Methods, characteristics and difficulties of agile leadership in the modern working world
Agility is the goal of many companies. This is shown, for example, by a joint study by the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) and the management consultancy Kobaltblau. According to the study, 75 percent of all companies surveyed in Germany, France and Switzerland would like to manage and work in an agile manner. However, according to their own statements, two thirds of the companies have not achieved these goals - and are unlikely to do so. This difference can be explained.
Stocktaking: understanding of agile leadership is lacking in many places
Jürgen Weibler, Professor of Business Administration at the University of Hagen, explains in an interview with "Wirtschaftswoche" that "more is said than done" about agile leadership. He is addressing a problem that the study cited also touches on: There is still a lack of understanding of what agile leadership actually means. A contrast is often drawn between agile management and the corresponding work. The two are not understood in context. For example:
- According to the study, successful agile companies focus on processes in order to be able to react to changing priorities. Companies with agility problems therefore focus on individual areas such as project management.
- Support functions (HR, finance, administration, etc.) are seen as non-agile by 70 percent of companies. The gap between successful and failed companies is also evident here.
- Line management is also often characterized as not being agile. Many companies still believe in the central importance of a boss who can "put their foot down". Weibler argues that this demonstrably destroys motivation.
- Agile companies also use scaling frameworks almost 100 percent of the time. Often two to three are in use. For the other companies, the proportion averages 40 percent and one framework.
- Companies with problems still assign agility to the "classic" areas of IT and research. Successful companies, on the other hand, see product development as the most agile function. This is known to directly affect almost all areas of the company.
According to the official definition, agile leadership includes all steps that make behavior and decision-making in a specific area of responsibility flexible, fast and easily adaptable. Three points can be derived from the contrasts shown and the definition:
- There is no single way to work in an agile way. Different approaches are conceivable as long as they achieve results. Agile methods are also not "golden rules", but concepts that can be adapted to your own situation.
- Agile leadership is unimaginable without agile work processes. How else can decisions be made quickly and flexibly if they cannot be implemented accordingly?
- The introduction of agile methods is often insufficiently planned and encounters resistance from management. Otherwise, the high level of rejection with regard to support functions cannot be explained. This is probably due to a lack of basic knowledge.
Organization vs. methodology - or: success vs. failure
The lack of basic knowledge is evident in the different approaches. It is striking that successful companies always make the entire organization more agile. Failing companies, on the other hand, work in isolation and seem to rely on the added value of methods. They fail to recognize that the current methodology requires comprehensive implementation.
For example: Scrum is probably the best-known agile method - it originates from software development. It recognizes different roles: Product Owner, ScrumMaster, Team. However, the supposed managers only set requirements and remove obstacles. The team itself decides how to achieve the goals. There is a regular exchange with all those involved - often on a daily basis. This does not work in isolation. For example: a team member falls ill and needs to be replaced. If the entire organization is not in a position to implement this, the method will fail.
Other agile methods such as Unified Process, RAD or AMDD are also all-encompassing. The following therefore applies: agile leadership does not work without agile processes. And these cannot be achieved if the entire organization is not fully committed to this goal. Weibler puts it like this: 'A little anarchy does no harm to break up encrusted structures. Of course, there still has to be a fixed framework within which everything moves - people need a certain amount of consistency and deceleration. But this framework can also be "periodically reflected upon and revised."
Characteristics of agile leadership
The reasons for the difficulties of actually wanting to manage and work in an agile manner and actually doing so have been explained in detail. Finally, all that remains is to clarify what specifically characterizes agile management. Ultimately, these characteristics serve the purpose of self-reflection. You can ask yourself whether you are still on the right track. The following characteristics characterize agile management:
- Freedom
- Far-reaching equality
- Willingness to adapt the organization comprehensively
- Culture of trust
- Boundaries instead of rules to create a framework
- Effective and regular communication
- Willingness to say goodbye to what you love
- Fast, process-oriented decisions
- autonomous employees
Sources:
https://wpgs.de/fachtexte/fuehrung-von-mitarbeitern/agile-fuehrung-definition-und-prinzipien/
https://www.haufe.de/personal/hr-management/agile-methoden-definition-und-ueberblick_80_428832.html
