The 7 Oops of agility - Chapter 3
Which paths lead to more agility? What do companies stumble over time and again? And what do you have to watch out for so that the whole thing doesn't degenerate into a mishap? This is the third part of a small blog series on the topic of agile change. In seven chapters, I will outline some characteristic phenomena that I experience again and again in my work with various companies. I'm happy if you recognize yourself in one or the other scenario -- and I'm even happier if you find the preventive measures and first aid I describe useful.
Chapter 3: Wash me, but don't get me wet
Mr. Kaltenecker, we need you to get our software development up to speed.
What's the problem? And what has been tried to solve it?
I have already equipped our training department with organizing certified training for all employees across the board.
And what do you yourself contribute to the improvement?
It's obvious: I'm the sponsor of the whole thing!
One of the most dazzling phenomena is management's attempt to keep the changes associated with agility.
We have to become more agile, is the marching order. To remain in military jargon, many troops are set in motion, teams are reorganized, roles are changed, and new communication channels are defined - but the company's own command post and hierarchical organizational structure remain unaffected.
The idea of cross-functionality is only upheld at team level. Already one level above, everything remains the same. Product management, sales, software development and operations managers continue to pursue their own goals: Sales promises the customer things that haven't even been developed yet, business assigns more top priorities, IT is unclear on which strategic goal its own work is paying into, and so on. The resulting dynamics admittedly have little to do with agility.
Management swears itself in to Agile Leadership. The courageous leaders even conduct appropriate training courses while the very overconfident even develop their own principles. However, this changes little in the administration-oriented management practice (keyword: Master of Business Administration).
Senior managers have also learned their lessons in agility by now. In practice, unfortunately, rhetoric often prevails. A consistent change in corporate framework conditions - from the networking of strategic goals to agile financing processes to decentralized decision-making competencies - remains manageable. After all, that might really get you wet and soften your own position of power.
How you can create more washing culture in your company:
When it comes to entrepreneurial agility, top management in particular is challenged. Wanting to promote agility, adaptability and innovative strength, while at the same time sticking to existing organizational and management processes, is like trying to live healthier without changing anything about your current lifestyle.
Agile companies therefore stand or fall with the willingness of management to question not only their own actions, but the management logic as a whole. In the VUKA world, management and leadership are gradually evolving from centralized control to distributed responsibility, from positional power to service, or from a fixed role to a series of flexible impulses that can come from a wide variety of people. In any case, anyone who wants to redesign their company according to agile principles cannot only provide the appropriate tools and craftsmen; they also have to saw their own chair.
Following Russell Ackoff, corporate agility cannot come from the mere addition of agile organizational units. Rather, it is the product of the ongoing interaction between these units. In other words, it thrives on the cross-team and cross-functional collaboration that is needed to deliver valuable solutions to customers and users.
Such an understanding has far-reaching consequences for the management of agile companies. They are challenged to set themselves in motion as well - in the direction of what John Seddon called "working on the system". In other words, one needs to create the best possible framework conditions for those who work in the system -- and organize themselves within it.
Focusing on working on the system basically makes leadership a team sport: it is not one person who is responsible for it ("the leader"), but all those who work together within a given system, shaping both their internal and their interactions with customers and stakeholders.
This requires a clear focus and supportive framework - and a management that cares about their continuous improvement. That can't be done with water-shy MBAs. The motto is to be in the thick of things instead of just being there (see also: Oops - Chapter 1: "The Olympic Idea"). Only when managers are willing to get appropriately wet can they act as the coaches, designers, and architects that are in demand in the agile world (as I discuss in "Self-Organized Companies. Management and Coaching in an Agile World").
And here's to the other oops: