MENU

Change through an organic approach in an agile organization

As an Agile coach you are often asked by management to coach teams and make improvements. This is usually done via an agile framework.
Door: Cindy Goldkade op 21 September 2022.
Read in: 6 minutes.

Unfortunately, implementing that framework only works with full support from the top. You can also implement real lasting change starting with the team, which runs through the organization like an oil slick. This requires a holistic view and organic approach. The cause of certain behavior arises from, and is limited to, how the system works in the larger organizational culture. Only by looking at the needs of the entire system can you ensure lasting change. We call change based on the need that currently lives in the team instead of “Framework printing” the organic approach for lasting change. In this blog we take a closer look at the organic approach. A holistic view is precondition for this.

“By looking at the needs within the organization, you set the engine of change in motion” 

You have probably experienced it: You are asked by management to coach teams in, for example, setting priorities, but the hierarchy of the company just gets in the way. The wishes of the top of the organization are pushed through at all costs. Placing responsibilities low in the organization is often professed, but not carried out in practice. One of the principles of agile working, the "empowering" of people and teams is being trampled underfoot. This often means that the top is not only concerned with the why and what, but also with the how. And that's where it goes wrong. The team cannot focus on how the environment reacts and changes in the team cannot be implemented properly.

You can only achieve the changes that are necessary by also taking the environment into account. In other words, helping the environment to look at the team and the environment with a holistic view.

You see, for example, that a team is "bombed" with assignments from different sides. We call this an island control. From every island (for example service management, project management, security) it is logical to ask what you want from a team. But if you look at the whole and put customer value first, you might make very different decisions. In that case you look at the entire chain, at the entire system. In any case, the wishes that come together in the team are not integrally planned and sometimes even contradict each other.

Lagant Change Guide left 1
Island control
Lagant Change Guide Right 2
Looking with a holistic view

The so-called island culture within the organization is, in addition to other system characteristics, a cause of stagnation of change. There is a lot of resistance to change if the system stays the same. The teams have to change, but the environment does not change with it. They get conflicting signals; on the one hand “Be autonomous!” and on the other side “Do as I say!” (Because I have to hit a target). These two cannot be reconciled.

Such a team can be compared to an angry child. Suppose a child is always angry because they are never listened to, or they stop communicating. As a parent, you can tell the child to be less angry and to tell them more about what is going on. That could be a solution. But how much trust is there in the child? What do you achieve then? As a parent you will also have to work; listen more and better to the child AND do something with it. That is a systemic approach to the child's behavior. Hierarchy plays a vital role in this.

Lagant Change guide work work 3
Company hierarchy gets in the way. The wishes of the top of the organization are pushed through. Change is not forthcoming. 

An organization is often a collection of parent/child relationships (hierarchy). When the top (parents) of the organization listens to and responds to the needs of the teams (child) systemic change can take place. An essential step that is often skipped! Conversely, when the teams become more mature, the top also leaves the parental role and you really get two-way communication that is necessary for good decision-making at all levels in the organization. Stephen Covey refers in this context to interdependence and first to understand, then to be understood.

So what is the organic approach to change in companies? 

Change is often implemented through a framework. If you apply this completely to an organization in one go, you can expect a lot of resistance. if Scrum Master you will actually have to look at what is going on from several levels, and then step by step to get to the end point. Instead of applying a framework in one go, you look for the needs of the team and the environment. You look at what's going on, what works and what doesn't, and how you can fill this in with elements from the agile philosophy. This sets the engine of change in motion based on intrinsic motivation! And yes it's fine to cherry-pick from different frameworks. Because every context requires a different application. So organic change is not only changing step by step, but also each time re-examining and understanding what the need for change is and intervening accordingly.

This organic approach avoids the rigid fixed structure; all pieces from the base are interchangeable. Because you will start working from the needs of the people, teams and department itself, you guarantee change. And you will occasionally be surprised by the action that people from teams take. You were by no means aware of change initiatives in advance, but which do fit within the agile philosophy and way of organizing.

This approach is intrinsic and 'fit for purpose'. There is no 'one size fits all'. Every organization is different in its processes, culture and systems. Each team functions in a different way and has its own dynamics. By working with a fixed framework from the start, teams tend to be more resistant to it. People don't want to be changed, but they do want to change. Of course, a framework can provide a stepping stone and structure to the team and bring some improvement. However, at some point it is really necessary to be able to scale up, but without the support of the top it is of little use. In that case, the organic approach works well. Until the oil slick is big enough, then the support comes from above and you can make a little more uniformity, but also based on the current need.

The organic approach makes change more sustainable. The starting point: adopting the agile mindset. Try to look at the organization from a holistic point of view. Try to change at different levels according to the need of the moment.

Lagant Change Guide Framework 4
A fixed framework creates resistance. 

So how do you ensure that this organic approach to change in companies pays off?

If nothing works because the system is not “set up” yet/you don't have real support from the top, it is best to work with transparency. How do you do that? Start small, regularly put the entire system in one room and ensure shared insights. Take for example the team and managers around it, architects, project managers, HR, service management. Let the team share where the team is and come up with the solution together on the spot. This is possible because the experience, expertise and mandate are available.

Or plan a review session at the end of a sprint, then you have, for example, managers, marketers, sales people. Different layers and disciplines are present in the space. If a marketer then shows the team what he/she has done and also mentions the problems he/she encountered, there is room for improvement. And the attendees understand each other better.

You start from multiple ad hoc bilateral conversations and more towards regular group conversations. The shared insights in these group discussions and the rhythms provide energy for change (more than in ad hoc bilateral discussions). The actions are shared, the rhythm and structure are applied. Then follows the follow-up. This way you can really start solving things within the organization. Humans are creatures of habit and love rhythm and structure. And you will see, one thing leads to another. The desired result: an organization with many feedback loops. A culture of continuous improvement. ownership. Servant leadership to support that culture. The organization is then continuously improving.

 I'm curious what other agile coaches and scrum masters think of framework printing vs organic change. Do you also respond via Linkedin?

Unfortunately, implementing that framework only works with full support from the top. You can also implement real lasting change starting with the team, which runs through the organization like an oil slick. This requires a holistic view and organic approach. The cause of certain behavior arises from, and is limited to, how the system works in the larger organizational culture. Only by looking at the needs of the entire system can you ensure lasting change. We call change based on the need that currently lives in the team instead of “Framework printing” the organic approach for lasting change. In this blog we take a closer look at the organic approach. A holistic view is precondition for this.

“By looking at the needs within the organization, you set the engine of change in motion” 

You have probably experienced it: You are asked by management to coach teams in, for example, setting priorities, but the hierarchy of the company just gets in the way. The wishes of the top of the organization are pushed through at all costs. Placing responsibilities low in the organization is often professed, but not carried out in practice. One of the principles of agile working, the "empowering" of people and teams is being trampled underfoot. This often means that the top is not only concerned with the why and what, but also with the how. And that's where it goes wrong. The team cannot focus on how the environment reacts and changes in the team cannot be implemented properly.

You can only achieve the changes that are necessary by also taking the environment into account. In other words, helping the environment to look at the team and the environment with a holistic view.

You see, for example, that a team is "bombed" with assignments from different sides. We call this an island control. From every island (for example service management, project management, security) it is logical to ask what you want from a team. But if you look at the whole and put customer value first, you might make very different decisions. In that case you look at the entire chain, at the entire system. In any case, the wishes that come together in the team are not integrally planned and sometimes even contradict each other.

Lagant Change Guide left 5
Island control
Lagant Change Guide Right 6
Looking with a holistic view

The so-called island culture within the organization is, in addition to other system characteristics, a cause of stagnation of change. There is a lot of resistance to change if the system stays the same. The teams have to change, but the environment does not change with it. They get conflicting signals; on the one hand “Be autonomous!” and on the other side “Do as I say!” (Because I have to hit a target). These two cannot be reconciled.

Such a team can be compared to an angry child. Suppose a child is always angry because they are never listened to, or they stop communicating. As a parent, you can tell the child to be less angry and to tell them more about what is going on. That could be a solution. But how much trust is there in the child? What do you achieve then? As a parent you will also have to work; listen more and better to the child AND do something with it. That is a systemic approach to the child's behavior. Hierarchy plays a vital role in this.

Lagant Change guide work work 7
Company hierarchy gets in the way. The wishes of the top of the organization are pushed through. Change is not forthcoming. 

An organization is often a collection of parent/child relationships (hierarchy). When the top (parents) of the organization listens to and responds to the needs of the teams (child) systemic change can take place. An essential step that is often skipped! Conversely, when the teams become more mature, the top also leaves the parental role and you really get two-way communication that is necessary for good decision-making at all levels in the organization. Stephen Covey refers in this context to interdependence and first to understand, then to be understood.

So what is the organic approach to change in companies? 

Change is often implemented through a framework. If you apply this completely to an organization in one go, you can expect a lot of resistance. if Scrum Master you will actually have to look at what is going on from several levels, and then step by step to get to the end point. Instead of applying a framework in one go, you look for the needs of the team and the environment. You look at what's going on, what works and what doesn't, and how you can fill this in with elements from the agile philosophy. This sets the engine of change in motion based on intrinsic motivation! And yes it's fine to cherry-pick from different frameworks. Because every context requires a different application. So organic change is not only changing step by step, but also each time re-examining and understanding what the need for change is and intervening accordingly.

This organic approach avoids the rigid fixed structure; all pieces from the base are interchangeable. Because you will start working from the needs of the people, teams and department itself, you guarantee change. And you will occasionally be surprised by the action that people from teams take. You were by no means aware of change initiatives in advance, but which do fit within the agile philosophy and way of organizing.

This approach is intrinsic and 'fit for purpose'. There is no 'one size fits all'. Every organization is different in its processes, culture and systems. Each team functions in a different way and has its own dynamics. By working with a fixed framework from the start, teams tend to be more resistant to it. People don't want to be changed, but they do want to change. Of course, a framework can provide a stepping stone and structure to the team and bring some improvement. However, at some point it is really necessary to be able to scale up, but without the support of the top it is of little use. In that case, the organic approach works well. Until the oil slick is big enough, then the support comes from above and you can make a little more uniformity, but also based on the current need.

The organic approach makes change more sustainable. The starting point: adopting the agile mindset. Try to look at the organization from a holistic point of view. Try to change at different levels according to the need of the moment.

Lagant Change Guide Framework 8
A fixed framework creates resistance. 

So how do you ensure that this organic approach to change in companies pays off?

If nothing works because the system is not “set up” yet/you don't have real support from the top, it is best to work with transparency. How do you do that? Start small, regularly put the entire system in one room and ensure shared insights. Take for example the team and managers around it, architects, project managers, HR, service management. Let the team share where the team is and come up with the solution together on the spot. This is possible because the experience, expertise and mandate are available.

Or plan a review session at the end of a sprint, then you have, for example, managers, marketers, sales people. Different layers and disciplines are present in the space. If a marketer then shows the team what he/she has done and also mentions the problems he/she encountered, there is room for improvement. And the attendees understand each other better.

You start from multiple ad hoc bilateral conversations and more towards regular group conversations. The shared insights in these group discussions and the rhythms provide energy for change (more than in ad hoc bilateral discussions). The actions are shared, the rhythm and structure are applied. Then follows the follow-up. This way you can really start solving things within the organization. Humans are creatures of habit and love rhythm and structure. And you will see, one thing leads to another. The desired result: an organization with many feedback loops. A culture of continuous improvement. ownership. Servant leadership to support that culture. The organization is then continuously improving.

 I'm curious what other agile coaches and scrum masters think of framework printing vs organic change. Do you also respond via Linkedin?

By Cindy Goudkade

People and results, they drive me. I believe that people's happiness at work is determined by the contribution they can make to the organization and the connection they have with each other and the organization. Results will then follow automatically.

Give a reaction

The email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Receive inspiring tips and information every month?

Sign up for our newsletter and receive inspiring tips and useful information every month.
Newsletter Footer

Lagant partners

It is our mission to help customers get their change ambitions to come true.

26 Stationsplein
3818 LE Amersfoort

Our location in Amersfoort is located directly opposite the main entrance of the NS station and is therefore easily accessible by public transport.
If you come by car, it is best to park at the Q-Park P+R Barchman Wuytierslaan, approximately a 5-minute walk from our office.

[email protected]+31 (0)41 322 4106
8.9
 151 reviews
Van AetsveldSLIM subsidy schemeChange guideIPMA CompactPRINCE2 Compact
This website runs on 100% sustainable energy, extracted from carbon dioxide-free and environmentally friendly hydropower.
© 1991-2024 Lagant | All rights reserved |