Agile’s Angry Teenage Years: Why Agile Is Acting Out, Frustrating Leaders, and What We Must Do to Mature Beyond the Drama
Agile faces a growing credibility crisis. Skepticism around traditional Agile practices is rising, organizational layoffs are forcing role realignments, and leadership remains unconvinced of Agile’s promised benefits. Simultaneously, businesses confront unprecedented levels of chaos, complexity, and change, with escalating pressure to rapidly adapt and deliver.
In response, many Agile practitioners find themselves either defensively justifying their value or passively observing old habits and ineffective practices resurface. Rather than engaging in productive transformation, the Agile community remains caught in endless debates—frameworks versus mindset—while failing to address critical questions: What Agile practices are genuinely effective? Which approaches are creating unintended setbacks? Most importantly, how do we practically move forward?
Let’s break this down clearly, challenge assumptions, and consider alternative perspectives:
What’s Happening in the Industry?
I am observing a growing skepticism towards Agile. Teams are disillusioned, leaders are frustrated, and organizations struggle with implementing Agile effectively. This frustration often manifests as Agile fatigue: eye-rolls at events, pushback against Agile jargon, and a return to old, comfortable habits during times of stress or uncertainty.
Why Is This Happening?
Several assumptions underlie Agile’s credibility crisis:
1. Superficial Adoption:
Organizations often implemented Agile in name only—“doing Agile” without “being Agile.” Practices were adopted without understanding their purpose, creating a shallow and brittle implementation that quickly fell apart under pressure.
2. Misalignment with Leadership:
Leaders were sold Agile as a quick fix, get more done in half the time, rather than a deep, strategic change in mindset and operations. When instant results didn’t materialize, they became skeptical, losing trust in Agile’s promises.
3. Overemphasis on Frameworks:
Agilists often debated methodologies and frameworks, like Scrum vs. Kanban vs. SAFe®, instead of focusing on solving real business problems and delivering measurable value. Framework dogma overtook pragmatic execution.
4. Neglecting Systems Thinking:
Many Agile practitioners missed the broader systems context. They tried to introduce Agile within legacy organizational structures, hierarchies, and incentives designed for command-and-control or waterfall models, inevitably leading to conflict and failure.
Where Have Agilists Gone Wrong?
Agilists, well-intentioned but often narrowly focused, went astray by:
Focusing on Process, Not Outcomes:
Agile became overly prescriptive—more about rigid adherence to rituals than about outcomes and measurable business results.
Failing to Engage Leadership:
Agile advocates underestimated the necessity of executive alignment, sponsorship, and continuous involvement. Agile transformations require leadership to adopt and champion Agile thinking, not just support from the sidelines.
Overpromising and Underdelivering:
The Agile community sometimes exaggerated claims, promising speed, innovation, and flexibility without adequately preparing organizations for the depth of mindset shift and structural changes needed.
Should We Return to Waterfall? (A Counterpoint)
The logical question emerges: If Agile has such significant challenges, does that mean a return to traditional waterfall is better? Absolutely not.
Traditional waterfall methods created substantial issues: rigid planning, prolonged feedback loops, late-stage rework, and misalignment with dynamic business needs. Waterfall wasn’t replaced accidentally—it was insufficient for modern markets demanding responsiveness, speed, and flexibility.
However, the inadequacies of Agile adoption don’t validate waterfall. Rather, they highlight the need for a third way—a balanced, pragmatic approach rooted in empirical evidence, systems thinking, and continuous adaptability.
Where Do We Go From Here? (A Pragmatic Alternative)
We must shift the conversation away from framework debates and orthodoxy towards evidence-based Agile practices proven to deliver real business value. This means:
Using empiricism: leveraging observable, data-driven insights to guide continuous improvement.
Adopting Systems Thinking: understanding that Agile must align with organizational systems, structures, and cultures.
Focusing on Outcomes: measuring success in tangible business terms rather than Agile purity.
Empowering Real Leadership: ensuring that Agile transformations have genuine executive buy-in, alignment, and sponsorship.
The Formula of Evidential Elements of Agility™ is now more critical than ever providing precisely this clarity—a structured, evidence-based approach to agility that identifies what genuinely works, discards ineffective practices, and integrates Agile with real-world strategic and operational needs.
Final Thought (and Open for Debate):
Agile itself isn’t the problem—it’s how we’ve approached Agile that’s flawed. The solution isn’t regression to legacy waterfall practices, but evolution toward a more mature, pragmatic form of agility.
Given this context, let’s consider:
What if we focused less on the methodology and jargon and more on the measurable value and outcomes agility can deliver?
Could shifting the emphasis from "doing Agile" to genuinely "being adaptable" revitalize Agile’s relevance?
How would you challenge or expand on these points? Let’s talk bout it.