requirements and external demands in an endeavour to constructively use both the stability and dynamics offered
• Frequent, especially conscious reprioritisation due to changed parameters or findings that are primarily of external origin – i.e. representing the market and/or users
• Generally conscious handling of changes, regular scrutiny and review of effectiveness
• No universal claim to finished, final or any other form of completeness with regard to the work result in order to be able to take account of ongoing dynamics

Of course, this list is incomplete and can be interpreted in detail, but it is nevertheless suitable as a reasonable initial navigation aid.

And why all this?

If you don’t know how to recognise true agility, you may inadvertently pay attention to methods or rituals – and thus stabilise dysfunction or even succumb to scaling efforts. It is helpful to train the eye to see and categorise connections between events and information about the context.

💡 Only when true agility is recognised can it be protected and continue to solve the problems for which it can also be a solution.

Then, and only then – if the solution can also fit the problem – will the promises and associated effects materialise.

Notes:

Are you interested in this or other organisational topics? Thomas Rühl is looking forward to an exchange! He is easy to reach via LinkedIn.

[1] Dictionary: agile

If you like this article or would like to discuss it, please feel free to share it in your network.

t2informatik develops and modernises software as a service provider. Click here to learn more.