Agile Enthusiasts vs. Process Enthusiasts: A Clash Between Flexibility and Structure
In today’s shift toward agility, there are two distinct camps: the “agile enthusiasts,” who prioritize maximum flexibility, and the “process enthusiasts,” who value fixed structures. In an interview during the last Living Change Forum, we discussed the challenges and misunderstandings that exist between these two mindsets. In this article, we dive into the core elements of the discussion and explore how companies can strike a balance between agility and process orientation.
A common misconception regarding agility is that it is synonymous with chaos and a lack of structure. Our Associate Partner Lukas Bargel explained: “When we work on agile projects, we often encounter biases against agility. These often stem from the fact that processes are perceived as static and tedious, while agility is seen as too fast-paced and unstructured.”
Process-oriented employees value clarity and a certain degree of predictability in workflows. They appreciate the reliable progression of phases: a planning phase that is then completed, followed by the implementation phase, through to acceptance and follow-up. Agility, on the other hand, involves similar phases, but these go through the cycle at significantly shorter intervals, as is the case with Scrum, for example.
The main differences between agility and processes lie in timing and adaptability. In an agile framework like Scrum, planning and implementation phases are completed in a matter of weeks and continuously adjusted. One of the major challenges, however, is making this new way of working understandable to the teams. As one forum participant noted: “When the CEO says, ‘We’re going to be agile now,’ it creates uncertainty. A key misconception is that agility comes without structure. But agile methods also rely on clear processes—just shorter and more frequent cycles.”
To foster this understanding, companies often start by introducing a “framework” such as Scrum or Kanban, which provides the team with structure and security. Later, as the teams gain experience, this framework can be flexibly adapted. The introduction of agility should be done gradually rather than overnight, as a sudden change can overwhelm many employees.
A particular challenge is the company-wide implementation of agile methods. “We often see that some departments work completely in an agile manner, while others stick to their existing processes,” said the Agile Coach at the forum. This frequently leads to conflicts, as the terminology and working methods differ significantly between departments. Terms like “PI Planning” or “Scrum of Scrums” often need to be explained to non-agile departments first.
In a complex organizational structure, it can make sense not to make all areas equally agile. Routine tasks and highly regulated areas often benefit from fixed processes, while innovation projects and dynamic tasks require agile work. One participant in the forum aptly remarked: “It makes more sense to introduce agility where dynamic work is truly needed, rather than forcing it everywhere.”
Another aspect that was discussed at length in the forum is the distribution of roles in agile teams. In the agile world, leadership is typically shared: technical leadership, responsibility for the methodology, and process management are divided among different roles, such as the Product Owner, Scrum Master, and the development team. The traditional team leader role is often replaced by a combination of these roles, which can lead to uncertainty among long-time managers.
“In a traditional organization, team leaders held all leadership responsibilities,” explained one of the forum participants. “But now they share their authority with the Scrum Master and the Product Owner, which is a shift for some.” However, this shared leadership model allows for a stronger focus on the individual strengths of team members.
In an agile environment, changes in communication are also part of everyday life. The introduction of agile frameworks brings not only new ways of working but also new terminology, which can cause confusion for many employees. “Many of these new terms originate in English, which creates an additional language barrier,” commented one participant.
The challenge lies in understanding and applying agile terms without losing sight of their actual meaning. “A PI Planning session is not the same as a regular project meeting, and there are clear differences,” the participant noted. A shared glossary or an agile playbook can help address this and assist employees in navigating the new terminology.
Another central concept in agile work is customer focus and working based on hypotheses. In an agile environment, a hypothesis is often formulated regarding customer needs, which is reviewed at short intervals and adjusted as necessary. This allows for regular verification of whether the developed prototype actually meets the customer’s needs.
This working model offers flexibility, but it also requires an openness to failure and a willingness to constantly adapt. One of the panelists commented: “Hypothesis-driven work means that we must be prepared to be wrong sometimes, rather than clinging to our assumptions. Agility requires the ability to reflect on oneself and the courage to acknowledge one’s own mistakes.”
An interesting question is whether there is a natural size limit for agile work. The more dependencies and suppliers there are in a large company, the harder it often is to work agilely. One participant noted: “There is a point at which agility loses speed, and that is often the case when more and more hierarchies and departments are involved.”
A large company that, for example, used to realign itself annually may be able to adapt on a quarterly basis using agile methods. The speed of change thus increases, but remains slower relative to the company’s size than in small agile teams.
Another interesting insight from the forum was that agility is often a decisive factor in the “War for Talent.” Many young professionals today expect a modern work environment based on agility and self-organization. One participant noted: “In the IT sector, there is an increasing demand for agile methods, as younger employees prefer this work style. Employers who don’t offer this run the risk of becoming unattractive.”
This development presents an opportunity to attract motivated employees and give them the freedom to self-organize. At the same time, this way of working also brings new challenges. For instance, agile teams typically require generalists who are capable of taking on various tasks and remaining flexible. Ongoing professional development and collaboration between teams foster the growth of generalists and offer an advantage in the face of a skills shortage.
Overall, it became clear during the forum that agile transformation is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It requires a tailored approach to the specific tasks and departments within the company. A gradual and well-considered introduction of agile methods helps to facilitate a smoother cultural shift and foster acceptance among employees. In this process, it is important to prioritize clear communication and actively involve managers.
One of the great strengths of agile methodology is the ability to focus on what matters most and to continuously reflect on one’s own actions. The future lies in a balanced approach that combines both the flexibility of agile work methods and the stability of structured processes.
The overarching message of the forum is that the debate between agile advocates and process enthusiasts is often based on misunderstandings. Agility does not mean a lack of structure, but rather the ability to act flexibly while still following a framework. Processes, on the other hand, offer security and consistency, but are often less dynamic.
The challenge for companies lies in combining agility and processes in a meaningful way to remain flexible yet efficient. A hybrid work model that adapts to the needs of departments and projects therefore seems to be the ideal solution for companies that want to remain successful in a dynamic and rapidly changing world.