A medium-sized organization (that shall remain nameless and you will soon see why) has been struggling with Business Agility for a few years. Recent pressure, blame games, and frustration led to CEO hiring a third party to “turn the negative into positive” and “course correct”. The facilitator invited two groups into a workshop entitled “Business Agility Superformula” but intentionally did not provide any details nor objectives for the session. The title made people curious but also hesitant to come together, fearing more friction.
Part 1: The Switch
When the session started, the facilitator did not ask for organizational context nor list of frustrations. He did not run a retrospective, knowing it will simply surface their shared failures and grievances. He knew, from CEO’s explanation, that was not going to be productive. He showed one simple slide called “Formula format”
… then broke these 12 people into two camps, executives into one and Agile COE into the second one. He first asked each group to write the formula for the OTHER group (mental reframing exercise) and requested maximum five items / factors be used on the left side and maximum two outcomes / impacts on the right. He quickly articulated the left side cannot be people. They have to be aspects of their organization.
Both camps objected saying the exercise is too simple then hoping to do their own formula instead, arguing they knew better. The facilitator stood quietly and simply directed “If you don’t have the information, base your formula on the behaviour you observed”. He shook his head at any further objections and started a 10-minute timer.
The facilitator observed to both teams as they went on through the exercise. He did not get involved. Instead he listened to their conversation. It was far richer and more efficient than any consulting interview he could have run with these individuals.
The Business groups wrestled with various versions presented by executives with different level of Agile understanding (and frustration). Here are a couple of the formulas that surfaced during the exercise:
The Agile COE also struggled based on their level of organizational understanding and personal frustration. Some leveraged their previous business experience while others defaulted to their general business understanding. Here are a couple of the formulas they iterated through:
As the clock run out, the facilitator first incited the Business Executives share their Agile formula they landed on. They were eager to defend it based on their observations, as was the facilitator instruction. They explained the Agile COE spent most of their time on getting executive buy-in or pushing Scrum Practices on teams; their main obstacles were staff waterfall mindsets as well as old organizational bureaucracy; but most importantly that they were primarily focused on how Agile was adopted across the organization. They rushed in a correction that Buy-In was a dimension of impact achieved.
The Agile COE was still stunned with a simple visualization of how their actions were perceived. They didn’t necessarily argue with it. They were still processing it. The facilitator broke their reflections by inviting them to present the Business formula. They cautiously took center-stage, presented the formula below and explained the formula was based on their observation of what executives spent their time on: The activities they most invested and cared about were strategies and executional excellence, with office politics and organizational complexity (including legacy tech) as main frustrations. In their rush, the last part on the right was smudged but still visible. They didn’t bring it up but it caused some unpleasant reactions in the executives.
Only later did both groups realize this part of the session helped them to go pass their own biases and gain a deeper understanding of the difficulties the other group had (shift towards empathy).
Part 2: The Straw-man
The facilitator redirected any emerging conflict by announcing the next exercise. He put them back in the same groups but this time asked them to write their own formula. He re-affirmed there can be maximum 5 items on the left and maximum 2 items on the right. He also requested both teams try to incorporate items just presented by the other teams. He started the timer right away and again he observed and listened to both teams.
The Agile COE did not struggle to align between themselves. Rather, they were still processing the formula Business Executives provided for them and struggled to incorporate the items they included. They especially struggled with executive buy-in being a dimension of impact. Which came first? They also struggled what to put on the right? What was their main objective?
Business Executives were surprised to realize they were not aligned. This simple exercise exposed their own friction points they either accepted and ignored in their day-to-day. They often tried to navigate around them. This exercise forced them to agree on top factors for all. They also struggled with the gap between their intentions and their perceived behaviour being reflected on them via this formula.
Here is what Agile COE presented as their final formula (incorporating items from previous formula provided by the Executive Leaders):
Here is what Business Executives presented as their final formula (incorporating items from previous formula provided by Agile COE):
Part 3: The Epiphany
What followed was a period of reflection. The facilitator invited both sides to “ask questions” trying to understand their formulas, preventing them from defaulting to their past hurts.
One of the executives started right away by saying “You only get C-level support if you show impact.” One of the senior coaches nodded and replied “We cannot achieve impact without your support to overcome operational complexity…” with another coach adding right behind him “And certain impact can only be achieved with higher level of adoption.” The executive pondered their answer, added “I understand but…”, then stopped himself. The facilitator added assisted “Perhaps your executive support is an early investment rather than a late reward.”
In turn one of the agile coaches compared both formulas and highlighted a pattern “We both have common enemies in Bureaucracy / Org Complexity.”
The HR executive contributed “We cannot attract ‘great people’ without evolving our organizational mindset and embracing agility.” Several people nodded.
One of the Agile Coaches asked “Is the ‘Priority Alignment’ a challenge or an opportunity?” Few others joint the conversation debating both sides.
There were a few more epiphanies but I’m trying to keep the story short here.
The facilitator was encouraged by their little epiphanies and voices of support as they understood each other. He issued a final challenge for both groups “Now come together and create a single shared formula.” Groups hesitated but he reinforced “You were able to resolve differences inside your groups. Perhaps this simple tool can help you overcome your differences across.” He started the clock before any more discussion followed.
To get everyone started, one of the trusted Agile Coaches mashed-up the two formulas by combining all the items. Conversation followed as everyone tried to solve this big puzzle, combining concepts, removing items, rewording, and discussing where each item belonged. Here is the final combined formula they landed on:
The facilitator grinned satisfied they were able to align. He started “Excellent work…” then quickly added “But I have one very important improvement. Can anyone guess what it is?” Several people stared puzzled. The facilitator waited for a moment then proceeded to change the formula to:
He explained “I know you’ve been using the ‘+’ symbol in all your formulas. My recommendation is to think about these as multipliers. You may have great leaders and be great at action / execution… but without alignment all your efforts are fragmented. As a result, the top part of the formula will never be able to overcome the bottom part. All of these are required and they need to work together.” He let them process before sharing another point “Furthermore, your operational complexity continues to grow as your organization grows. Your leadership and alignment and action needs to grow in proportion. Yet it maybe be easier to continuously reduce your operational complexity. I’m not talking about process simplification. I’m talking about something much simpler and more flexible… replacing it with team autonomy.”
One of the business people connected “You are saying we cannot effectively grow without Agility…”
The facilitator nodded, pointed to the man, and left the room abruptly. Nothing more needed to be said.
Adam Outside The Box 