Leadership resistance to your pre-mortem reveals whether your organization’s operating model prioritizes comfortable narratives over preventing failure. This article shows you how to diagnose cultural dysfunction and decide which battles to fight.
Many companies adopt Agile practices like Scrum but fail to achieve true transformation. This “Agile Paradox” occurs because they implement tactical processes without changing their underlying command-and-control structure, culture, and leadership style.
True agility requires profound systemic changes to organizational design, leadership, and technical practices, not just performing rituals. Without this fundamental shift from “doing” to “being” agile, transformations stall, and the promised benefits remain unrealized.
“Good Enough Agile” is ending as AI automates mere ceremonial tasks and Product Operating Models demand outcome-focused teams. Agile professionals must evolve from process facilitators to strategic product thinkers or risk obsolescence as organizations adopt AI-native approaches that embody Agile values without ritual overhead.
The data couldn’t be more supportive: Despite 25 years of the Agile Manifesto, countless books, a certification industry, conferences, and armies of consultants, we’re collectively struggling to make Agile work. My recent survey, although not targeting Agile failure, still reveals systemic dysfunctions that persist across organizations attempting to implement Agile practices:
Can you rely on pure Scrum to transform your organization and deliver value? Not always. While Scrum excels in simplicity and flexibility, applying it “out of the box” often falls short in corporate contexts due to limitations in product discovery, scaling, and portfolio management.
This article explores the conditions under which pure Scrum thrives, the organizational DNA required to support it, and practical scenarios where it works best—along with a candid look at where it struggles. Discover whether pure Scrum is a realistic approach for your team and how thoughtful adaptation can unlock its true potential.
Why might leaders turn to the Product Operating Model (POM) after a previous Agile transformation, for example, based on SAFe, failed?
This article uncovers the psychological, organizational, and strategic reasons behind this seeming contradiction, exploring what motivates leaders to believe that a new approach will succeed where others have not.
