I have already wrote this in another posting, but I like to say/write this regularly. In both courses Chief Digital Officer (CDO) and Dgital Transformation, my beloved tutor, which was choosen as one of the best Tutors in Germany, told us that Culture is the base of all kind of transformations and other changes in general, like scaling a company for example.
I still remeber his word (this man absolutely impressed me!) “If the culture is not healty, you can transfrom and/or digitalise untill you drop, it won’t be successful”
I am living in Germany since 1992 and since a fre years, I see that nothing changes here. Like the like to say “dss haben wir immer schon so gemacht!”, wich means, “we have always done it that way!” Germans are scared of innovation and thy are extremely suspicious when something is new. What the farmer does not know, he does not eat
It’s a bit odd and even frightning, because Germany used to be one of the most innovative and creative Nations in the world. But thos days are over. A fact Germans dont get in their mind.
The culture in German companies is not fit for future.
1. Hierarchical Structures
German companies often have well-defined hierarchical structures. Decision-making processes can be more centralized, with clear lines of authority. Agile methodologies, on the other hand, emphasize flat organizational structures, decentralized decision-making, and empowering team members at all levels. The existing hierarchy can sometimes slow down the adoption of agile practices that require flexibility and rapid decision-making.
2. Emphasis on Planning and Precision
Germany is renowned for its engineering prowess and meticulous attention to detail. This cultural emphasis on thorough planning, precision, and long-term stability can sometimes clash with agile principles, which prioritize adaptability, iterative progress, and the ability to pivot quickly in response to changing circumstances.
3. Risk Aversion
German business culture tends to be more risk-averse, favoring stability and reliability over experimentation. Agile methodologies encourage experimentation, embracing failure as a learning opportunity, and taking calculated risks to innovate. This inherent risk aversion can make it challenging for organizations to fully embrace agile practices.
4. Regulatory and Compliance Considerations
Germany has stringent regulatory frameworks, especially in industries like manufacturing, automotive, and finance. Compliance requirements can necessitate rigid processes and documentation, which may seem at odds with the flexibility and minimal documentation advocated by agile methodologies.
5. Long-Term Orientation
German companies often focus on long-term goals and sustainability, valuing consistent progress over short-term gains. While agile methodologies do support sustainable development, the long-term planning approach can sometimes lead to resistance against the iterative and incremental changes that agile promotes.
6. Communication Styles
German communication tends to be direct and formal. Agile practices encourage open, continuous, and informal communication within teams. The existing communication style might require adjustments to fully align with agile’s collaborative and transparent ethos.
7. Education and Training
The traditional education and training systems in Germany emphasize specialized expertise and structured learning paths. Agile methodologies require cross-functional skills and continuous learning, which may necessitate additional training and mindset shifts for employees accustomed to more traditional roles.
8. Change Management Challenges
Implementing agile methodologies often requires significant cultural and organizational change. In environments where change is approached cautiously and systematically, the rapid and sometimes disruptive changes associated with agile practices can be challenging to implement effectively.
Remark from me: Agility needs courage to follow nw paths, curiousity to discover and learn, creativity to try things out.
And when I talk about agility and agile leadership, they not nderstand what I am talking about! That’s sometimes really frústrating!
I am always irritated when people tell me they are agile, and then they list a whole series of procedures that make even the software development and management methods of the 1950s seem modern and mature.
Being agile and working with agile methods makes sense. Agility starts with taking a few principles to heart. Whether it’s the 12 principles of the Agile Manifesto or the 24 principles from Gil Broza’s book The Agile Mind-Set, you can’t achieve stability in Agile without a foundation of principles. Ultimately, principles are so important because they define certain behaviours. Organisations that don’t embrace the principles of Agile may use some of the associated methods, but they will never be truly Agile.
There are all sorts of reasons why people and organisations shy away from some or all of the agile principles, but whatever the reason, it affects the ability to be agile. The main reason why an organisation claims to be agile but is not can be found in management.
The role of management in Agile
Management plays an essential role in the proper implementation of Agile. A long time ago, the shift to Agile was a bottom-up phenomenon, i.e. teams tried Agile and then convinced management of the concept based on the results and their experience with it. Today, the benefits of Agile are touted to executives in every conference and magazine. Aggressive marketing has made it so that every manager knows the value of Agile. As a result, the shift to Agile has become a top-down phenomenon.
The problem is that while the value of Agile is communicated, the need to change behaviours is not. As a result, the people who want to push Agile from the top down don’t really understand how important it is to internalise Agile principles and adapt their own behaviour. In this case, management sees Agile as a ‘developer thing’ … and not a ‘management thing’. A few years ago, I sat in a meeting with the CIO (IT manager) and his direct reports where the CIO wanted to initiate the transition to Agile. I shuddered when he said very enthusiastically, ‘this year we will implement one or two of the 12 Agile principles and think about the other principles as soon as we have gained some experience’. This meeting made the goal of becoming agile even more distant.
Management buy-in
If you want to find out whether you have management support for agile, look out for these three symptoms:
- ‘Agile’ projects where all three basic conditions are fixed: Budget, scope and duration. Typically, Agile projects have fixed teams; therefore, you can either vary the duration (to deliver a fixed scope) or the scope (to meet a fixed duration). Fixing all three points prevents teams from considering the agile principles and applying the basic agile methods. When all three are fixed, teams must forcefully adjust their velocity or productivity to deliver what is needed – no matter how much technical debt the process creates.
- Command-and-control project management. Agile teams organise and manage themselves. Teams that are led with the command-and-control principle are not agile. This type of leadership cannot be sustained unless it is acceptable to management.
- Detailed task plans at sprint level (or worse at release level). Detailed schedules – usually accompanied by task-level estimates and work instructions – reflect traditional project management, not Agile. Task schedules are created when people working with Agile have either not received proper training or are expected to create schedules that limit their ability to manage and organise themselves.
Conclusion on ‘You are not ’agile’
If management has a major influence on the implementation of agile. If management does not fulfil its obligation to support and promote agile methods, resistance and compromises quickly arise that reduce the effectiveness of agile principles and methods.
More about what agile leadership ois about can be found here.
