Why Agile? Why any Process at all?

Resistance is a natural reaction to change, especially when it involves a big organizational change like Agile Transformation. People often rationalize their resistance with seemingly valid arguments, such as:

• "Agile doesn’t fit our context—our situation is unique."

• "Our team is already performing well. Why change what works?"

• "Agile slows us down. Too many meetings, less time for actual work."

• "Empowered teams are taking advantage—overestimating tasks or becoming complacent. As a leader, I feel powerless to push them."

Before addressing “Why Agile?”, let’s attend to a more fundamental question first:

Why do we need any process at all?

Imagine three close friends working on a new business idea. They work tirelessly, with shared focus and commitment, planning and executing dynamically without needing a formal process. Their flow of work is organic, and decisions are made ad hoc. Do they need a well-defined process?

Perhaps not.

As their idea succeeds and their team grows to 30 people, they might start feeling the need for more structure. When that team scales to 200 people or even 2,000, the necessity of a process becomes undeniable.

In my experience as a Coach, working with multiple startups and small to mid-size organizations, the need for a process is felt more strongly as the organization grows in size. And the expectations from the process are very similar – ensure predictability of results/outcomes:

1. Good amount of work gets done every week/ month/ quarter (predictable throughput).

2. Completed product/features work as expected, without failure (predictable quality).

3. The product releases happen on time (predictable turnaround time).

4. The market responds to our product releases in a favourable manner, just as we expected (predictable business outcomes).

While the expectations from a process are clear, we all have seen some great teams - of qualified and committed individuals - that can make results happen, no matter what the process. And, there are also some good managers who can make things happen, irrespective of the process, and despite their differing styles (through force, motivation, or charisma).

While great teams and great managers can make things happen, when you are a senior leader looking at hundreds or thousands of people, you want a more reliable solution that is independent of specific high performers.

You want a system that encourages, guides, and shapes people's efforts to ensure positive results, time and again. That is the fundamental expectation from any process.

In the 20th century, many processes emerged to meet this need in manufacturing and services. In software development, Waterfall dominated, with alternatives like RUP (Rational Unified Process) trailing behind—until Agile redefined the landscape.

Before we proceed, let's summarize why we need a process:

1. A process provides proven practices to optimize planning and execution, reducing effort and time.

2. It increases the likelihood of success by preventing or identifying failure early.

3. It reduces over-reliance on specific individuals.

Now, back to our main question - 'Why Agile?'

While all processes aim to increase success rates, they differ in two key aspects - their goals and their style. Agile evolved from the limitations of the waterfall process – both on Goal as well the Style.

The Shift in Goals

Waterfall’s primary goal was project completion: delivering a predefined scope on a fixed timeline. However, in today’s fast-changing markets, this approach struggles with evolving business needs. Agile, on the other hand, prioritizes business value delivery. It enables incremental progress, faster feedback, and adaptation to change—critical for modern product development.

The Change in Style

Waterfall emphasized sequencing, documentation, and compliance, relying heavily on external control. Agile, however, goes beyond practices and processes to foster a culture of self-management, emphasizing:

• Alignment: Clear goals shared by all.

• Autonomy: Teams empowered to make decisions.

• Collaboration: Breaking silos and promoting teamwork.

• Accountability: Teams owning their outcomes.

• Transparency: Visibility into progress and challenges.

Self-managing teams unlock collective intelligence, intrinsic motivation, and skill development, raising performance across the board—not just for a few standout individuals.

Common Misunderstandings About Agile

Despite its benefits, Agile often faces resistance due to misunderstandings rooted in legacy mindsets:

• Directive Leadership vs. Self-Management: Leaders accustomed to controlling teams may see self-management as a loss of power or control.

• Scope/Schedule Fixation vs. Value Delivery: Focusing on traditional metrics rather than outcomes hampers Agile’s potential.

Here are some examples:

• Rohit (Team Lead) feels threatened by self-managing teams as it reduces his positional power.

• Deepa (Product Owner) avoids collaborating closely with her team, believing she knows what’s best for the customer.

• Amit (Program Manager) prioritizes fixed plans over facilitating team collaboration, fearing a loss of control.

• Shruti (Senior Manager) sets velocity targets across teams, focusing on productivity metrics without engaging directly with teams.

Organizations that adopt Agile solely for faster delivery or higher productivity often overlook its positive cultural influence. Leaders who fail to embrace Agile values limit its potential, achieving only temporary and superficial gains.

Final Thoughts

Agile is more than a process; it is a mindset and cultural shift that enables long-term success and sustainable growth. Its success depends not just on teams but on leaders who champion its principles. As the saying goes, an organization’s Agile maturity is capped by the Agile understanding of its senior leaders.