business Archives - Page 2 of 2

When your product team becomes the bottleneck

In many software companies, the product team slowly turns into an organizational bottleneck. Everything runs through the same few people: feature ideas, customer escalations, incident decisions, and Roadmap calls. Engineers wait for clarification. Customer success waits for answers. Leadership waits for commitments. The product trio sits in back‑to‑back calls trying to stitch it all together. On paper, the organization looks agile: squads, sprints, roadmaps. In everyday work, it feels like an airport. Every flight must ask the same tower for permission to move.

When I meet these teams, I rarely see “lack of discipline” or “not enough process.” I see a system that has grown more complex than its current design can handle. Work wants to flow as end‑to‑end slices of value for specific customers or domains. Instead, it zig‑zags through queues, hand‑offs and status meetings. From an AO perspective, a feature or incident is not a ticket to be pushed through functions. It is a piece of work that needs the right people around it at the right time. In this issue, I share a story from a software product team. They shifted from central routing to a small “feature swarm.” I also describe a concrete AO move. You can try it if your own product team is starting to feel like the bottleneck.

From the field: a feature swarm for a stuck product

A mid‑size SaaS company asked me in when one of their core products started missing every meaningful date. The product team was small. It consisted of one product manager, one designer, a tech lead, and about eight engineers. However, the dependencies around them were significant. Sales wanted customizations. Customer success brought urgent requests. Marketing needed dates for campaigns. Security had its own backlog of fixes. Operations pushed for more observability work. Every Roadmap conversation ended with the same feeling. “We are doing a lot of work, but nothing important is getting through.”

We sketched the journey of one “simple” feature, requested by a strategic customer. The original request came through the account manager. It was translated into a ticket and discussed in refinement. The task was sliced in sprint planning and half‑implemented by one engineer. Meanwhile, another engineer was fixing production issues. Then, the task was blocked while waiting for an API change from another team. Testing happened late, documentation lagged, and marketing found out only when the feature was already live. At every step, people did their best. The system as a whole, however, made it very hard for this feature to move smoothly from idea to impact.

From an AO lens, the pattern was familiar. Everyone optimized their own queue. Nobody owned the end‑to‑end flow of value for this customer. So we proposed a small experiment. For a narrow slice of work, we focused on a cluster of related features for exactly this strategic customer segment. We created a “feature swarm.” It included the product manager, designer, and tech lead. One engineer from the team, a representative from customer success, and someone from operations were also part of it. Their mandate was simple: for the next eight weeks, this swarm owned that slice of work end‑to‑end.

The rules of the swarm were deliberately light. First, any new request in that slice started with a short swarm huddle. The account manager and product manager clarified the real need. The engineer and ops person quickly assessed constraints. Together, they agreed on what “good enough” meant for this iteration. Second, the swarm met three times a week for 15–20 minutes. They decided the next moves across design, build, rollout, and communication in one conversation, not four separate meetings. Third, the head of product committed to protecting a fixed capacity for this swarm and backing their trade‑off decisions.

The visible changes came quickly. Features for that segment started to land in small, coherent increments that customers could actually use. The team cut down on rework because customer success and ops were involved early, instead of discovering gaps after launch. Perhaps more importantly, the product manager stopped acting as a permanent router of every question. In one retro, they said: “For this part of the product, I finally feel like we are a team. We are truly working together.” They felt like they were not just a set of queues with one person in the middle. That observation holds the AO question I would invite you to explore. In your product organization, where would forming a small, focused team around a slice of value be more beneficial? Could this approach serve you better than one more steering meeting or dependency board?

Try this AO move this week – for software product teams

You don’t need to redesign all your teams to start working differently. A pragmatic AO move involves taking one important slice of product work. Treat it as something a small swarm owns together. This method avoids letting it trickle through everyone’s backlog.

Pick one slice of value that really matters. Choose a concrete, near‑term piece of work. It could be a feature cluster for a key customer segment. It might be a reliability improvement for a critical flow. Alternatively, consider the handling of high‑severity incidents for one product. It should be important enough that people feel the pain today.
Map how this work actually flows today. On one page, sketch the real path from “we should do this” to “customers are using it and it’s stable.” Break it down into steps: product discovery, design, implementation, review, testing, rollout, communication, and support. Include the people who actually touch it – not just roles on an org chart.
Identify your minimal swarm. Looking at that map, ask yourself: “Who are the 4–7 people who need to be in the same conversation? They should be involved in this slice from the start.” In many software contexts, the group will include roles like product manager, tech lead, and engineer(s). It might also involve a designer/UX, someone from customer success or support, and an operations/SRE/security professional, depending on the work.
Run a four‑week feature‑swarm experiment. For the next one or two items in that slice, bring this swarm together for:
Watch what they notice, not just what they ship. Track basic metrics like cycle time and rework. Also, pay attention to what the swarm notices. They see recurring blockers, missing signals between teams, and areas where your tooling or organizational structure hinders the flow. Those insights are usually your best guides for the next AO‑driven changes.

A Systems Dynamics Perspective

Executive Summary

Linear and non-linear work approaches serve different organizational purposes. However, in VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) environments, linear methods have critical limitations. This document examines the fundamental differences between linear and non-linear work. It analyzes when each approach is appropriate. The document explores practical failure patterns of linear methods in VUCA contexts. It presents agile alternatives through the lens of Agile Systems Dynamics. Organizations operating in VUCA environments must consciously design their work systems as portfolios. They should maintain linear processes where stability exists. Additionally, they need to build non-linear, adaptive capabilities where complexity and uncertainty dominate.

Introduction

The distinction between linear and non-linear work is not merely methodological. It reflects fundamentally different assumptions about how the world behaves. It also affects how organizations should respond[1][2]. Business environments are becoming more volatile and complex. This makes the choice of work approach a strategic question rather than a tactical one.

This document synthesizes research on VUCA management, agile methodologies, systems dynamics, and organizational learning. It offers practitioners a comprehensive framework for choosing and designing appropriate work approaches. We examine both the theoretical foundations and practical implications through real-world examples and an Agile Systems Dynamics lens.

Definitions: Linear vs Non-Linear Work

Linear Work

Linear work operates on several core assumptions[3][4][5]:

Sequential phases with clear start and end points (A → B → C)
Predictable cause-and-effect relationships that remain stable during execution
Proportionality: inputs produce proportional outputs with minimal variation
Context stability: the environment changes slowly relative to execution cycles
Decomposability: complex problems can be broken into independent sub-tasks

Linear work thrives on optimization, efficiency, and variance reduction. It assumes that if you execute each step correctly according to plan, the cumulative result will match expectations.

Example: Building a standard highway bridge follows linear work patterns. Requirements are known. Engineering principles are established. Regulations are stable. The sequence of foundation → structure → surface → handover is predictable.

Non-Linear Work

Non-linear work recognizes different system characteristics[3][6][7][8]:

Progress occurs through feedback loops, iteration, and branching paths
Small changes can produce disproportionate effects (non-proportionality)
Outcomes emerge from interactions among many autonomous agents
Context co-evolves: the environment and the work influence each other continuously
Systems cannot be meaningfully decomposed without losing essential dynamics

Non-linear work optimizes for learning speed, resilience, and adaptability. It assumes that uncertainty and emergence are inherent, requiring continuous sensing and adjustment.

Example: Building a digital platform ecosystem involves understanding evolving customer behavior. Emerging technologies and shifting competitive dynamics must also be considered. This requires non-linear work. You release, observe, learn, adapt, pivot, and co-evolve with users and the market.

Where Each Approach Excels

When Linear Work is Appropriate

Linear work remains superior in specific contexts[3][4][5]:

Complicated but Stable Domains

Problems with many interdependent parts, but predictable behavior
Examples: standard ERP implementations, regulatory compliance reporting, established manufacturing processes
Expertise and best practices provide reliable guidance

Repeatable Operations

Low variance in inputs and environment
Focus on throughput optimization, cost reduction, and quality consistency
Value comes from execution excellence, not discovery

Slow-Changing Environments

Environmental change occurs more slowly than delivery cycles
Long-term infrastructure programs, routine operations, safety-critical systems
Deviation carries higher risk than delay

Benefits of Linear Work:

High resource utilization and efficiency
Accurate forecasting of time, cost, and capacity needs
Clear accountability through defined handoffs
Lower coordination overhead for routine tasks

When Non-Linear Work is Superior

Non-linear work becomes essential in different conditions[6][7][8][9]:

VUCA Environments

Volatility: rapid, unpredictable changes in key variables
Uncertainty: limited predictability of events and outcomes
Complexity: many interconnected, interacting factors
Ambiguity: unclear cause-effect relationships, multiple interpretations

Complex Adaptive Systems

Multiple autonomous agents with local goals and decision rules
Emergent patterns arise from agent interactions
Examples: markets, ecosystems, organizational cultures, innovation

High Novelty and Learning Requirements

Past solutions are weak predictors of future success
Problem definition itself evolves through exploration
New business models, transformations, breakthrough innovations

Benefits of Non-Linear Work:

Higher adaptability and resilience to unexpected change
Better fit to emergent opportunities and threats
Continuous learning and course correction
Encourages experimentation and diversity of approaches
Enables distributed decision-making closer to information sources

Comparative Overview

Aspect	Linear Work	Non-Linear Work
World assumption	Mostly stable, predictable	Volatile, emergent, interconnected
Planning style	Upfront, detailed, phase-gated	Rolling, adaptive, scenario-based
Control logic	Command-control, variance reduction	Distributed control, feedback loops
Optimization focus	Efficiency, cost, utilization	Learning speed, resilience, adaptability
Typical methods	Waterfall, stage-gate, linear KPIs	Agile/lean, experiments, probe-sense-respond
Best domain	Complicated, repeatable work	Complex, novel, strategic work
Feedback timing	Late, end-loaded	Early, frequent, structured
Scope management	Fixed upfront scope	Evolving scope via backlog

Table 1: Comparison of linear and non-linear work characteristics

Can We Use Linear Work in a VUCA World?

The answer is nuanced: yes, but within boundaries and as part of a conscious portfolio design[7][9][10][11].

The Dual Reality

Research on VUCA management emphasizes that the overall environment may be increasingly complex and volatile. However, not every organizational subsystem operates in that regime. The overall environment may be more complex and volatile, but individual subsystems may not necessarily follow that pattern[9][10][11]. Organizations that thrive in VUCA view themselves as complex adaptive systems. Some components remain highly standardized. Others are deliberately exploratory.

Appropriate Use of Linear Work in VUCA

Linear work remains valid for:

Core regulated processes: Finance closing, payroll, compliance, safety-critical operations where deviation is risky and learning cycles are long
Validated implementations: Once a new process has been validated through experiments and pilots, its broader rollout may follow a linear playbook
Infrastructure and support: Stable technology infrastructure, routine maintenance, established service delivery

When Linear Planning Becomes Dangerous

Linear approaches create risk when applied to[7][9][11][12]:

High-uncertainty strategic domains (new product strategy, digital ecosystem plays, major organizational redesign)
Contexts where problem definition itself is evolving
Initiatives spanning multiple years in rapidly changing markets
Cross-functional transformations involving cultural and power dynamics

The Ambidextrous Organization Pattern

A pragmatic organizational design is the dual-system or ambidextrous approach[1][7][9][11]:

One subsystem optimized for efficiency and execution (linear processes)
Another subsystem optimized for exploration and adaptation (non-linear processes)
Explicit interfaces, governance, and resource allocation between the two
Dynamic rebalancing based on environmental scanning

Research on strategic agility and VUCA management consistently supports this ambidexterity. Organizations maintain “structural separation with senior team integration.” This approach balances exploitation and exploration[1][9][11].

Agile Systems Dynamics Lens

Agile Systems Dynamics (ASD) explicitly models organizations as non-linear social systems. In these systems, “agile” emerges as a pattern of evolving behavior. It is not a fixed framework or methodology[13][14].

Core ASD Perspectives on Linear vs Non-Linear Work

1. Agents and Objectives vs Tasks and Phases

Traditional linear work assumes agents (teams, leaders, departments) will execute a predefined chain of tasks. ASD recognizes that:

Agents have partially aligned or conflicting objectives[13][14]
Their interactions, power relations, and local decisions alter the trajectory
Work design must account for agent autonomy and goal diversity

Non-linear work explicitly acknowledges agent dynamics. It builds coordination mechanisms that allow local adaptation within boundaries. These mechanisms avoid enforcing rigid task sequences.

2. Feedback Loops as the Real Engine

Agile practices (sprints, reviews, retrospectives, continuous discovery) are mechanisms to generate and process feedback faster than the environment changes[13][14].

From an ASD perspective:

Non-linear work is designed around fast learning loops that update local rules, structures, and strategies continuously
Linear work tends to suppress or delay feedback through long phases and late integration, which increases risk in complex domains

The quality and speed of feedback loops determine system agility more than any particular methodology or tool.

3. Structural Coupling with Environment

A system demonstrates agility in ASD when its internal structures co-evolve with environmental signals. These structures include roles, policies, cadences, and decision rights. This evolution occurs rather than resisting these signals[13][14].

Linear work assumes weak coupling: the environment can be treated as constant during execution
Non-linear work assumes strong coupling and builds mechanisms to adapt structure as the system learns

Agile transformations that succeed change not just process but also governance, incentives, and power distribution to enable structural adaptation.

4. Portfolio of Dynamics, Not One Best Practice

ASD reframes the linear vs non-linear question as a dynamics design question:

Where do we want stabilizing dynamics? (standardization, low variance, linear throughput)
Where do we want exploratory dynamics? (experiments, branching paths, non-linear scaling effects)
How do we design coherent interaction rules between these dynamics?

The art of organizational design in VUCA involves creating systems. These systems do not oscillate between chaos and rigidity. Instead, they maintain dynamic balance.

ASD-Style Diagnostic Questions

For any work stream, ASD would guide leaders to ask:

Information decay rate: How quickly does external information (customers, regulators, competitors, technology) invalidate our current plan?
Agent coordination complexity: How many autonomous agents must coordinate, and how aligned are their objectives?
Cost asymmetry: What is the cost of being wrong vs the cost of being slow?
Feedback availability: How quickly can we generate reliable feedback about our decisions?

Decision heuristic:

Plans invalidate slowly + few agents + aligned objectives + high cost of delay → Bias toward linear work with light feedback
Plans invalidate quickly + many agents + conflicting objectives + high cost of error → Design non-linear work with explicit agile feedback loops and adaptive structures

Practical Examples of Linear Work Failing in VUCA

Understanding failure patterns helps organizations recognize when they are applying linear methods inappropriately[12][15][16][17].

Typical Failure Patterns

Plans Become Obsolete on Contact with Reality

Traditional strategy and annual planning often assume environmental stability. In VUCA contexts, markets, technologies, or regulations shift before execution completes, rendering detailed plans irrelevant[12][18][19].

Strategy research shows that rigid plan-and-execute approaches lead to “implementation crises.” In these situations, employees no longer see connections between daily decisions and the original strategy[12][18]. Organizations experience:

95% of employees not understanding how to act on strategy[12]
Repeated re-planning while competitors adapt faster[12][18]
Strategy documents becoming “implementation theater” rather than decision guides[12]

Rigid Phase-Gates Delay Feedback

Waterfall and heavy linear methods lock requirements and design early, with testing and user feedback only at the end. In unstable contexts, this means validating solutions only after environments and needs have changed[15][16][20].

Empirical research on projects in adverse (VUCA) environments shows method misfit to the level of change. This misfit significantly increases failure rates in time. It also affects budget and goal achievement[15].

Example 1: Public-Sector IT (Waterfall Failure)

Context: A large police IT system in Scotland (i6) ran as a classic waterfall project. It assumed an existing solution could be linearly adapted. This adaptation aimed to replace approximately 130 processes and systems[16].

What happened:

As complexity and interdependencies emerged (bespoke needs, cross-system standards, data integration issues), the original linear plan could not absorb the learning
Rework exploded, delays accumulated, coding flaws multiplied
The contract was eventually terminated despite stakeholders “doing everything by the book”[16]

Why this is a VUCA/linear mismatch:

High uncertainty about integration with many legacy systems
Multiple stakeholders with evolving requirements
Governance optimized for documentation and pre-contract certainty instead of iterative discovery and incremental integration[16][20]

Example 2: Strategy Implementation Crisis

Context: In volatile markets, traditional multi-year top-down strategy rollouts frequently fail because plans cannot guide decisions once conditions change[12][18][19].

Failure mechanisms:

Strategy documents define targets and initiatives but lack simple decision rules for teams facing local surprises (e.g., sudden competitor entry, supply disruption)[12][18]
Linear cascades through annual cycles prevent rapid adjustment
By the time budgets and objectives are updated, markets have moved again[12][18][19]

Impact: Research and practice reports show that strategies framed as fixed plans become disconnected from daily operations. Executives endlessly re-plan while implementation stalls[12][18].

Example 3: COVID-19 and Just-In-Time Supply Chains

Context: Global supply chains were optimized linearly for cost and efficiency—just-in-time inventory, minimal buffers, long single-source chains—assuming smooth, predictable flows[21][22][23].

What failed:

When borders closed or suppliers stopped during COVID-19, companies had little visibility beyond tier-1 suppliers and almost no slack
Cascading shortages and long recovery times resulted
Planning models treated demand and supply as stable and independent, not as coupled non-linear systems with correlated shocks[21][22][23]

Linear work vulnerability:

Response plans were not designed for rapid scenario updates and local decision-making
Companies that stuck to original sourcing and inventory assumptions suffered deeper and longer disruptions than those that adjusted quickly[21][22][23]

Example 4: Digital Transformation as Linear Rollout

Context: Many digital transformations are organized as linear programs. They begin by defining the target state. Next, they involve selecting technology and implementing in phases. Finally, these programs roll out to all units[17][20].

Failure statistics: Studies show 70-90% of such initiatives fail or stall[17].

Key patterns:

Inflexible culture and process suffocate experimentation, so pilots do not reveal real adoption dynamics and scaling issues until too late[17]
Bureaucratic waterfall phases (heavy documentation, long approvals) slow learning and prevent teams from adapting when they discover new needs or constraints[17][20]
Rigid, top-down approaches collide with evolving technologies, unclear use cases, and changing organizational power dynamics[17]

Systemic Structure of These Failures (ASD Interpretation)

From an Agile Systems Dynamics perspective, each failure shares the same underlying structure. There is strong non-linearity in the environment and organization. However, work is designed as if the system were linear.

Hidden feedback loops and delays:

In IT and transformation cases, feedback (real user needs, integration issues, cultural blockers) appears late and is filtered through governance layers
Corrective action arrives when the cost of change is maximal[16][17][20]

Misaligned agent goals:

In strategy and transformation, executives optimize for plan certainty and budget approval while local teams need decision flexibility
Linear design amplifies goal conflicts instead of exposing and renegotiating them early[12][17][18]

Over-optimization for single objectives:

Just-in-time supply chains optimized for efficiency at the expense of resilience, ignoring non-linear risk amplification when shocks hit tightly coupled networks[21][22][23]

ASD would model these as systems where reinforcing loops (commitment to original plan, sunk-cost bias, local optimization) overpower balancing loops. These balancing loops include experimentation, early feedback, and design for resilience. This leads to brittle behavior when VUCA factors spike.

Agile Alternatives That Succeed in VUCA

Agile alternatives succeed where linear methods fail. They treat work as iterative and feedback-driven. The process is emergent rather than as fixed linear plans. They optimize for learning speed, resilience, and adaptability instead of upfront certainty[1][18][24][25][26][27].

Core Agile Patterns for VUCA

Short Feedback Cycles and Incremental Delivery

Frameworks like Scrum, Kanban, and related agile practices rely on small batches. They emphasize frequent inspection and adaptation through sprints, reviews, and retrospectives. This approach allows teams to update plans as volatility unfolds[24][25][26].

Contrast with linear delivery:

Linear “big-bang” delivery delays learning until the end
In high uncertainty, shorter cycles significantly improve fit to changing customer and stakeholder needs[24][25]

Emergent and Adaptive Strategy

Emergent strategy approaches deliberately treat complex contexts as spaces. In these spaces, problem definition and solution co-evolve. They use principles and decision rules instead of detailed long-range plans[18][28][29].

Strategy work in VUCA:

Uses iterative scenario planning, continuous sensing, and “act-sense-respond” logics
Aligned with Cynefin’s complex/chaotic domains
Replaces linear “analyze-plan-execute” with adaptive frameworks[18][28]

Concrete Agile Alternatives by Domain

Product Development and Transformation

Scrum, Kanban, and Hybrid Agile

Systematic reviews illustrate that customizing agile frameworks to context increases responsiveness. Such customization also reduces time-to-market and improves customer satisfaction in volatile environments[24][25][26].

Why they succeed:

Replace fixed scope and long upfront design with prioritized backlogs
Enable incremental releases and continuous refinement
Succeed where waterfall frequently fails in digital and transformation initiatives[17][24][25]

Continuous Discovery and Dual-Track Agile

Successful organizations separate discovery from delivery. Discovery means learning what to build. Delivery is the process of building it. They run experiments, prototypes, and user tests in parallel with incremental implementation[25][26].

Advantage:

Avoids the linear trap of freezing requirements too early
Tests assumptions quickly, reducing risk of late, expensive surprises[17][25]

Strategy and Portfolio in VUCA

Agile and Emergent Strategy Frameworks

Emergent strategy methods explicitly framed for VUCA treat strategy as a living framework. This framework consists of constraints, options, and hypotheses. It is refined through iterative tests and feedback[1][18][28][29].

Characteristics:

Use design principles, option portfolios, and regular strategy reviews
Replace infrequent rigid planning cycles
Enable faster strategic pivots when conditions shift[1][18][28][29]

Agile Portfolio Management

Agile portfolio approaches use shorter funding cycles. They rely on lean business cases and frequent reprioritization. These methods help to shift investment across initiatives as new information emerges[25][26].

Benefit: Overcomes the linear “lock-in” of multi-year fixed business cases that become misaligned in volatile markets.

Supply Chains and Operations

Agile and Resilient Supply Chains

Post-COVID-19 analyses show that companies with more agile supply chains recovered faster. These agile supply chains include multi-sourcing, regionalization, flexible capacity, and digital control towers. They captured market share compared with linear just-in-time models optimized only for cost[21][22][23][27][30].

Key features:

Continuous monitoring and scenario planning
Cross-functional collaboration
Near real-time reconfiguration of flows and suppliers[22][27][30]

Network Agility and Modular Operations

Leaders build modular operations and flexible supplier networks. They segment supply chains to enable different responses for different product segments. This approach is preferred over one monolithic plan[21][22][27][30].

Leadership, Learning, and Organization Design

Agile Leadership Practices

Agile leadership in VUCA emphasizes clear intent with flexible paths, frequent delivery, open communication, experimentation, and empowerment over command-and-control[26][31][32].

Focus areas:

Framing problems and setting boundaries
Enabling local decisions
Makes organizations more responsive than purely top-down linear decision chains[26][31][32]

Agile Learning and Continuous Improvement

Agile learning focuses on rapid learning loops, cross-functional collaboration, and application of new knowledge to new situations. This approach is strongly associated with higher agility and better outcomes in VUCA contexts[1][25][26].

Systematic reviews of agile transformations highlight adaptive leadership, continuous improvement, and contextual tailoring of methods as key success drivers[1][25].

Comparison: Linear vs Agile in VUCA

Dimension	Linear Method in VUCA	Agile Alternative That Succeeds
Planning horizon	Long, fixed plans	Short cycles, rolling planning
Scope	Fixed upfront scope	Evolving scope via backlog
Feedback	Late, end-loaded	Early, frequent, structured
Strategy	Plan-then-execute	Emergent, iterative strategy
Supply chain	Cost-optimized just-in-time	Resilient, multi-sourced, digital
Leadership	Command-control, predict-control	Empowering, adaptive leadership
Learning	End-of-phase reviews	Continuous improvement loops
Risk management	Upfront risk assessment	Iterative risk discovery
Decision-making	Centralized, hierarchical	Distributed, context-driven

Table 2: Linear methods vs agile alternatives in VUCA contexts

Practical Implications and Recommendations

For Leaders and Practitioners

Conduct honest context assessment: Use ASD diagnostic questions to determine where linear vs non-linear work is appropriate in your organization
Design dual systems explicitly: Do not treat the entire organization as either linear or agile—consciously architect ambidextrous portfolios
Invest in feedback infrastructure: The quality of your feedback loops determines agility more than any methodology label
Build adaptive capacity: Train leaders and teams in sensing, interpreting, and responding to weak signals rather than just executing plans
Challenge linear defaults: Question assumptions of stability, predictability, and proportionality in strategy, transformation, and innovation work
Create safe-to-fail experiments: In uncertain domains, design small, reversible experiments rather than betting everything on a single linear plan

When to Keep Linear Approaches

Linear work remains valuable when:

Operating in Cynefin’s “obvious” or “complicated” domains
Executing validated solutions at scale
Managing regulated, safety-critical, or compliance-driven processes
Optimizing stable, repeatable operations

When to Shift to Non-Linear Approaches

Non-linear work becomes essential when:

Operating in Cynefin’s “complex” or “chaotic” domains
Facing high uncertainty about problem definition or solution
Navigating rapid environmental change
Managing multi-stakeholder systems with emergent dynamics
Leading innovation, transformation, or strategic change

Conclusion

The choice between linear and non-linear work is not ideological but contextual and strategic. In a VUCA world, organizations must develop the capability to consciously design portfolios of work dynamics. They should maintain efficiency where stability exists. They must also build adaptability where complexity and uncertainty dominate.

Agile Systems Dynamics provides a powerful lens for understanding this design challenge. It emphasizes that agility emerges from the interplay of agents, feedback loops, and structural coupling with the environment. Agility stems from conscious dynamics design rather than from adopting any single methodology.

The evidence is clear. Linear methods optimized for predictability and efficiency fail systematically in VUCA contexts. These contexts are characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. Thriving organizations do not abandon structure. They build adaptive structures using short feedback cycles and emergent strategy. They employ modular operations and empowering leadership. This helps them sense and respond faster than their environments change.

The imperative for leaders is not to choose between linear and non-linear work universally. Instead, they must develop the sophistication to diagnose context. They need to design appropriate dynamics and build organizational capabilities for both exploitation and exploration. This ambidexterity—maintaining stability where needed while fostering agility where required—represents the essence of organizational fitness in VUCA environments.

References

[1] ScienceDirect. (2024). Managing the VUCA environment: The dynamic role of organizational learning and strategic agility. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019850124002062

[2] World Scientific. (2025). From VUCA and BANI to a PUMO World: Why Agile Innovation Is Not Enough. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0219877025500129

[3] Neis, P. E. (2025, October 16). Linear vs. Non-Linear Systems. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/linear-vs-non-linear-systems-pierre-e-neis-0mt2e

[4] Lepaya. (2021, March 10). Linear vs Non-linear Learning and the Future of Work. https://www.lepaya.com/blog/linear-and-non-linear-learning

[5] Pinckley, C. (2020, May 4). What’s Working and What’s Not Right Now? Linear Vs. Nonlinear Thinking. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-working-right-now-linear-vs-nonlinear-thinking-chris-pinckley

[6] Chuck’s LAMP. (2009, April 10). What kind of thinker am I? Linear vs. Non-linear thinking. https://chuckslamp.com/index.php/2009/04/11/non-linearthinking/

[7] Digital Leadership. (2024, April 23). VUCA World – Meaning, Examples And Management Steps. https://digitalleadership.com/blog/vuca-world/

[8] Agile Organization. (2026, January 14). The Dynamics of Agile Systems: Key Insights. https://agile-organization.com/2026/01/15/the-dynamics-of-agile-systems-key-insights/

[9] University of Western Ontario. (2021, August 1). Initiating Leadership Development In a VUCA Environment. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1233&context=oip

[10] Cadmus Journal. (2024, July 30). A Scale Development for VUCA World Management. https://www.cadmusjournal.org/article/volume-5-issue-3-p2/vuca-world-management

[11] Arkaro. (2025, August 3). Strategy Implementation Crisis: When Plans Fail in VUCA. https://arkaro.com/strategy-implementation-crisis/

[12] Neis, P. (2026, February 17). Agile Systems Dynamics: A New Approach to Organizational Behavior. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/pierreneis_agile-systems-dynamics-field-guide-activity-7429837448886530049-aX23

[13] Agile Organization. (2026, January 14). The Dynamics of Agile Systems: Key Insights. https://agile-organization.com/2026/01/15/the-dynamics-of-agile-systems-key-insights/

[14] Neis, P. (2026, February 17). Agile Systems Dynamics: A New Approach to Organizational Behavior. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/pierreneis_agile-systems-dynamics-field-guide-activity-7429837448886530049-aX23

[15] SciELO. (2023, June 4). VUCA environment on project success: The effect of agility and resilience. https://www.scielo.br/j/bbr/a/mK4tMzsYMRhKLJbxPCL4c7w/

[16] UK Campaign for Change. (2017, March 8). A classic “waterfall” IT project disaster – yet officials went by the book. https://ukcampaign4change.com/2017/03/09/a-classic-waterfall-it-project-disaster-yet-officials-went-by-the-book/

[17] Veremark. (2025, May 2). Why Digital Transformations Fail and What Lessons Can Be Learned. https://www.veremark.com/blog/why-digital-transformations-fail-and-what-lessons-can-be-learned

[18] Arkaro. (2025, July 19). Strategy in a VUCA World: Emergent Approach Guide. https://arkaro.com/strategy-in-a-vuca-world/

[19] IMD. (2015, March 17). Is VUCA the end of strategy and leadership? https://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/leadership/articles/is-vuca-the-end-of-strategy-and-leadership/

[20] SCIRP. (2025, April 24). A Case Study on Adaptation of Waterfall Methodology. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=142222

[21] McKinsey. (2020, October 8). COVID-19 and supply-chain recovery: Planning for the future. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/covid-19-and-supply-chain-recovery-planning-for-the-future

[22] Bain & Company. (2020, April 9). Covid-19: Protect, Recover and Retool. https://www.bain.com/insights/covid-19-protect-recover-and-retool/

[23] PMC. (2021, May 19). Bend or break? Small business survival and strategies during COVID. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9764849/

[24] Adesso. (2023, February 22). Using agile working methods to navigate the VUCA world. https://www.adesso.de/en/news/blog/10-agile-software-development-using-agile-working-methods-to-navigate-the-vuca-world-2.jsp

[25] IntechOpen. (2024, November 6). Business Strategies and Best Practices for VUCA and BANI World. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/1205762

[26] Gemrain. (2024, July 22). Thriving in Uncertainty: Agile Leadership for the VUCA Environment. https://www.gemrain.net/post/thriving-in-uncertainty-agile-leadership-for-the-vuca-environment

[27] Bain & Company. (2020, April 26). Supply Chain Lessons from Covid-19: Time to Refocus. https://www.bain.com/insights/supply-chain-lessons-from-covid-19/

[28] Hult. (2018, March 11). Managing strategy in a VUCA world. https://www.hult.edu/blog/managing-strategy-in-a-a-vuca-world/

[29] Haas Consulting. (2024, March 14). Agile strategy development in the VUCA world. https://haas-consulting.tech/en/neuer-ansatz-agile-strategie-entwicklung-in-der-vuca-welt/

[30] Knowledge Ridge. (2025, October 21). 3 COVID-19 Lessons for Agile Supply Chain Software. https://www.knowledgeridge.com/expert-views/3-covid-19-lessons-for-agile-supply-chain-software/

[31] Kaizenko. (2023, December 11). Leadership Agility in a VUCA World: Strategies for Success. https://www.kaizenko.com/leadership-agility-in-a-vuca-world/

[32] Harvard Business. (2025, February 10). Thriving in the Most VUCA of VUCA Environments. https://www.harvardbusiness.org/insight/february-2025-the-leaders-agenda-navigating-uncertainty-thriving-in-the-most-vuca-of-vuca-environments/

Get the ASD Book

An Analysis of #play14 Through the Agile Organization Method Framework

Abstract

This paper examines #play14. It is a recurring international unconference focused on serious games. The paper studies it through the lens of the Agile Organization (AO) Method. We demonstrate that #play14 functions as a “micro-organization.” It manifests core AO patterns—platform, plexus, swarms, coherence, and simple rules—in concentrated form. We analyzed #play14’s structure, governance, and operational dynamics systematically. Our analysis shows that minimal organizational infrastructure combined with a clear purpose can generate high-quality collaboration. Well-designed interaction rules help achieve learning and innovation without traditional hierarchical control. The paper contributes to organizational agility theory. It provides empirical grounding for lightweight organizational designs. It also offers practitioners a concrete exemplar for implementing AO principles. Our findings suggest that the #play14 model represents a viable alternative to conventional organizational structures. This is especially true for knowledge work contexts requiring high adaptability. It also requires participant engagement.

Keywords: organizational agility, unconference, serious games, platform organizations, self-organization, Agile Organization Method, Open Space Technology

1. Introduction

Contemporary organizations face mounting pressure to achieve agility. They need the capacity to sense and respond rapidly to environmental changes. They must also maintain coherence and effectiveness[40][42][46][47]. Significant research has examined agile software development practices and their organizational implications[40][42][46]. However, less attention has been given to organizational forms that embody agility as an intrinsic property. These forms see agility as a natural characteristic rather than an adopted methodology. This paper addresses this gap by analyzing #play14, an international unconference network, as a naturally agile organizational system.

#play14 is a worldwide gathering of practitioners. They believe that “playing is the best way to learn, share and be creative”[1][16]. Since its inception, #play14 has operated across multiple countries and continents using an unconference format based on Open Space Technology[16][17][35]. Participants create the event’s content in real-time through a daily marketplace. In this marketplace, anyone can propose game-based sessions. Topics include facilitation and team dynamics. They also cover change management and leadership[16][17][22].

We analyze #play14 through the Agile Organization (AO) Method. It is a systemic framework for organizational design that emphasizes platforms and plexus (minimal coordinating structure). The framework also highlights swarms (temporary self-organizing teams), coherence (shared purpose), and simple rules over complex processes[20][26][29]. The AO Method uses systems thinking, complexity science, and the Viable System Model (VSM). It provides design principles for adaptive organizations[20][29][51][54][58].

Our central research question is: How does #play14 manifest AO principles? What can this reveal about designing minimal yet effective organizational structures?

This inquiry is significant for three reasons.

First, #play14 provides a rare empirical case of an organization that exhibits high agility without deliberate agile transformation. It is “born agile” rather than “made agile.”

Second, the unconference operates at scales between 50 to 200 participants per event. It handles complexities typical of organizational units within larger enterprises. This makes it directly relevant to practitioners.

Third, #play14’s global replication across diverse cultural contexts suggests robust underlying design principles worth extracting and formalizing.

The paper is structured in the following way. Section 2 reviews relevant literature on organizational agility. It also covers serious games as organizational learning tools, Open Space Technology, and the AO Method. Section 3 describes our analytical approach. Section 4 presents a systematic mapping of #play14 elements to AO patterns. Section 5 discusses theoretical and practical implications. Section 6 concludes with limitations and future research directions.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Organizational Agility and Design

Organizational agility has emerged as a critical capability for sustained performance in volatile environments[42][44][47][53]. Worley and Lawler define organizational agility as “the capacity of an organization to efficiently and effectively redeploy its resources.” It involves redirecting resources to value creating and value protecting activities. These are higher-yield activities as warranted by internal and external circumstances[44]. This definition emphasizes dynamic resource allocation rather than static structural efficiency.

Recent research has identified key organizational design features that enable agility. These include “maximum surface area” structures that place employees in direct contact with customers and markets. They also involve transparent information flows, flexible talent systems, and decentralized decision-making[42][44][50]. Shafiee et al.’s case study identified eighteen organizational practices. These are grouped into four categories: structure and governance, culture and people, IT tools and data infrastructure, and processes. Collectively, these practices support agile product development[40][42][50].

Most agility research focuses on transforming existing bureaucratic organizations toward greater agility. It rarely examines organizations designed from inception to be agile[46]. This transformation perspective creates a bias toward incremental change and hybrid organizational forms that blend traditional hierarchy with agile elements. Our study of #play14 offers a contrasting perspective: an organization intentionally designed around agility principles without legacy constraints.

2.2 Serious Games and Organizational Learning

Serious games—games designed for purposes beyond entertainment—have gained recognition as effective tools for organizational learning and capability development[17][41][43][45]. Research demonstrates that serious games enhance employee engagement, knowledge retention, and skill development. They create safe-to-fail environments where participants can experiment with new behaviors and mental models[17][25][41][43].

Giannarakis et al. found that serious games enable managers to understand and develop knowledge about complex innovations more effectively than traditional training methods[41]. The experiential, embodied nature of game-based learning creates stronger cognitive and emotional engagement than passive information transfer[43][45]. Games compress time. They allow participants to experience consequences of decisions. Participants can also see system dynamics that would unfold slowly in real organizational contexts[17][41].

The #play14 community explicitly leverages this learning mechanism. They use games not merely as training tools but as sense-making devices. These games help explore organizational phenomena such as collaboration, complexity, communication, and change[17][22][25]. This positions serious games as legitimate research and development infrastructure for organizational design, not merely pedagogical supplements.

2.3 Open Space Technology

Open Space Technology (OST), developed by Harrison Owen, is a facilitation methodology for participant-driven meetings. It is built around four principles and one “law”[16][52][55][57][59]. The principles include: “whoever comes are the right people.” Another principle is “whatever happens is the only thing that could have.” “Whenever it starts is the right time.” Finally, “when it’s over, it’s over.” The “law of two feet” (or mobility) states that participants should move. They should go to where they can contribute or learn most effectively[16][17][55].

Academic research on OST has documented its effectiveness for enabling self-directed learning. It fosters autonomy and motivation. It also creates conditions for emergent agenda-setting in educational and organizational contexts[52][55][57][59]. Dixon’s master’s thesis identified OST as an effective approach to whole-system change. Norris’s grounded theory study examined the value associated with OST. It concluded that the methodology generates significant participant engagement and actionable outcomes[55][59].

OST is critical to our analysis. It creates what Owen calls “self-organizing systems”—social systems that spontaneously develop order and purpose. They do this without central coordination[55]. This emergent order aligns conceptually with complex adaptive systems theory and provides a practical mechanism for implementing organizational agility principles[16][17][55].

2.4 The Agile Organization Method and Viable System Model

The Agile Organization (AO) Method is a systemic framework. It designs adaptive organizations based on patterns observed in high-performing agile systems[20][26][29]. The method integrates concepts from the Viable System Model (VSM). It also draws from complexity science and agile software development. These are combined into a coherent design language[29][51][54].

Central to the AO Method are three structural elements[20][29]:

Platform: The stable container providing infrastructure, standards, and enabling services that allow operational units to function effectively.
Plexus: A minimal coordinating structure. It maintains system coherence and stewards culture and values. This structure manages inter-unit dependencies. It provides strategic direction without detailed operational control.
Swarms: Temporary, self-organizing teams that form around specific problems or opportunities, collaborate intensively, then dissolve when their purpose is fulfilled.

These structural elements are governed by design principles[29]:

Coherence: Alignment through shared purpose, values, and simple rules rather than detailed policies and procedures.
Cohesion: Integration mechanisms that maintain system integrity while preserving autonomy of operational units.
Simple Rules: Minimal constraints that guide behavior without prescribing actions, enabling emergence and adaptation.
Avoidance: Deliberate elimination of unnecessary structure, process, and work that does not create value.
Separation: Bounded spaces where different dynamics can operate at different speeds, protecting innovation from operational pressures.
Assimilation: Selective adoption of successful practices from experiments into standard operations, allowing the organization to evolve based on evidence.

The VSM, developed by Stafford Beer, provides theoretical grounding for these patterns[51][54][56][58]. VSM describes any viable organization as composed of five interacting systems. These are operational units (System 1), coordination (System 2), and optimization and resource allocation (System 3). They also include strategic intelligence and adaptation (System 4), and identity and policy (System 5)[51][54][56][58]. The AO Method translates VSM’s cybernetic language into practical design patterns accessible to practitioners[20][29].

VSM has been applied to organizational diagnosis and design across diverse contexts[51][54][56][58][60]. However, few studies have examined naturally occurring organizations that instantiate VSM principles without explicit design intervention. Our analysis of #play14 provides such an instance.

3. Methodology

This study employs qualitative case analysis using the AO Method as an analytical framework. Case study methodology is appropriate for examining complex organizational phenomena in real-world contexts. It is also suitable for theory elaboration where existing frameworks need empirical grounding[40][42]. Our approach follows Yin’s guidelines for rigorous case analysis. We also acknowledge our dual role as observers. Additionally, we are participants in the #play14 community.

3.1 Data Sources

Our analysis draws on multiple data sources to ensure construct validity:

Primary documentation: Official #play14 website content describing format, values, principles, and history[1][16][21].
Participant accounts: Published blog posts, LinkedIn articles, and reflective essays by #play14 attendees across multiple events and locations[17][22][25][33][35].
Organizational artifacts: Event schedules, marketplace boards (photographs), session documentation, and community guidelines[16][21][30].
Academic literature: Published research on unconferences, OST, and organizational agility providing comparative context[38][39][52][55][57][59].
Participant observation: Author’s direct experience attending and organizing #play14 events, providing insider perspective on operational dynamics.

3.2 Analytical Approach

We conducted systematic pattern matching between observed #play14 characteristics and AO Method constructs. For each AO element (platform, plexus, swarms, coherence, simple rules, avoidance, separation, assimilation), we:

Identified concrete manifestations in #play14 structure and operations.
Gathered supporting evidence from multiple data sources.
Assessed the strength and consistency of pattern correspondence.
Examined negative cases or contradictions.
Synthesized findings into a coherent organizational description.

This approach combines deductive analysis (applying the AO framework) with inductive discovery (identifying emergent patterns not anticipated by the framework). We employ thick description to provide sufficient detail for readers to assess transferability to their own contexts.

3.3 Limitations

Several limitations should be noted. First, as participants in the #play14 community, we bring insider perspective that enables rich understanding but may introduce confirmation bias. We mitigate this through systematic use of external documentation and published accounts. Second, #play14 events vary across locations and organizing teams; our analysis synthesizes common patterns but may not capture all variation. Third, the study is descriptive and analytical rather than interventionist; we observe naturally occurring patterns rather than testing causal hypotheses.

4. Analysis: #play14 Through the AO Lens

4.1 Platform: The Unconference Infrastructure

In AO terms, a platform is the stable infrastructure that enables operational activity without dictating its content[20][29]. The #play14 platform consists of:

Physical and temporal container: Each event occupies a defined venue for 2–3 days. This typically happens from Friday evening through Sunday afternoon. This creates a bounded space-time container[1][16][30][31]. This separation from daily work environments enables experimental behaviors and psychological safety[17][21][35].

Shared infrastructure: Registration systems, venue logistics, and food and accommodation arrangements are essential. Visual materials such as flip charts, markers, and post-its are also provided. Game libraries offer common resources available to all participants[16][30][31]. Importantly, the platform provides infrastructure without prescribing how it will be used.

Communication channels: Digital platforms including websites, Slack workspaces, and social media channels extend the platform beyond physical events. They enable pre-event coordination and post-event knowledge sharing[1][16][31][33].

Global branding and identity: The #play14 name, visual identity, and core narrative create a recognizable brand. The phrase “play is the best way to learn, share and be creative” is central to this identity. This helps facilitate replication across contexts[1][16][21][28]. This common identity reduces coordination costs while allowing local adaptation.

Non-profit economic model: Events operate on a break-even basis with any surplus reinvested in future events or donated to charity[16][17][21]. This economic design removes profit motives that might distort content toward commercial interests. It maintains alignment with the core purpose of learning and sharing.

The #play14 platform exhibits the AO principle of minimalism: it provides just enough structure to enable self-organization without constraining it. Unlike traditional conferences that specify detailed agendas, speaker lineups, and tracks, the #play14 platform is intentionally incomplete. It creates conditions for emergence rather than programming content.

4.2 Plexus: Minimal Coordination Structure

The plexus in AO represents the minimal coordinating infrastructure that maintains system coherence without centralized control[20][29]. In #play14, the plexus appears as:

Organizing crew: Each event has a small organizing team of typically 3–8 people. They handle venue selection, logistics, registration, and event facilitation[16][17][21][30]. Critically, organizers do not control content—they hold space rather than fill it[16][17].

Format stewardship: Organizers introduce and maintain the Open Space format. They explain principles and rules at the event opening. They also facilitate the marketplace session where participants propose and select activities. Additionally, they guide opening and closing circles[16][17][22][35]. This facilitation role preserves the unconference structure without dictating content.

Values guardianship: The plexus maintains explicit values including playfulness, psychological safety, non-commercialism, and inclusivity[21]. When conflicts arise or behavior violates community norms, organizers intervene to restore alignment with values[21].

Inter-event coordination: A loosely coupled network of organizers across different cities and countries shares practices, maintains the play14.org website, and coordinates the calendar of events to avoid conflicts[1][16]. This distributed governance model allows local autonomy while maintaining global coherence.

Boundary management: Organizers define what #play14 is and is not—for example, explicitly excluding digital games, slideshows, and “Rockstar” keynote formats[1][16][19][22]. These boundaries protect the unconference’s distinctive character while still allowing wide variation within those boundaries.

The #play14 plexus demonstrates the AO principle of governance without management: it shapes conditions and boundaries but does not direct operational activity. This aligns with Beer’s VSM System 5 (identity and policy) and System 4 (strategic intelligence) without heavy System 3 (operational optimization) interventions[51][54][56].

4.3 Swarms: Self-Organizing Game Sessions

Swarms in the AO Method are temporary teams that form around specific problems or opportunities, collaborate intensively, then dissolve[20][29][32]. Each #play14 game session is a prototypical swarm:

Marketplace formation: Each morning, participants gather for a “marketplace.” Anyone can propose a game or activity. They do this by writing it on a card and briefly describing it to the group[16][17][22][35]. Participants then sign up for sessions that interest them, creating just-in-time teams.

Voluntary participation: The “law of two feet” ensures participation is entirely voluntary. People join sessions where they can contribute or learn. They leave when this is no longer true[16][17][22][55]. This mobility prevents dead sessions and ensures energy flows to valuable activities.

Time-boxed execution: Sessions are typically 60–90 minutes, creating clear boundaries and urgency[16][17][22]. This time constraint forces focus and prevents endless discussion.

Facilitated by initiator: The person proposing a session serves as a facilitator. They are not a traditional “presenter.” Their role is to guide the activity, not to lecture[16][17][25][35]. Expertise is distributed among participants rather than concentrated in one authority figure.

Cross-pollination: “Bumblebees” who move between sessions carry insights from one context to another, creating unexpected connections and idea recombination[16][17][22]. “Butterflies” who hover at the edges without deep engagement provide reflective distance and alternative perspectives[16][17].

Dissolution and recombination: After each session, swarms dissolve. Participants then form new swarms for the next time slot, creating fluid social structures that maximize learning and connection[16][17][22][35].

The swarm pattern in #play14 illustrates several AO principles. First, autonomy: teams self-select and self-organize without central assignment. Second, alignment: despite autonomy, swarms align with the overall purpose (learning through play) through shared values rather than hierarchical control. Third, rapid formation and dissolution: the low transaction cost of forming and dissolving teams allows for rapid adaptation. This enables a quick response to emerging interests and needs[16][17][29].

4.4 Coherence: Shared Purpose and Values

Coherence in the AO Method refers to alignment through shared purpose, values, and meaning. This alignment is achieved not through detailed rules and hierarchical control[20][29]. #play14 exhibits strong coherence mechanisms:

Explicit purpose: The statement “playing is the best way to learn, share and be creative” appears consistently. It is found across all #play14 materials and events[1][16][21][28]. This simple purpose statement provides a decision filter. Activities that support learning, sharing, and creativity through play are coherent with the purpose. Those that do not are incoherent.

Values articulation: The #play14 values page explicitly states principles including openness, participation, non-commercialism, face-to-face interaction, and psychological safety[21]. These values are not abstract aspirations but operational guidelines that shape behavior.

Ritual reinforcement: Opening and closing circles create shared experiences that reinforce collective identity and purpose[17][22][35]. These rituals transform a collection of individuals into a temporary community with shared meaning.

Stories and culture: Blog posts, articles, and social media content by participants shape a narrative culture. This culture reinforces what #play14 is about. It also conveys how it feels to participate[17][22][25][33][35]. These stories serve as cultural transmission mechanisms, educating newcomers about norms and expectations.

Self-selection: The fact that people choose to attend #play14 (rather than being assigned) creates high baseline alignment. Participants self-select based on resonance with the purpose, reducing the coordination burden required to maintain coherence.

The coherence mechanisms in #play14 demonstrate what AO calls alignment without enforcement. Participants behave coherently not because they are monitored and controlled, but because they share purpose and values[20][29]. This distributed coherence is more resilient than hierarchical alignment because it does not depend on central authority.

4.5 Simple Rules and Avoidance

The AO Method emphasizes simple rules that guide behavior without prescribing it, and deliberate avoidance of unnecessary structure[20][29]. #play14 embodies both principles strikingly:

Four principles and one law: Open Space Technology’s entire governance structure for each event is based on four principles. The right people are whoever comes. The only thing that could have happened is whatever happens. The right time is whenever it starts. It’s over when it’s over. It also relies on one law: the law of two feet[16][17][22][55]. These five simple rules replace detailed schedules, role descriptions, and process documentation.

No fixed agenda: By eliminating pre-programmed agendas, #play14 avoids the coordination overhead of speaker recruitment. It also avoids schedule conflicts and room assignments. Attendee commitment decisions made months in advance are also eliminated[16][17][19][22]. The marketplace creates the agenda just-in-time based on current participant interests.

No hierarchical presentations: #play14 excludes keynotes, slideshows, and “Rockstar” talks. This approach avoids the status dynamics common in traditional conferences. It also prevents passive learning modes[1][16][19][22]. Everyone is a peer contributor.

No digital games: The explicit exclusion of digital games forces face-to-face interaction and embodied engagement[16][19][22][25]. This constraint actually expands creative possibilities by directing attention toward interpersonal dynamics rather than screen-mediated experiences.

Minimal documentation: Unlike academic conferences with proceedings and published papers, #play14 produces minimal formal documentation[1][16]. Knowledge transfer happens through direct participation and subsequent informal sharing rather than through codified artifacts. This reduces administrative overhead while emphasizing experiential learning.

The avoidance principle is particularly visible: #play14 systematically avoids the complexity that conferences typically accumulate. These complexities include detailed programs, abstract review processes, and multiple submission formats. They also involve sponsorship management, commercial exhibition spaces, and hierarchical social structures. By eliminating these elements, #play14 reduces coordination costs and focuses energy on direct learning and relationship building.

This pattern aligns with the AO principle that complexity should be in the interaction patterns, not in the structural rules[29]. Simple rules enable complex, emergent behavior; complex rules constrain behavior to simpler, more predictable patterns.

4.6 Separation and Experimentation

Separation in the AO Method means creating bounded spaces. Different dynamics can operate without interfering with each other. This separation particularly protects experimental activities from operational pressures[20][29]. #play14 functions as a separated experimental space:

Temporal separation: The weekend or multi-day format creates clear boundaries between #play14 time and regular work time[1][16][30][31]. This separation provides psychological permission to experiment with behaviors and perspectives that might feel risky in work contexts.

Physical separation: Events occur in dedicated venues (conference centers, universities, retreat spaces) away from participants’ workplaces[16][30][31][33]. This physical separation reinforces the cognitive separation from daily routines and constraints.

Safe-to-fail environment: The game-based format explicitly frames activities as experiments where failure is learning rather than career risk[17][21][25][35]. This psychological safety enables experimentation with new facilitation techniques, leadership behaviors, communication patterns, and collaborative approaches.

Economic separation: The non-profit model and minimal ticket prices reduce financial pressures. This allows for more freedom in experimentation. It avoids pushing toward commercially popular but less experimental formats[16][17][21]. Organizers can optimize for learning rather than revenue.

Cultural separation: The playful, informal culture of #play14 contrasts deliberately with formal corporate or academic cultures[17][21][25][35]. This cultural difference provides freedom to try behaviors, such as physical games, improvisation, and vulnerability. These behaviors might be judged inappropriate in more formal contexts.

The separated nature of #play14 creates what organizational learning theory calls “practice fields.” These are safe spaces where people can develop skills. They can also build mental models before applying them in high-stakes contexts[17][41]. Participants report taking games, facilitation techniques, and insights back to their organizations. These innovations are selectively assimilated into standard practice[17][22][25][28].

4.7 Assimilation: From Experiment to Practice

Assimilation in the AO Method refers to the selective adoption of successful experimental practices into standard operations[20][29]. While #play14 itself is an experiment relative to traditional conferences, it serves as an innovation source for participants’ home organizations:

Game transfer: Participants learn specific serious games at #play14. They subsequently use them in retrospectives, team-building sessions, leadership workshops, and change initiatives in their organizations[3][17][22][25][28]. The games collection website (play14.org/games) facilitates this knowledge transfer[3].

Facilitation pattern transfer: Beyond specific games. Participants absorb facilitation patterns such as marketplace formats, law of two feet, opening/closing circles, and participatory agenda-setting[17][22][35]. These patterns are adapted to local contexts, creating hybrid formats that blend unconference and conventional meeting structures.

Cultural pattern transfer: The #play14 culture of playfulness, psychological safety, and peer learning influences how participants approach their professional practice[17][21][25][35]. Multiple blog posts describe shifts in mindset and behavior that participants attribute to #play14 experiences.

Network effects: Connections formed at #play14 create ongoing communities of practice that continue learning and experimentation beyond individual events[1][16][33]. These networks accelerate diffusion of innovations across organizations and geographies.

The assimilation dynamic demonstrates how #play14 functions not merely as an end in itself. It also serves as a catalyst for broader organizational change. It is a “change laboratory” that generates innovations. These innovations are subsequently adopted by organizations. These organizations would never implement a full unconference internally. However, they can incorporate specific elements[17][22][28].

5. Discussion

5.1 Theoretical Implications

Our analysis reveals several insights relevant to organizational agility theory and organizational design.

Agility as emergent property, not installed capability: Unlike most agility research. These studies examine transformation from traditional to agile structures[40][42][46]. #play14 shows agility as an emergent property of organizational design choices. The combination of clear purpose, minimal structure, simple rules, and voluntary participation creates inherent adaptability. This suggests that designing for agility from inception may be more effective than transforming existing bureaucracies.

Minimal viable organization: #play14 represents an extreme point on the spectrum of organizational minimalism. It challenges assumptions about how much structure is necessary for coordination at scale. A platform, a plexus, and simple rules work together. Voluntary participation also helps to coordinate hundreds of people across multiple days and diverse activities. This empirically grounds theoretical claims about self-organization and distributed coordination[44][47][51][54].

Structure versus organization: Our case illustrates Beer’s distinction. Organizational structure is the designed container. Organization is the emergent pattern of interactions [51][54][56]. #play14’s structure is extremely light, yet its organization—the patterns of collaboration, learning, and innovation—is rich and complex. This inversion of the traditional relationship (heavy structure producing constrained organization) suggests alternative design strategies.

Coherence mechanisms at scale: The case demonstrates how coherence without hierarchy can operate at substantial scale. #play14 maintains coherence across dozens of independent events worldwide. It achieves this with clear purpose, explicit values, self-selection, and simple rules. This challenges assumptions that coordination at scale requires hierarchical management[44][47][51][54].

Play as organizational R&D: The analysis presents serious games differently. They are not just training tools. Instead, they serve as research and development infrastructure for organizational design. Games compress experience, make system dynamics visible, and enable safe experimentation with social patterns. This repositions play from a pedagogical tool to a strategic organizational capability.

5.2 Practical Implications

The #play14 case offers several lessons for organizational designers and change practitioners.

Pattern library for agile transformation: Each element of #play14 can be extracted as a design pattern applicable in other contexts. The marketplace format, law of two feet, plexus role definition, and simple rules can be adapted to product development. They can also be used in strategic planning, community building, and problem-solving initiatives[29][32]. Practitioners need not implement entire unconferences to benefit from these patterns.

Diagnostic framework: The AO mapping provides a diagnostic lens for assessing existing organizational structures. Practitioners can identify where their organizations are over-structured by comparing current designs to the #play14 exemplar. They can also find areas that are under-purposeful or burdened with unnecessary complexity. The contrast makes hidden design assumptions visible.

Minimum viable transformation: For organizations attempting agile transformation, #play14 demonstrates a minimalist approach. Organizations might achieve more agility through purposeful subtraction. This involves removing constraints, simplifying rules, and trusting emergence rather than comprehensive process redesigns and role redefinition. The avoidance principle becomes a transformation strategy.

Experimental infrastructure: Organizations can establish #play14-inspired internal unconferences as bounded experimental spaces. These separated environments enable safe exploration of new collaboration patterns, leadership behaviors, and decision-making processes. Successful patterns can then be selectively assimilated into standard operations[29].

Alternative to training: The serious games approach offers an alternative to traditional training programs. Games integrate learning and action. They compress time to consequence. This creates embodied understanding instead of classroom instruction followed by workplace application. This has implications for leadership development, team building, and change management interventions[41][43][45].

5.3 Connections to Broader Agility Literature

Our findings connect to several streams in the organizational agility literature.

Dynamic capabilities: Teece et al.’s dynamic capabilities framework emphasizes sensing, seizing, and transforming as core capabilities for sustained competitive advantage[53]. #play14’s structure enables all three. The marketplace and law of two feet create continuous sensing of participant interests and energy. The simple rules enable rapid seizing of opportunities through swarm formation. The experimental nature enables continuous transformation through assimilation of successful patterns.

Surface area maximization: Worley and Lawler describe agile organizations as maximizing “surface area.” This is the extent to which employees have direct contact with relevant environments[44]. In #play14, every participant is simultaneously on the surface. They propose sessions, facilitate games, and make decisions. They are not insulated by hierarchical layers. This total surface area exposure creates maximal information flow and rapid adaptation.

Ambidexterity: Organizational ambidexterity theory examines how organizations balance exploitation of existing capabilities with exploration of new possibilities[53]. #play14 is almost entirely oriented toward exploration, making it an extreme case that illuminates exploration dynamics. The assimilation pattern reveals a connection between exploration in #play14 and exploitation in participants’ home organizations. This suggests that ambidexterity can be achieved through separation and selective integration. It is a different approach compared to simultaneous within-organization balancing.

Complexity leadership: Uhl-Bien and Arena’s complexity leadership theory distinguishes between two types of leadership. Administrative leadership maintains stability and efficiency. Adaptive leadership enables emergence and innovation[47]. The #play14 plexus performs minimal administrative leadership while creating maximal conditions for adaptive leadership to emerge from any participant. This demonstrates that organizations can be designed to elevate adaptive over administrative leadership.

5.4 Limitations and Boundary Conditions

Several factors limit the generalizability of our findings.

Voluntary participation: #play14 depends entirely on voluntary participation. Participants choose to attend and can leave at any time. This self-selection creates high baseline motivation and alignment that cannot be assumed in employment contexts where participation is not optional. Organizations cannot simply mandate unconference attendance and expect equivalent outcomes.

Temporal boundedness: #play14 events are 2–3 days. This limited duration creates intensity and focus that may be difficult to sustain in ongoing operations. The patterns may work precisely because they are temporary. Permanent organizations face different coordination challenges. These include resource allocation, career development, performance management, and longer-term strategy. These are areas that #play14 does not address.

Task nature: The learning and networking tasks central to #play14 may be particularly amenable to unconference formats. Production tasks requiring sustained coordination, specialized equipment, or tight interdependencies might not fit the model as well. The generalizability of #play14 patterns likely varies with task characteristics.

Scale limits: #play14 operates at a substantial scale. It involves 50–200 participants per event. However, it has not been tested at much larger scales. Network effects and coordination complexity may increase non-linearly beyond certain size thresholds, potentially requiring additional structure.

Cultural context: #play14 attracts participants already oriented toward agile values, serious games, and experiential learning. The model may not work with populations skeptical of play or preferring more structured formats. Cultural fit is likely a significant moderating variable.

These limitations suggest that #play14 represents a particular organizational form suitable for specific contexts rather than a universal model. Its value lies less in direct replication than in revealing design possibilities and challenging assumptions about necessary organizational complexity.

6. Conclusion

#play14 is a global unconference network focused on serious games. This paper has shown that it instantiates core patterns of the Agile Organization Method. These patterns include platform, plexus, and swarms. Additionally, coherence through purpose and simple rules is established. There is a deliberate avoidance of unnecessary structure. Separation for experimentation is practiced. Successful patterns are assimilated into practice. The case provides detailed empirical grounding for these abstract patterns. It contributes to organizational agility theory. Also, it offers practitioners concrete exemplars for implementing lightweight organizational designs.

Three primary contributions emerge from this analysis. First, we show that agility can be an intrinsic design property rather than an acquired transformation outcome. #play14 was not made agile through change programs; it is agile by design. This challenges the transformation-oriented framing dominant in agility literature and points toward alternative design-oriented approaches.

Second, we empirically demonstrate that minimal structure combined with clear purpose can coordinate complex collective activity at scale. Well-designed interaction rules also contribute to this coordination. #play14 achieves what many complex organizations struggle to achieve. It fosters high engagement, rapid adaptation, and continuous innovation. It also builds a strong community with a fraction of the structural apparatus. This suggests that many organizations are over-structured and under-purposed.

Third, we illustrate the value of serious games as organizational research and development infrastructure rather than merely training tools. Games enable compressed experience, system visibility, and safe experimentation that accelerate organizational learning and evolution.

Future research could usefully pursue several directions. Comparative analysis of multiple unconference formats would reveal which patterns are specific to #play14 versus general to unconference structures. Longitudinal studies would track how participants transfer #play14 patterns into their organizations. Such studies would illuminate assimilation dynamics. They would also identify enabling conditions and barriers. Experimental studies manipulating specific design elements (e.g., presence/absence of the law of two feet, marketplace frequency, session duration) would test causal relationships between design choices and outcomes. Finally, extension of the AO analytical framework to other organizational forms would build a broader pattern language for agility-oriented design.

Organizations face increasing pressure to achieve agility in turbulent environments. Examples like #play14 become valuable not as templates to copy. Instead, they serve as existence proofs of alternative organizational possibilities. #play14 shows that minimal structure, clear purpose, simple rules, and trust in emergence can generate effective collective action. It challenges prevailing assumptions. It also expands the design space available to organizational practitioners.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the #play14 organizing teams across multiple countries. Their dedicated stewardship has maintained and evolved the unconference over many years. The author also appreciates the thousands of participants who contributed their games, insights, and energy. They have helped create the living laboratory analyzed in this paper.

References

[1] #play14. (2024). #play14 – play is the way. https://play14.org

[3] #play14. (2013). Games. https://play14.org/games

[16] #play14. (2023). About | Our format. https://play14.org/about/format

[17] Agile Reloaded. (2023). #PLAY14. The Serious Gaming Unconference. https://agilereloaded.com/play14-serious-gaming-unconference/

[19] ITnation. (2024). #play14 Luxembourg, are you ready to play? https://itnation.lu/news/play14-luxembourg-are-you-ready-to-play/

[20] Neis, P. E. (2019). Designing an agile Digital Enterprise. Agile Organization. https://agile-organization.com/2019/12/13/designing-an-agile-digital-enterprise/

[21] #play14. (2024). About | Our values. https://play14.org/about/values

[22] Marmelab. (2018). #play14 Luxembourg 2018: The Serious Games Conference. https://marmelab.com/blog/2018/04/12/play14.html

[25] Marmelab. (2017). Play14: Practicing Serious Games with Talented People Is Awesome. https://marmelab.com/blog/2017/03/27/play-14.html

[26] Agile Alliance. (2022). The New Normal – AO Concepts and Patterns of 21st Century Agile Organizations. https://agilealliance.org/resources/books/the-new-normal-ao-concepts-and-patterns-of-21-st-century-agile-organizations/

[28] Agile Reloaded. (2023). #Play14. L’unconference sul Serious Gaming. https://agilereloaded.it/play14-la-unconference-sul-seriour-gaming/

[29] Neis, P. E. (2026). Principles of the AO method. Agile Organization. https://agile-organization.com/2026/01/12/principles-of-the-ao-method/

[30] Sponsor My Event. (2014). #play14 – The first Serious Games gathering in Luxembourg. https://www.sponsormyevent.com/play14-the-first-serious-games-gathering-in-luxembourg-esch-sur-alzette

[31] Agile Gatherings. (2024). Play14 Singapore. https://agilegatherings.com/event/play14-singapore-2024/

[32] Neis, P. E. (2024). AO Swarm-4 A Practitioner’s Manual for Hypothesis-Driven Initiatives. Payhip. https://payhip.com/b/3adJC

[33] Helmerich, N. (2023). Dr. Nicole Helmerich’s Post [LinkedIn]. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dr-nicole-helmerich_play14-play14-play14-activity-7080082102750203905-Dgx_

[35] Rached, E. (2018). PLAY14 … Learning can’t be more fun! [LinkedIn]. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/play14-learning-cant-more-fun-elie-rached

[38] Roets, L., et al. (2024). Shifting mindsets from conference to (un)conference: A collaborative reflective perspective on conceptual disruption. Cristal, 12(SI1). https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.14426/cristal.v12iSI1.2095

[39] Roets, L., et al. (2024). A collaborative reflective perspective on conceptual disruption. Cristal, 12(SI1). https://epubs.ac.za/index.php/cristal/article/download/2095/1573/4740

[40] Shafiee, S., et al. (2021). Organization Design in Motion: Designing an Organization for Agility. Design Conference Proceedings. https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/organization-design-in-motion-designing-an-organization-for-agili

[41] Giannarakis, G., et al. (2023). Serious Games as an Organizational Learning Tool for Sustainable Innovations. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2023(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMPROC.2023.17088abstract

[42] Shafiee, S., et al. (2021). Organization Design in Motion: Designing an Organization for Agility [PDF]. https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/255813412/organization_design_in_motion_designing_an_organization_for_agility.pdf

[43] Dias, M. (2025). Serious Games in Online Corporate Training: Value Creation and Employee Engagement. International Journal of Management, Technology And Engineering, 15(12). https://www.murillodias.com/publicacoes/artigos/1765365322.pdf

[44] Worley, C. G., & Lawler, E. E. (2018). Agility and Organization Design: A Diagnostic Framework. USC Center for Effective Organizations. https://ceo.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/10_Agility_and_Org_Design.pdf

[45] Program-Ace. (2024). Play with Purpose: Exploring the Impact of Serious Games on Learning and Training [Whitepaper]. https://program-ace.com/whitepapers/impact-of-serious-games-on-learning-and-training.pdf

[46] Dikert, K., et al. (2021). Design of transformation initiatives implementing organisational agility. BMC Health Services Research, 21(408). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06396-5

[47] Holbeche, L. (2025). A Framework for Organizational Agility and Performance. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/00218863251329522

[48] Schuh, G., et al. (2020). A Systemic Framework for Organizational Agility [PDF]. IPMA World Congress. https://www.worldcongress-ipma.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente/Folien/vortrag4-paper107-practitioner-a-systemic-framework-fo

[49] Holsapple, C., & Li, X. (2008). Understanding Organizational Agility: A Work-Design Perspective [PDF]. NPS. https://nps.edu/documents/110704361/110754042/HolsappleLiICCRTS2008.pdf

[50] Shafiee, S., et al. (2021). Designing an Organization for Agility [PDF]. Cambridge Core. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/28199BB46CE37CD0AFD2FAAC203B985C/S2732527X2100496Xa.pdf

[51] Witwam. (2022). Utilising the Viable System Model (VSM) for Organisation Design. https://www.witwam.com/utilising-the-viable-system-model-vsm-for-organisation-design

[52] Academia.edu. (2025). Open Space Technology Research Papers. https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Open_Space_Technology

[53] Worley, C. G., & Lawler, E. E. (2024). How Organization Agility Produces Sustained Performance [PDF]. USC Center for Effective Organizations. https://ceo.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/G24-01702.pdf

[54] Espinosa, A. (2023). Viable System Model: A theory for designing more responsive organizations. i2Insights. https://i2insights.org/2023/01/24/viable-system-model/

[55] Norris, R. D. (2000). A Grounded Theory Study On The Value Associated With Using Open Space Technology. Webster University. https://www.openspaceworld.org/files/tmnfiles/OSTResearch2000.htm

[56] Fractal Consulting. (n.d.). Modelling Organisations using The Viable System Model [PDF]. https://www.fractal-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/Modelling-Organisations-using-the-Viable-System-Model.pdf

[57] Tierney, A., & Lanigan, J. (2015). Open Space Technology: An effective tool for consultation. SETU Research. https://research.setu.ie/en/publications/open-space-technology-an-effective-tool-for-consultation

[58] Wikipedia. (2005). Viable system model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viable_system_model

[59] Open Space World. (n.d.). Academic Research on Open Space. https://openspaceworld.org/wp2/explore/open-space-research/

[60] Public Sector Network. (2024). Using the Viable System Model to Improve Government Operations. https://publicsectornetwork.com/insight/using-the-viable-system-model-to-improve-government-operations

Download PDF

An IELTS Modernization Case Study

1. Background and Challenge

In 2023, the IELTS modernization programme set out to accelerate delivery and improve quality for a complex, enterprise‑scale IT landscape. The organization adopted SAFe and operated with multiple PODs. There was strong architectural governance and substantial investment in tooling and QA. Yet, the volume of business functionality delivered remained below expectations.

Delivery suffered from long lead times, frequent rework, and low predictability, especially when changes were pushed late in the process. Despite “doing agile” from a process perspective, there was no shared, quantified view of system performance. There was also no coherent operating model aligned with value streams. This made focused improvement difficult.

The AO‑method (Agile Organization method) was selected to:

Diagnose the current operating system using a systemic, quantitative lens.
Design a value‑driven organizational model and transformation backlog.
Validate the new model via controlled experiments with selected PODs.

2. AO‑Method Assessment – AO scorecard baseline

The first AO assessment, conducted in early May 2023, evaluated five dimensions: Deliver, Demand, Capacity, Capability, and Organization.

On a 0–10 scale, IELTS scored:

Deliver: 0
Demand: 3
Capacity: 1
Capability: 1
Organisation: 0

The AO goal state for the coming quarter was defined. It includes Deliver 5, Demand 10, Capacity 10, Capability 10, and Organization 10. This makes the performance gap explicit for both leadership and teams.

Key findings by AO dimension

Deliver: Releases were irregular. They were often tied to big‑bang events. Most PODs delivered into sandbox or test environments rather than production‑like systems. CICD existed in parts of the landscape, but organizational conditions (dependencies, approvals, test environments) prevented continuous delivery.
Demand: Multiple product and feature backlogs co‑existed. They mixed functional and technical items. Business value was not consistently used as the primary prioritization criterion. This led to last‑minute decisions, frequent backlog push into sprints, and weak alignment of team backlogs with programme‑level roadmaps.
Capacity: Teams were not stable. People were frequently disturbed during sprints. Scrum Masters struggled to protect teams from organizational noise. The AO assessment showed that teams were far from the “pizza team” ideal with clear boundaries and stable allocation.
Capability: Developers were largely specialized by component or technology. They did not own work end‑to‑end. This limited self‑commitment and slowed flow. User stories were often too coarse. They lacked acceptance criteria and Definition of Done (DoD). Estimation sessions turned into capacity negotiations.
Organization: Architecture, QA, and support functions were organized as central service providers. They had high approval power. This created long dependency chains and blocked flow. Value streams were not structurally reflected in the organization. PODs often supported other teams instead of owning outcomes.

Kanban and Lean lens

Beyond the scorecard, AO applied a Kanban and Lean waste lens:

Work was not fully visualized end‑to‑end, policies (e.g. DoD, capacity allocation, risk rules) were implicit, and WIP limits were absent or local.
Feedback loops around quality, financial, and flow metrics (CFDs, control charts) were sporadic. Improvement routines (True North, target conditions, PDCA) were weak or missing.
The 8 wastes appeared clearly. Transportation and waiting were evident due to big‑bang releases and late testing. Overprocessing occurred through repeated test cycles. Underused talent was a result of siloed experts and central approvals.

3. Systemic Diagnosis: “Not a Team Problem”

The AO‑method reframed the situation from “teams not performing” to “system not designed for flow and learning”.

Technology‑driven model

The existing working model was heavily technology‑driven:

Architecture and QA were in the lead; development PODs essentially executed their decisions and handled defect backlogs.
Several teams (Hydra, Inception, Transformers, Decepticons) delivered mostly non‑functional or support work, indicating that development teams were not end‑to‑end.
PI planning did not consistently include all relevant teams and functions, which delayed architectural decisions and increased misalignment risk.

The programme behaved like a large, monthly Scrum with strong central control. It did not operate as a network of autonomous, value‑oriented PODs.

Events and ARTIFACTS symptoms

AO uncovered characteristic anti‑patterns around agile ceremonies and artifacts:

Sprint Planning often mixed functional and technical decomposition. The stories were not INVEST. The DoD was not used as the central contract. Developers tended to be told what to do rather than committing to clear, negotiable backlog items.
Sprint Reviews focused on code demos instead of working functionality and UAT, which weakened empirical control of product value.
Retrospectives were high‑level and management‑oriented, producing few concrete experiments for the PODs’ way of working.
Release backlogs and cross‑team dependencies were not clearly visible. Jira was not yet used as a single source of truth across the programme and teams.

From an AO perspective, these symptoms pointed to an operating system incapable of supporting continuous delivery, learning, and local decision‑making.

4. AO‑Based Intervention Design

The next step was to design interventions directly mapped to the AO dimensions and scorecard gaps.

AO scorecard‑driven goals

The AO scorecard was used to define explicit quarterly targets:

Deliver: move from big‑bang/quarterly releases to “deliver every sprint”, leveraging existing CICD capabilities, and progressively move towards DevOps “on‑the‑go”.
Demand: converge onto a functional product backlog, prioritized by business value, with clear PI‑level objectives and roadmaps decomposed into MVPs.
Capacity: stabilize PODs. Reduce disturbances. Strengthen Scrum Masters in their protective and coaching role. This will help move towards true pizza teams.
Capability: improve story slicing, adopt DoD at all levels (story, sprint, release, PI), and build more cross‑functional, end‑to‑end PODs.
Organization: realign the PI organization around value streams. Introduce an Executive Action Team (EAT) and Scrum‑of‑Scrums rhythm. Clarify the role of architecture and testing as enabling partners.

Roll‑out model and AO backlogs

The AO‑method proposed a staged rollout model, “deliver early and often value that matters”, supported by four explicit backlogs.

Vision & Strategy Backlog
- Clarify IELTS vision and PI objectives from a business perspective.
- Define a business plan and a technical plan for PI14, including a PI‑level DoD.
Execution Backlog
- Implement Scrum “by the book” in selected PODs (clear Sprint Goals, ready stories, DoD‑based commitments, protected sprints).
- Ensure usage of Jira, Confluence and Miro as integrated tools supporting transparency and collaboration.
Architecture Backlog
- Shift architecture from lead/approval to consult/enabling, providing clear architectural DoD, platforms, simulators, and stable environments (including pre‑production).
- Reduce reliance on late testing by supporting test‑driven and shift‑left practices in PODs.
Organization Backlog
- Redesign the PI organization around value streams, with architecture and testing each having a dedicated POD and Product Owner.
- Establish governance via EAT and structured PI planning that covers the entire flow from demand to production.

To support this, AO recommended engaging senior agile coaches at both the programme and team levels. They suggested co‑creating a transformation backlog owned by Product Owners, Scrum Masters, and programme leadership.

5. AO in Practice: Panda and Incredibles POC (Swarm)

To demonstrate the viability of the AO‑aligned working model, two PODs—Panda and Incredibles—were selected for an experiment.

Experiment design

The AO‑method prescribed:

Sprint Planning: Stories had to be ready, including description, acceptance criteria, and team‑defined DoD. Non‑ready items were pushed back to the Product Owner. The Sprint Goal was defined collaboratively, and developers committed only to clear, negotiable work.
Daily Scrum: each team member used Jira to show current tasks. They planned the day and highlighted blockers. The team did not accept scope changes except after story slicing.
Sprint Review: focused on working software, inviting stakeholders to inspect and adapt outcomes; code demos were not considered sufficient.
Sprint Retrospective: emphasized concrete changes to the way of working, using Sprint Review and sprint experience as inputs.

Measured impact via AO scorecard

Using the AO scorecard, the experiment showed a significant performance improvement for Panda and Incredibles:

In October 2023, they achieved Deliver 8. They also reached Demand 7 and Capacity 10. Their Capability was 9 and Organization was 0. (Score Max 10 for each dimension).
Compared to the initial May baseline (0–3–1–1–0), this demonstrated substantial improvement, particularly in Deliver, Capacity and Capability.
Other teams, still operating in the old model, lagged behind and continued to suffer from organizational and demand‑side issues.

Sprint 5 for Panda and Incredibles showed increased productivity. This happened when PODs were not disturbed by scope changes. They also had a clear sense of purpose. This provided evidence that AO‑compatible conditions—end‑to‑end scope, DoD‑based commitment, protected sprints—could significantly improve delivery without changing the underlying technology stack.

6. Constraints and ORGANIZATIONAL Response

Despite the encouraging POC results, several AO‑critical changes were not adopted at scale.

PI planning and governance

The PI14 planning event was a missed opportunity:

Many AO recommendations (end‑to‑end PI planning, explicit PI DoD, organization updates to reduce dependencies) were not implemented.
The event resembled a management meeting rather than a true collective planning session focused on reciprocal commitment.
Dependencies and environmental issues raised by PODs remained unresolved, and scope changes continued to be pushed into teams.

From an AO perspective, this indicated that the operating system at leadership and governance level largely remained unchanged. This situation limited the impact of team-level improvements.

Structural risks and recommendation

Given the lack of systemic adoption, the AO assessment concluded that:

Confidence in achieving PI14 goals was below 5/10. Delivery would be possible only at the cost of scope cuts and quality compromises.
Without organizational commitment to the AO‑aligned model, further steps toward an agile organization would be constrained. This commitment is especially crucial for architecture, testing, and PI governance.

The final recommendation was to consider repositioning the supplier teams as a genuine service provider. This includes defining clear performance and quality metrics. These actions should be taken if the client organization did not commit to the AO‑based organizational model. This would allow measurement and transparency even within a suboptimal system.

7. Lessons Learned for AO‑Method

The IELTS case yields several key lessons for practitioners of the AO‑method:

Quantitative AO scorecards create a shared reality.
AO scored Deliver, Demand, Capacity, Capability and Organization over time and across teams. This scoring made systemic issues visible. It transformed subjective complaints into a common fact base for leadership and teams.
End‑to‑end PODs are non‑negotiable.
PODs act as support teams in a technology‑driven structure. As long as this continues, value flow remains fragile. It also remains dependent on central functions. The Panda and Incredibles experiment shows that true end‑to‑end PODs, empowered with DoD and clear scope, can quickly improve performance.
PI planning and governance are part of the operating system.
Without AO‑compatible PI planning (vision, PI DoD, dependency management, reciprocal commitment), team‑level improvements remain local optimizations.
AO‑style experiments are powerful change levers.
Carefully designed experiments with selected PODs provide evidence that the target model works. This approach reduces perceived risk. It also gives leadership a concrete reference.
Organizational will is the ultimate constraint.
AO can diagnose and propose a coherent model. It can demonstrate its effectiveness locally. However, sustainable change requires leadership to adopt the new operating system. It’s not just about team‑level practices.

Twelve months after NorthRiver Bank acquired BrightPay, a fast‑growing fintech, the celebration banners were gone. Internally, people had started calling it “the merger that never landed.”

On paper, the deal made sense. NorthRiver brought capital, licenses, and a broad customer base. BrightPay brought a modern payments platform. They also provided a product team that could ship in weeks instead of years. The investor deck promised “accelerated digital growth” and “seamless omni‑channel experiences.”

Reality was different. Two parallel hierarchies kept running in competition. BrightPay’s engineers were still pushing releases from their own pipeline. At the same time, the bank’s IT insisted every change go through legacy governance. Journeys that were supposed to be “integrated” now had even more handovers. There were relationship managers at NorthRiver, risk at headquarters, product owners at BrightPay, plus at least three steering committees. No one could say who actually owned “digital SME Onboarding.”

Customers felt it first. Time to open a digital business account crept from five days to twelve. Contact‑center complaints about “stuck applications” doubled. Two senior BrightPay product leads left within six months, taking key knowledge with them.

Everyone had an explanation. “Tech is the blocker.” “Compliance is too rigid.” “They don’t understand our culture.” What they did not have was a shared way to see the system. They lacked focus on a few critical flows. No one had clear authority to fix them.

That is when the AO team was called in. They received a brief that sounded simple. Yet, it seemed impossible. “We have to show real integration results in the next two quarters. We must do this without breaking the bank or the fintech.”

1. AO diagnosis: seeing the stuck system

The AO work started with a fast, visual diagnostic rather than another slide‑deck TOM.

Mapped three priority value streams:
- Digital SME Onboarding
- Consumer current‑account opening
- Instant payments incidents.
Drew real sociograms around each stream. These sociograms show who actually talks to whom when something moves or gets stuck. This is not the org chart.
Surfaced “strangled swarms”: informal cross-org groups trying to fix issues. They have no mandate, no budget, and no clear decision rights.

Three patterns emerged:

Fragmented ownership
- At least four groups claimed they “owned” digital SME Onboarding (retail banking, SME business, BrightPay product, central IT).
- None had authority across process, technology, and policy for the end‑to‑end journey.
- Outcomes (time‑to‑open, NPS, churn) had no single accountable group.
Waterfall PMI overlay on top of complex work
- The integration office ran dozens of workstreams (IT, HR, Risk, Products), each with its own plan and RAG status.
- No cross‑functional group owned a specific customer journey or a synergy hypothesis.
- Steering committees saw slides about “integration progress,” but not how real customer cases moved through the merged system.
Culture as a blind spot, not a design input
- Bank leaders talked about “synergies” and “best‑of‑both,” but BrightPay teams experienced a slow absorption into legacy ways of working.
- Bank teams felt overrun by “cowboys” pushing changes fast; fintech engineers felt trapped in endless approvals.
- Culture differences appeared as blame, instead of being used as design material for complementary strengths.

AO interpretation

AO framed this not as “bad people” but as a system that made local optimization rational and end‑to‑end value impossible.

The system rewarded local optimization (protecting functions, minimizing risk) more than shared outcomes.
Informal cross‑org problem‑solving groups existed but were “strangled swarms”: no mandate, no budget, no clear decision rights.
The Target Operating Model existed mainly as a slide‑deck. It did not exist as living agreements about who owns what. It also did not define how decisions are made.

2. AO intervention: swarms and two‑speed TOM

Instead of redesigning the whole organization, AO proposed a minimal evolutionary Target Operating Model anchored on a few high‑value swarms.

2.1 Swarm the value, not the org chart

For the first wave, AO helped leaders choose two integration themes:

Integrated “Digital SME Onboarding”
Unified mobile current account experience.

For each theme, AO set up a cross‑functional swarm:

Members from: BrightPay product & engineering, NorthRiver IT, SME business, risk/compliance, operations, and customer support.
One clearly named outcome (e.g. “Median SME Onboarding time ≤ 5 days with NPS +20”).
Explicit decision rights for this slice: they could change process steps, UI copy, and routing rules. They could also modify some policy constraints within guardrails.
6–8 week integration sprints, each producing a working change in production, not just a design.

AO introduced Swarm‑4 style habits. These include short hypothesis cycles, visible backlog, and Plexus‑like governance. As a result, funding decisions followed evidence from swarm experiments.

2.2 Two‑speed TOM

AO resisted pressure to “fully harmonize” everything at once.

High‑volume, regulated core (e.g. deposit accounting, AML monitoring) stayed on the bank’s slower but stable processes for now.
Customer‑facing digital journeys were moved into AO swarms with a mandate to experiment, even if it meant temporary dual processes.

This two‑speed TOM shifted the question from “When will we be fully integrated?” to “Which flows need integrated behavior now, and how can we evolve the rest safely?”

2.3 Culture in the room

AO designed explicit integration ceremonies:

Monthly “customer walk” reviews occurred. Bank and fintech leaders followed real cases through the system. They heard directly from frontline staff.
Swarm retros that included both HR and risk, making culture and policy trade‑offs discussable, not invisible constraints.

Instead of generic culture workshops, culture was handled as part of everyday decisions. These decisions included how much risk to accept for faster Onboarding. They also involved deciding what service tone to use. Additionally, there were considerations on how to handle fallback when the fintech platform failed.

3. Outcomes and AO‑style metrics

Within two swarm cycles (around 3–4 months), the bank‑fintech system started to behave differently.

Quantitative shifts:

Median SME digital Onboarding time dropped from 12 days to 6, with a clear path to 5 days.
“Where is my application?” contact‑center calls for SME Onboarding fell by ~30% in swarm‑covered segments.
Decision lead‑time for key integration choices (e.g. product variants, UI changes) shrank from 6–8 weeks of committee ping‑pong to under 10 days for the swarm’s scope.

Qualitative shifts:

BrightPay engineers reported “having a real product again” rather than “just being an integration project.”
Bank business leaders described “finally seeing the same picture” when talking about journeys and constraints.
Attrition stabilized in the integrated areas. A few who had considered leaving decided to stay. They changed their minds once they saw the swarms’ mandate was real.

AO encouraged the organization to track a small, stable metric set for each swarm:

Time‑to‑value (from idea to production change affecting customers)
Decision latency on cross‑org items
Defect / incident rate on the integrated journey
Engagement / retention of key roles inside swarms.

Conversation with Li Fang and Francisco Cortez

Executive Summary

This document consolidates a conversation between Pierre Neis and two key stakeholders from Quipu. They discussed a comprehensive agile transformation program delivered across the organization. The program spanned 10 months (May through March). It included 37 training sessions. It engaged 90% of active staff, representing over 12,000 training hours. The program covered employees across multiple international locations. This included Frankfurt, Skopje, Pristina, and remote participants.

The transformation employed the Agile Organization (AO) Method. It was adapted specifically for company-wide implementation. This includes back-office functions beyond traditional software development teams. The program emphasized practical experience over theoretical certification. It fostered cultural shifts around empowerment. It encouraged saying “no” based on facts. The approach also promoted team-based collaboration.

Company Context: Quipu

Organizational Profile

Quipu operates as the IT service division of the ProCredit Group, primarily serving the banking sector globally. The organization represents remarkable diversity:

45-47 different nationalities represented across the workforce
Primary geographic focus: South Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe, with historical presence in Latin America
Cultural composition: Colleagues from Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Spain, Ghana, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Guatemala, Colombia, UK, Germany, Switzerland, and other nations
Main offices: Frankfurt (Germany), Skopje (North Macedonia), Pristina (Kosovo), with historical operations in Kiev (Ukraine)
Service focus: Banking sector technology solutions and support

Organizational Complexity

The company’s complexity stemmed from several factors:

Multicultural workforce with varied communication styles and cultural norms
Different functional areas: software development, testing, support operations, back office (HR, finance, procurement), credit card services, ATM maintenance
Varied maturity levels regarding agile understanding (from new graduates to long-tenured employees with change resistance)
Multiple stakeholder relationships including holding company oversight and diverse banking clients with contractual SLAs
Geographic distribution requiring both in-person and online training delivery

Program Overview

Timeline and Scope

Metric	Value
Program Duration	10 months (May – March)
Total Sessions	37 training sessions
Staff Coverage	90% of active staff
Total Training Hours	12,000+ hours (staff time investment)
Session Format	3-day workshops
Locations	Skopje, Pristina, Frankfurt, Online

Table 1: Agile Transformation Program Metrics

Program Launch

The transformation began strategically with a kickoff session targeting middle management:

Initial session: Quarterly middle management meeting (May)
Participants: 60 middle managers and leadership
Format: Three parallel sessions led by Pierre and two external colleagues (Virginia and another Pierre)
Objective: Set tone, secure buy-in, prepare leaders for cultural shifts

This leadership-first approach proved crucial for program success. It prepared managers for downstream behavioral changes. These changes include employees learning to say “no” based on facts and data.

Training Delivery Team

Lead trainer: Pierre Neis (primary facilitator for 37 sessions)
Support trainers: Virginia Anderson and Pierre Hervouet (Menschgeist Partners)
Internal coordination: Frank Cortez (Learning & Development) and Li Fang (Head of Agile)
Expertise requirement: Coaching skills prioritized over pure training skills due to intensive facilitation needs

Methodology and Approach

The Agile Organization (AO) Method

Pierre’s proprietary AO Method formed the foundation of the transformation. Key characteristics:

Target audience adaptation: Originally designed for leaders and agile coaches, successfully adapted for company-wide deployment
AO Matrix: 12-point assessment framework enabling teams to self-evaluate current agile maturity
Application: Used at beginning and end of training sessions to demonstrate progress and create awareness

Self-assessment approach: Teams identified their current position on the agile maturity spectrum. They visualized their target state. This process fostered ownership of the transformation journey.

Training Philosophy

The program rejected traditional certification-focused training in favor of experiential learning:

Priority: Practical application over theoretical knowledge
Goal: “Aha moments” connecting agile principles to daily work
Coaching over instruction: Facilitators guided discovery rather than lecturing
Content focus: Not about the trainer or material, but about the participants
Memorability: Exercises and games designed for lasting impact beyond slide content

Pierre’s facilitation principle: “The content is easy peasy. You have a scenario and you have to roll out. But every session, it was mostly the same thing, the same games… But in fact, because the nature of every team was different, [everyone had] a different experience.”

Core Frameworks: The “We-Us-Me” Triangle

The training centered on three interconnected perspectives:

WE (The Team): Primary focus and safety container
- Your immediate team “watches your back”
- Reduces individual tension through collective support
- Team becomes the core unit of care and accountability
US (The Company): Organizational context and alignment

Understanding how your team serves Quipu’s mission
Focus on company purpose without making it the primary concern
Example: Work for IBM’s data analytics team, not “for IBM”
ME (The Individual): Personal gain and development

“What’s in it for me?”
How individual growth aligns with team and company success
Personal agency and empowerment through agile practices

Key Tools and Exercises

Value Stream Mapping

A critical exercise that created breakthrough understanding of workflows:

Process in Pristina example:

First team created initial value stream design
Design was improved through facilitated discussion
Subsequent teams from same entity reviewed the improved design
Teams added corrections: “This is belief, in reality it’s working differently”
Final output: Complete systemic picture of actual workflows

Pierre’s reflection: “The improvement of the us by the we… Only when you have the full picture, you can start improving the picture. Because if you want to change, you have to notice there is a change to do. If it’s theoretical, people will never buy it.”

Daily Retrospectives

An innovative addition to the 3-day workshop format:

Frequency: End of each training day
Purpose: Demonstrate trainer receptiveness to feedback, embody agile principles
Impact: Participants saw real-time adaptation based on their input
Cultural modeling: Trainers practiced what they preached about continuous improvement

Starting with Retrospectives: Pierre adopted the practice of beginning new engagements with retrospectives. He did this rather than starting with planning. This approach helps in understanding the team’s current state before prescribing changes.

Content Adaptation Strategy

Challenge: Company-Wide Scope

Traditional agile training focuses on software development teams (developers, testers, Scrum teams). Quipu required adaptation for:

Support teams: First-line customer support, operations
Back office: HR, finance, procurement, office managers
Specialized functions: Credit card services, ATM maintenance technicians

Pierre’s reflection: “Artificial software development is easy peasy. But then you have the challenge of what are you doing with the support team?… the guys doing the credit cards, or even… people in Pristina, they’re just doing the ATM maintenance. These are the guys driving through the sales offices to maintain the ATMs. And you have to… explain what is Agile for them. You can’t talk about Scrum and only Kanban, there’s something else.”

Content Customization Process

Initial material design: Frank and Li posed challenges related to different roles and functions
Continuous review: Pierre constantly revised materials to fit each context
Weekly feedback loops: Frank and Li provided formal and informal feedback
Anonymous participant surveys: Collected concerns and suggestions
Real-time adaptation: Content evolved dramatically from start to finish
Transparency: Feedback shared with staff to demonstrate listening

Final Training Structure

The program evolved to a refined format:

Days 1-2: Practical exercises, games, and discovery learning

Retrospective opening to understand current state
Tools and techniques applied to participants’ actual work contexts
Focus on enabling fact-based decision making (“saying no” effectively)

Day 3 (Half-day): Theoretical framework

Introduction to formal terminology: Scrum, Kanban, scaled agile frameworks
“Checking boxes training” – naming what participants already experienced
Connecting practice to theory rather than theory to practice

Key Learning Outcomes

Definition of Done

Li, Frank, and Pierre established clear success criteria at program outset:

People know each other: Cross-functional connection and collaboration
People start to say “no”: Evidence-based boundary setting
Engaged workforce: Passion beyond just “doing the job”
Awareness of agile principles: Understanding why agility matters for the organization

Cultural Shifts Achieved

Empowerment to Say “No”

The Challenge: Many participants, particularly those from certain cultural backgrounds (e.g., Indian colleagues), found it culturally difficult to refuse management requests.

The Solution: Training provided tools for fact-based refusal:

Checklists for decision-making
Clear alignment to strategy and vision
Data-driven justification frameworks
Permission and encouragement from trained leadership

Management preparation: Pierre warned managers during kickoff: “Starting next week, I will begin the transformative learning with your people. They will start to say no to you. Are you ready for that?”

Ongoing work: Li identified continued focus on empowerment as key post-training work for agile coaches.

Understanding the Big Picture

Li’s perspective on transformation value: “What motivated me to invest in Agile… is really… how to empower people, how to unleash their potentials. I believe each of us are smart people. It’s just you need to give them some overall picture and to give them some directions… with this vision and everybody will have this in mind and connect to their day-to-day work.”

Connection to purpose:

Core problem: How to react to market rapidly while serving end users
Quality imperative: Deliver higher quality, potentially lower-cost services
Meaning-making: Understanding how individual work benefits real people
Motivation: Finding purpose through connection to organizational North Star

Problem-Solving Focus Over Process Compliance

Fundamental shift: Purpose is not to “deliver our job” but to “use our job to solve a problem.”

This reframing proved transformative across functional areas. It helped participants understand agile as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

Autonomy Recognition

Teams with direct customer interaction (support, operations) demonstrated higher initial autonomy scores on the AO Matrix:

Direct feedback loops with customers enabled faster learning
Customer-facing teams naturally developed agile behaviors
Recognition of existing agility built confidence rather than imposing foreign concepts

Challenges and Solutions

Challenge 1: Maturity Level Diversity

Problem: Participants included recent graduates who were enthusiastic about change. It also included long-tenured employees who were resistant to transformation. They had varying degrees of understanding of agile concepts.

Solution:

Start-where-you-are approach (Kanban principle)
Self-assessment via AO Matrix to meet teams at their level
Coaching facilitation adapting to each group’s needs
Focus on sense-making: “What makes sense to everyone?”

Challenge 2: Logistical Complexity

Problem: Reaching 90% of geographically distributed, culturally diverse workforce.

Solutions implemented:

Multiple delivery locations (Skopje, Pristina, Frankfurt)
Online and in-person options for flexibility
Accommodating last-minute cancellations and transfers between sessions
Deliberate overbooking some courses to maximize attendance

Frank’s reflection: “It’s very challenging to get them… different offices. You also have the flexibility to deliver online. Additionally, you support us with these other last minute cancellations.”

Challenge 3: Initial Participant Confusion

Problem: Early feedback indicated confusion about training purpose and relevance.

Solution:

Clearer framing: Not traditional training but awareness creation and challenge sessions
Retrospectives demonstrating responsiveness to concerns
Immediate content adjustments based on feedback (e.g., reducing overwhelming content volume)
Transparent communication about program goals and participant feedback incorporation

Challenge 4: Multicultural Communication

Observations on diversity:

Pierre’s experience: “I really get your point. I would say the challenge will be if you only work with mid-age white male from Switzerland. This will be a challenge. All thinking the same way. You don’t have this kind of diversity of voices.”

Specific cultural moments:

Colleagues from Kiev and Moscow working together despite geopolitical tensions
Participants from El Salvador traveling to Pristina, Kosovo for training
Language barriers (e.g., Ukrainian participants with very fluent UK English speakers)
Different communication styles requiring calibration

Solution approach:

Humor and willingness to communicate bridged gaps
Creating psychological safety for misunderstandings
Trainer vulnerability and dark humor built trust
Encouraged participants to joke back as proof of trust

Li’s perspective: “For me, multicultural shouldn’t be a big problem. Rather, it’s… the different understanding, different level, maturity of the understanding of what is agile.”

Challenge 5: Systemic Complexity

Problem: Multiple layers of stakeholder relationships (holding company, diverse banking clients, contractual SLAs) created alignment challenges.

Solution approach:

Focus on communication improvement across boundaries
Questioning outdated contracts and SLAs blocking progress
Shift from output-based to outcome-based partnerships
Recognition that agility requires social skills, not just engineering practices
“Putting butter in the system so it’s more fluid”

Questions from Audience and Pierre’s Responses

Q1: Do you find multiculturalism a challenge to work with?

Asked by: Li Fang

Pierre’s Response:

“I really get your point. I would say the challenge will be if you only work with mid-age white male from Switzerland. This will be a challenge. All thinking the same way. You don’t have this kind of diversity of voices. And this is making the thing awesome.”

Pierre acknowledged specific cultural challenges:

Communication factors (e.g., fluency differences creating perceived coach preference)
Cultural norms around humor and communication style
Importance of considering cultural context in facilitation

He emphasized that diversity strengthened outcomes. It did not hinder them. He noted the team’s “sense of collaboration, which is awesome.”

Q2: What was the challenge from your perspective as head of learning and development?

Asked by: Pierre to Frank

Frank’s Response (with Pierre’s follow-up):

Frank identified reaching everyone across the distributed organization as the primary challenge. The solution involved:

Strategic timing: Launching with quarterly middle management meeting
Multiple delivery modalities (online and in-person)
Flexibility for cancellations and schedule changes
Focus on interactive feedback loops (weekly discussions, anonymous surveys)

Pierre’s validation: The middle management kickoff was crucial for securing buy-in. It prepared leaders for the cultural shifts their teams would experience. This was particularly true around empowerment and saying “no.”

Q3: What adjustments did you make based on feedback?

Context: Implied question from discussion of continuous adaptation

Pierre’s Response:

Pierre described implementing daily retrospectives at the end of each training day based on early feedback. This served multiple purposes:

Demonstrated trainer listening and responsiveness
Modeled agile principles in real-time
Reduced overwhelming content when participants felt overloaded
Created trust that feedback mattered

He also shifted the training structure to start with retrospectives even when engaging new teams. He said, “I adopt that into my work. When I work with a new team, I will start with a retrospective. This is very important to understand how they work currently. It also allows me to coach them instead of teaching them.”

Q4: How did you handle the “saying no” cultural shift with management?

Context: Discussion about empowerment outcomes

Pierre’s Approach:

During the management kickoff session, Pierre explicitly warned leaders:

“Hey, attention, this sounds for you maybe fancy. I believe you [will] not discover new things. It was just how you [are] using your tools, what you know. And what’s coming up is… Attention, next week I will start the transformative learning with your people. They will begin to say no to you. Are you ready for that?”

Li’s follow-up work:

Li identified this as ongoing work for agile coaches: providing clear metrics, rules, and checklists. They also offer guidance for strategic alignment. This helps employees have frameworks for fact-based decision making. “They have this awareness to say no, but how?… We must provide tools to empower them. Providing guidance is also essential to empower them to say no.”

Q5: How did you adapt agile training for back-office functions?

Context: Implied question about customization strategy

Pierre’s Response:

Pierre acknowledged the challenge. He said, “Artificial software development is easy.” However, it’s more difficult to explain agile to ATM maintenance technicians, credit card services staff, or HR personnel.

His approach:

Constant material review and revision with Frank and Li
Context-specific examples relevant to each function’s work
Less focus on Scrum/Kanban frameworks initially
More emphasis on universal principles: collaboration, problem-solving, continuous improvement
Value stream mapping to help all functions visualize their workflows
Connecting agile practices to actual problems each function faces

Final day included framework overview (“this is called Scrum, this is called Kanban”) after participants experienced the principles in practice.

Q6: What made the value stream mapping exercise so impactful?

Context: Discussion of specific tools and their effects

Pierre’s Explanation:

The value stream mapping game demonstrated breakthrough understanding through iterative improvement:

Initial team creates value stream design
Design gets improved through discussion
Subsequent teams review and correct the “improved” design
Teams add real-world complexity: “This is belief, in reality it’s working differently”
Result: Complete systemic picture emerges

Key insight: “The improvement of the us by the we. Is the entities, how the system of all the entities are really working together… And only when you have the full picture, you can start improving the picture. Because if you want to change, you have to notice there is a change to do. If it’s theoretical, people will never buy it.”

This simple tool created lasting impact by making invisible workflows visible and connecting individual work to organizational systems.

Q7: Why did you decide to use the AO Method for company-wide training?

Context: Discussion about methodology selection

Pierre’s Response:

Pierre expressed initial hesitation: “I created this methodology… this is mostly for leaders and agile coaches.”

Li and Frank insisted on using it: “No, no, no, you tell me. No, no, Pierre… we know why we have to go agile. But we didn’t have a proper plan at the beginning, which is in progress.”

Application: The AO Matrix (12-point assessment framework) worked effectively because:

Allowed self-assessment: “Where are you now? Where do you think you are?”
Created baseline and target visualization
Used at beginning and end of training to demonstrate progress
Gave teams ownership of their transformation journey

Discovery: Teams with direct customer contact, such as support and operations, scored higher on autonomy initially. They received direct feedback. This feedback helped them naturally develop agile behaviors. This validated “start where you are” rather than imposing foreign concepts.

Q8: How did you maintain consistency across 37 sessions while keeping each one fresh?

Context: Implied question about facilitation approach

Pierre’s Response:

Pierre used repeatable structure with adaptive facilitation:

Consistency elements:

Same core games and exercises across all sessions
Same scenario and rollout structure
Even same jokes to enable peer sharing (“Did you attend also this crazy training with Pierre?”)

Adaptive elements:

Full focus on participants, not content
Reading the room and listening constantly
Responding to each team’s unique nature and needs
Coaching skills over training skills
7-8 hours of intense facilitation per session

Result: “Every session, it was mostly the same thing, the same games… But in fact, because the nature of every team was different, [everyone had] a different experience.”

Li’s observation: Pierre finished every day “with a sweating shirt” from the intensive facilitation effort. Participants often said “I survived from today” due to the immersive, challenging nature.

Q9: What should participants remember most from the training?

Context: Discussion about lasting impact

Pierre’s Philosophy:

“Maybe after a week I will forget what you teach and what you showed in the slides. But when I start to think about implementing something, I will recall something from your training. I will remember something from the session… from the method you used and then I can copy or reuse. So this is the thing we really need. This is the valuable. It’s not about the theory, but really the experience you shared with us.”

Design principle:

Experiences over information
Practical application over certification
Associative memory triggers (games, provocations, nudges)
Tools that can be recalled when needed rather than memorized content

Frank added: “People have different ways to react to this… In conversations with you, with Lee, and with me, they will hopefully keep something from it. They may reference it and then be able to apply it.”

Q10: What role did contracts and SLAs play in the transformation discussion?

Context: Systemic challenges mentioned briefly

Pierre’s Perspective:

Pierre challenged the status quo around contractual relationships:

“We talked about the SLAs… have you never thought about to improve and review the SLAs? [Response:] Why should we review the contract? [Pierre:] Yeah, because if the contract is not helping you moving forward, it’s just a blocker.”

Key insight: Contracts valid 10 years ago or even 5 years ago may no longer serve current needs. Agile transformation requires:

Questioning outdated agreements
Shifting from output-based to outcome-based partnerships
Making contracts coherent with current reality
Recognizing that social skills, not just engineering, drive agility
Improving communication to make systems more fluid

This challenged the notion that agile is purely technical: “People talk, agile is mostly of engineering. No, it’s social skills.”

Critical Success Factors

Based on the conversation, several factors enabled the program’s success:

1. Leadership Buy-In

Early engagement with middle management created top-down support for cultural shifts, particularly around empowerment and boundary-setting.

2. Continuous Feedback Loops

Weekly coordination meetings between Pierre, Li, and Frank
Daily retrospectives during training sessions
Anonymous participant surveys
Informal corridor conversations
Transparent communication back to staff about changes made

3. Experiential Learning Design

Games, simulations, and practical exercises created lasting memories and recall triggers rather than forgettable slide presentations.

4. Adaptation and Flexibility

Willingness to completely revise content between sessions based on feedback, customize for different functions, and pivot delivery methods as needed.

5. Coaching Expertise

Facilitators with coaching skills who could read the room, adapt in real-time, and focus on participants rather than content delivery.

6. Partnership Model

Pierre, Li, and Frank operated as partners rather than vendor-client relationship, with shared ownership of outcomes and continuous collaboration.

7. Cultural Sensitivity with Universal Principles

Acknowledging cultural differences while focusing on universal human needs: purpose, autonomy, mastery, connection.

Lessons Learned and Reflections

For Trainers/Consultants

Pierre’s insights:

Closeness matters more than formality – avoid suits and ties, be human
Dark humor and stupid jokes build trust when rules of engagement are clear
Allow participants to joke back as proof of trust
Focus 100% on people, not content
Repeat structure but adapt to each unique group
Expect emotional reactions and emails – perfection is impossible
Travel, logistics, and organizational details consume significant time
Coaching skills trump training skills for transformative work

For Learning & Development Leaders

Frank’s insights:

Record time achievement possible with right partnerships (10 months, 90% coverage)
Strategic timing of kickoff sessions amplifies impact
Multiple feedback mechanisms catch different concerns
Geographical and scheduling flexibility essential for distributed organizations
Sharing adapted materials post-training supports continuous learning
Investment metrics matter: 12,000+ staff hours represented significant commitment

For Agile Leaders

Li’s insights:

Empowerment requires tools, not just awareness
Big picture and North Star essential for meaning-making
Starting with retrospective before planning reveals current state
Coaching over teaching enables self-discovery
Continuous improvement applies to training programs themselves
Post-training work focuses on sustained empowerment and frameworks for decision-making

Outcomes and Impact

Quantitative Results

Metric	Result
Staff Coverage	90%
Total Sessions	37
Training Investment	12,000+ hours
Duration	10 months
Completion Rate	Successfully concluded

Table 2: Program Completion Metrics

Qualitative Outcomes

Awareness creation: 90% of staff now understand agile principles and their relevance
Cultural shift: Employees empowered to say “no” based on facts and strategic alignment
Cross-functional connection: Increased collaboration and understanding across departments
Systemic visibility: Value stream mapping revealed actual workflows for improvement
Engaged workforce: Shift from compliance to passionate problem-solving
Leadership readiness: Managers prepared for and supportive of behavioral changes
Lasting methodology: Li and others adopted training techniques (starting with retrospectives)

Participant Feedback Themes

From the conversation, common feedback included:

Positive:

“I survived today” – intense, challenging, engaging
Recognition of already being agile in some ways
Aha moments connecting agile to daily work
Appreciation for games and experiential exercises
Value of seeing the big picture through value stream mapping
Feeling heard through responsive adjustments

Challenges addressed:

Initial confusion about training purpose (clarified through better framing)
Content overwhelming at start (reduced through feedback)
Varied reactions to coaching styles (normalized through communication)
Questions about relevance for non-development roles (addressed through customization)

Future Directions

Ongoing Work

Li identified continued focus areas post-training:

Empowerment frameworks: Developing clear metrics, rules, and checklists for fact-based decision-making
Strategic alignment tools: Helping teams connect decisions to company vision and strategy
Vision clarity: Establishing and communicating North Star to guide agile behaviors
Continuous improvement: Sustaining momentum beyond initial awareness phase

Knowledge Management

Frank mentioned efforts to support continuous learning:

Training materials adapted for independent study
Resources shared with staff for reference
Materials available for newcomers to understand organizational approach
Creating institutional memory: “Who was this Pierre guy who was with us?”

Conclusion

The Quipu agile transformation is a comprehensive, company-wide initiative. It successfully engaged 90% of a diverse workforce. This workforce was geographically distributed and the engagement occurred over 10 months. The program created lasting awareness and cultural shifts. It focused on empowerment, collaboration, and problem-solving. This was achieved by prioritizing experiential learning over certification. The program also adapted content for all organizational functions and maintained continuous feedback loops.

Key differentiators included:

Early leadership engagement preparing managers for cultural change
Partnership model between external consultant and internal champions
Consistent structure with adaptive facilitation responding to each group’s needs
We-Us-Me framework connecting individual, team, and organizational perspectives
Tools like value stream mapping creating systemic visibility
Daily retrospectives modeling agile principles in training delivery itself

The success stemmed not from perfect execution. Instead, it was due to genuine partnership, continuous adaptation, and cultural sensitivity. There was also an unwavering focus on participants rather than content. As Pierre emphasized, “It’s not about the trainer, it’s not about the matter, it’s all about the people.”

The journey required significant investment. It involved over 12,000 training hours, extensive travel, logistical complexity, and emotional energy. However, it achieved remarkable reach and impact through collaboration. This was possible due to Pierre’s facilitation expertise, Li’s agile leadership, and Frank’s learning and development orchestration.

As the program concluded, attention shifted to sustaining momentum. This was to be achieved through continued empowerment frameworks and strategic clarity. Additionally, the application of learned principles would guide the organization’s ongoing evolution.

Workshop’s outcome

Executive Summary

This document consolidates a comprehensive workshop on building sustainable organizational culture. It focuses on long-term strategy and continuous improvement loops. The workshop also highlights leadership development. Additionally, it addresses embedding culture into talent management practices. The session emphasized practical frameworks, diagnostic tools, and real-world implementation challenges faced by leaders attempting cultural transformation.

Workshop Objectives and Structure

The session aimed to share practical long-term strategies for sustainable culture development through conversation, case studies, and theoretical frameworks. Key focus areas included:

Exploring continuous improvement and innovation loops
Aligning leadership development with cultural goals
Embedding culture into talent management practices
Understanding the role of leaders in cultural sustainability

The workshop format combined presentation, interactive discussion, and practical tool-sharing. Planned exercises (Kata) are scheduled every two weeks. These are for focused practice on specific cultural angles.

Understanding Sustainable Culture

Why Sustainable Culture Matters

Sustainable organizational culture drives long-term performance, retention, innovation, and reputation. Key benefits include:

Reducing costs associated with poor decisions and talent loss
Preventing culture drift as organizations grow or shift
Enabling scalable, repeatable behaviors that support strategy
Creating environments where people want to stay and contribute

Essential Elements of Sustainable Culture

Clear Values Translated into Observable Behaviors

Values must be explicit and understood uniformly across the organization. As emphasized in Kanban methodologies: “make everything implicit explicit and talk about it.” For example, if a company values “working together,” actual collaborative behaviors must be observable—not just stated commitments.

Continuous Feedback Loops and Learning Mechanisms

Organizations need structured post-mortems, post-incident reviews, and customer feedback loops. Regular retrospectives help teams discuss what happened and extract lessons learned. Proactive customer follow-up after delivery creates valuable connection points beyond “no news is good news” silence.

Leaders Who Model and Are Held Accountable for Cultural Behaviors

Leadership accountability is critical. Leaders must create self-organizing teams while being held responsible for cultural outcomes. Without accountability, leaders can operate without cultural constraints.

Reinforcing Processes, Rituals, and Systems

Rituals create belonging—a concept traced back to Confucius (Kong Zi). Regular ceremonies and symbols help establish cultural routines that bind teams together.

Long-Term Cultural Strategy Framework

Four-Part Framework for Sustainable Culture

Component	Description
Strategic Anchors	Link cultural transformation to business strategy; articulate how cultural behaviors support strategic objectives
Governance	Measure cultural metrics through audits; track turnover rates (sustainable companies maintain <15% turnover)
Learning Improvement Loops	Root cause analysis and continuous learning; great leaders facilitate extensive learning time
Talent Architecture	People management deeply integrated into leadership activities; hiring, development, and offboarding protect culture

Strategic Focus Areas

Values Definition – Conduct workshops where teams collectively define shared values (sociocratic approach from agile methodologies)
Decision-Making Frameworks – Transfer values into operational norms and decision principles
Cultural Governance Model – Establish councils and cross-functional oversight
Multi-Year Cultural Roadmap – Create flexible roadmaps that adapt as teams evolve (not rigid, written-in-stone documents)

Continuous Improvement: PDSA Cycle

The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, also known as the Deming Loop, provides the foundation for continuous improvement:

Plan – Define what needs to be tested
Do – Execute the plan
Study – Analyze outcomes and learn
Act – Implement changes and prevent regression

The “Act” phase is critical—it blocks the boulder from rolling back down the hill (Sisyphus metaphor). Without this step, teams revert to old patterns.

Practical Implementation

Weekly reflection sessions (e.g., Friday 11:00-12:00) allow teams to:

Reflect on the week’s work
Identify what can be done better
Decide what to stop, start, or continue
Plan automation opportunities
Unleash 10% of time for creative problem-solving

These sessions transform routine work by making it visible, revealing dependencies, and enabling cross-pollination of ideas between team members.

Tools for Continuous Improvement

Pulse Surveys – Regular check-ins on team sentiment and engagement
Weather Channel – Excel-based mood tracking (sun/cloud indicators) showing team trends over time
Engagement Surveys – Gallup Q12-style assessments measuring connection and belonging
Experiment Design Cards – Structured templates for testing cultural initiatives
Learning Journals – Documentation of lessons and insights
Innovation Sprints/Pilot Programs – Time-boxed experiments for new approaches

Leadership Development and Cultural Alignment

The Leader’s Dual Challenge

Leaders occupy an uncomfortable middle position, balancing two cultural demands:

Supporting team culture to flourish organically
Enforcing corporate culture mandates from above

This creates a “completely schizophrenic” situation where leaders must embrace and navigate two potentially conflicting cultures simultaneously.

Leadership Accountability

Effective leaders use structured approaches like balanced scorecards to:

Link vision to measurable objectives
Track customer satisfaction and process effectiveness
Monitor team motivation and preparedness
Set clear goals with regular touchpoints (not just annual reviews)
Provide constructive feedback tied to development opportunities

Cultural Leadership in Practice: Real-World Example

Working with ProCredit Group (Quipu), cultural variations emerged across locations:

Frankfurt headquarters – Diverse, internationally experienced staff working cohesively
Pristina (Kosovo) – Dynamic team functioning well independently
Skopje (Macedonia) – Junior-heavy team requiring more support

Recommendation: Rather than centralizing coaches at headquarters, distribute them regionally to understand local cultural nuances. One coach in Ukraine, one in Moldova, one in Romania—embedded to work with local teams who understand regional cultural impacts.

Embedding Culture into Talent Management

Hiring for Cultural Fit

Behavioral Interview Approaches

Move beyond CV evaluation to assess:

Curiosity and learning orientation
Ability to interact and communicate effectively
Cultural alignment beyond technical skills
Character and adaptability

The Voting Experiment

In Luxembourg, a candidate was hired through an open-space voting process. All 50 team members asked questions. They voted with thumbs up or down in front of the candidate. This transparent approach ensured team buy-in and cultural alignment from day one.

Onboarding for Cultural Integration

Five-Minute Onboarding Philosophy

“Jump in the water to get wet”—immerse new hires immediately rather than prolonged theoretical orientation. Learn by doing, with support available as needed.

Cultural Clarity from Day One

Make values, behaviors, and expectations explicit during Onboarding. Reinforce narrative, identity, and expectations through stories and rituals.

Performance Management and Development

Constructive Rating Approach

Start with the assumption everyone deserves top ratings, then provide clear feedback on what specific actions would earn that rating. Focus on “What can you do to get the five next time?” rather than justifying why someone didn’t achieve it.

Defending Your People

Leaders must advocate for their team members when their work merits recognition, even when facing organizational pushback or quota limitations.

Offboarding and Cultural Protection

Offboarding reviews are essential for:

Team grieving process (part of culture is leaving)
Learning why people depart
Protecting external reputation
Preventing toxic narratives (especially in small industries where “everybody knows each other”)

Companies with poor offboarding practices develop negative reputations quickly. These reputations spread through professional networks. Platforms like Glassdoor further amplify them, making future recruitment nearly impossible.

Cultural Diagnostic Checklist

Strategic Anchors Assessment

Are all values translated into explicit, observable behaviors?
Are decision principles clearly used in trade-offs?
Do leaders model anchors consistently?
Are anchors aligned with strategy and customer promises?

Governance and Measurement

Are cultural metrics included in business reviews?
Is there accountability and structure for cultural behaviors?
Are leaders held accountable through defined frameworks (e.g., RACI matrices adapted for self-organizing teams)?

Learning and Improvement Loops

Are continuous improvement routines established (daily stand-ups, weekly retrospectives)?
Are failures and breakdowns analyzed for learning (post-incident reviews)?
Is experimentation encouraged and celebrated?

Talent Architecture

Are hiring criteria tied to values and behaviors?
Does Onboarding reinforce narrative, identity, and expectations?
Do development pathways support cultural goals?
Does offboarding protect culture and reputation?

Real-World Challenges and Solutions

Challenge: Sustaining Momentum Over Time

Cultural initiatives often die after initial enthusiasm fades. Senior leadership shifts focus, and continuity is lost.

Solution: Embed culture as routine through rituals and ceremonies. Make it “the way we work” rather than a special initiative. Use Confucian wisdom—rituals and celebrations reinforce desired culture continuously.

Challenge: Measuring Culture

Unlike operational KPIs, cultural metrics are difficult to define and track consistently.

Solution: Focus on leading indicators like:

Turnover rates (<15% for sustainable organizations)
Engagement survey scores
Time-to-productivity for new hires
Customer satisfaction linked to team behaviors
Frequency and quality of retrospectives

Challenge: Cultural Friction Across Departments

When one department implements new cultural practices, friction occurs with departments operating differently.

Solution: Don’t try to change everyone. Focus on your sphere of influence. Work so well that your approach becomes attractive rather than imposed. Build bridges that allow interaction without forcing conformity. Use “judo”—leverage the force of the environment rather than fighting it.

Practical Example: Create a dedicated zone in the company where teams operate with new practices. Give them critical projects. After 6 months of visible success, require new hires to spend 3 months in this zone. They should do this before choosing their permanent team assignment.

Challenge: Hiring for Culture in Quantity-Driven Environments

HR and recruitment systems often prioritize filling positions quickly over cultural fit, leading to misalignment and rapid turnover.

Solution:

Managers must own hiring decisions, with HR supporting process compliance
Use behavioral scoring rubrics beyond CV evaluation
Involve teams in hiring processes (voting, peer interviews)
Be willing to reject candidates who don’t fit, even if technically qualified
Look for cultural potential, not just current cultural match

Challenge: Consulting and Third-Party Workers

Consultants and contractors often find themselves culturally isolated. They do not belong to their employer’s culture as they are rarely in the office. They are also not fully integrated into the client culture since they are marked as “external”.

Solution:

Consultancies should acknowledge this reality
Mission for consultants: be hired by your customer (transition from contractor to employee)
Clients should consider integrating valuable consultants into permanent teams
Leaders should recognize cultural isolation and provide support structures

Questions Asked by Audience and our Answers

Q: How do you understand “building a sustainable culture and long-term strategy?” What about “continuous improvement and innovation loops?” How do you view “leadership development and integrating culture into talent management?”

Pierre’s Answer (Summary):

Continuous improvement requires structured approaches beyond ad-hoc team efforts—Kata provides this structure. Innovation is challenging because teams are told to “be innovative” without clear definition of what that means. Embedding culture into talent management is rarely done effectively. These topics are often viewed skeptically because they lack concrete implementation frameworks.

Q: What’s the difference between adhering to corporate culture versus embracing diverse cultures in the room?

Pierre’s Answer:

These are “two different beasts.” Leaders are caught in the middle—required to help team culture flourish while also enforcing corporate mandates. This creates an uncomfortable, “schizophrenic” position where leaders must navigate both simultaneously without being able to fully commit to either.

Q: What about taking care of pronouns and DEI values?

Pierre’s Answer (Context):

DEI compliance can trigger strong reactions (example: board member fired for DEI violation, leading to company-wide 6-8 week mandatory training). The challenge is balancing inclusivity with freedom of expression. “If you’re inclusive, please include me as maybe an “asshole” when I’m okay with it.” This means diversity includes personality diversity, not just demographic diversity. Leaders should “let people be, people should be free to express themselves how they want.”

Q: What’s your take on the change from “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Winter Holidays” in France?

Chris’s Answer:

France’s multicultural mix has led to avoiding language that might upset anyone. The move from “Merry Christmas” with traditional decorations to generic “happy winter holidays” feels like denying Christianity. This shift challenges Christianity as part of French culture. It’s complicated—not wanting to adhere to religion but also uncomfortable rejecting this cultural heritage.

Pierre’s Commentary:

Christmas isn’t exclusively Christian—even in France, Jews and Muslims celebrate it. It’s become culturally universal like Chinese New Year. The key leadership principle: embrace diversity without forcing everyone to abandon their traditions. Give people choice rather than imposing uniformity.

Q: Is there a difference between Pulse Survey and Engagement Survey?

Pierre’s Answer:

They can be the same thing. Gallup Q12 is the standard employee engagement survey. Generic pulse surveys ask: How are you feeling? How is work? What do you want to focus on? Do you understand business goals? These lead to quarterly one-on-ones. In these sessions, you track progress. You ask about annual goals. You also document development needs in the performance system.

Q: Do you know the PDCA cycle (Plan Do Check Act)?

The PDSA (Plan Do Study Act) variation emphasizes “Study” over “Check” to reinforce learning orientation over mere verification.

Q: Your definition of Sisyphus is different from mine—can you clarify?

Dominic’s Original Understanding: “The ball keeps rolling back. You start from zero again.”

Pierre’s Clarification:

Sisyphus in continuous improvement context means climbing uphill step by step. The “Act” phase blocks the boulder with a stone so it doesn’t roll back. If you don’t make a stop and reflect, progress rolls back to you. In linear, reactive work like sales, accounting, and support, it is valuable to take one hour on Friday (11-12). Use this time to reflect on the week. This practice prevents the Sisyphus trap. This creates small improvements that accumulate rather than constant restarts.

Q: What tools do you use for pulse surveys and continuous improvement?

Pierre’s Answer:

Weather Channel – Excel sheet tracking team mood (sun/cloud indicators) to show trends over time
Niko Niko Calendar – Daily mood check-in application
Engagement Surveys – Including questions like “Do you have a friend in the team?” to measure social connection
Experiment Design Cards – Structured templates for testing cultural changes
Learning Journals – Documentation of insights and lessons
Innovation Sprints/Pilot Programs – Time-boxed cultural experiments
Dashboard Highlighting Culture Metrics – Making cultural data visible

Q: Can you give concrete behavioral interview questions you would ask?

Pierre’s Answer:

Rather than specific questions, focus on behavioral signals:

Ask: “How was your daily meeting?” (Look for real examples, not methodology recitation)
Ask: “How was the review meeting? Where was the customer? Do you know the customer?” (Good: frequent customer interaction. Bad: “We don’t need the customer, they’re a distraction”)
Watch for: Curiosity, desire to learn, ability to communicate, character
Red flags: Too slimy/agreeable, just repeating methodology, lack of customer awareness
Green flags: Smart but incomplete skillset (can be trained), strong interpersonal skills, genuine engagement

Provocative question for highly credentialed candidates: “Forget everything you know.” Watch their reaction to gauge adaptability and ego management.

Q: Do you use Balanced Scorecard at your level?

Dominic’s Answer:

“The real balanced scorecard is supposed to be for board level. We have a full automated BI solution for that. A lot of teams use it—sales, chief sales officer needs metrics, reporting weekly to the board.”

Pierre’s Context:

In IT, balanced scorecards are used weekly for portfolio management with green/amber/red/blue status indicators. If amber (risk), leaders must provide countermeasures. This tracks initiatives and ensures accountability.

Q: How do you navigate implementing cultural change when the rest of the organization isn’t on board? What if you’re a new senior director/VP wanting to implement this approach but other departments aren’t aligned?

Pierre’s Answer:

“I will give you a trick. The trick is simple.”

Don’t try to convince everyone – “The best change is the way you’re working makes everything else obsolete”
Focus on your sphere of influence – Change what you can control, not everything
Work well and let others observe – Invite people to “come and meet the team, take a look, and then we can discuss”
Let team members build bridges – Your team will naturally interact with other teams. They will explain: “This is how we’re working. Can we work together?” We won’t change our game, but there are bridges we can build
Use judo, not force – “You’re using the force of your opponent” – work with the environment, not against it
Avoid pride – Don’t announce “we are the best.” One day you’re best, next day you’re bad. “C’est la vie”
Create a cultural zone – Recommend creating a dedicated area in the company where teams work the new way. Give them all critical projects (not simple ones). After 6 months of visible success, require new hires to work 3 months in that zone before joining other teams

Additional Strategy for Convincing Leadership:

For a private bank implementation, Pierre recommended: “Create a zone in your company. All teams working in this area, including meeting rooms, operate this way. Let them feel it. Test if it works for 6 months. If not, stop—it’s fine. But after 6 months, it will work.” Then integrate it into Onboarding.

Q: How do you handle the German “fail fast” culture issue?

Context: Germany struggles with failure acceptance despite agile rhetoric about “fail fast.”

Pierre’s Answer:

“It’s horrible. I asked Daimler at first contact: ‘What is your fail fast culture?’ Response: ‘We don’t fail at Daimler.'”

This reveals cultural misalignment. German culture fundamentally resists failure. The solution: “Usually they do it, but they call it differently.” Find language and framing that works within the existing culture rather than importing incompatible terminology.

Q: How do you handle cultural adaptation when working internationally?

Pierre’s Self-Reflection:

Switzerland – “Still trying to understand the Swiss guys. They don’t take you seriously if you’re a foreigner. They favor people from their own region—won’t even listen to a Swiss guy from Romandie (French-speaking part). You’re treated as a servant. If you push back, they brand you arrogant.”
Lebanon context – “We are transparent in conversation here. Now I understand women who told me they felt transparent” (invisible/dismissed)
Adaptation insight – “After 6 months, you’re no longer Indian, you’re German. After longer, you’re not German, you’re Bavarian—you go one layer deeper”
Professional approach – Use culturally appropriate team members for different contexts. For Middle East: Lebanese descent works in Beirut (seen as local), but North Africa sees “Monsieur Pierre” (distance/formality). Morocco requires Moroccan team members.

Dominic’s Asia-to-Europe Perspective:

“At the beginning was quite a big culture shock. Now if I go back to Asia, I’ll experience another culture shock. I’m not used to the culture in Asia anymore. I’m more used to the culture here.”

Silvio’s Distinction on Integration:

Two types of expatriates:

Those on short-term assignments who don’t bother learning language or culture (“What do I care? I know English”)
Those wanting to integrate and build a life (“You cannot live in a country for more than one year without being influenced. You’re gonna take something with you”)

Q: How does culture work for consultants who align more with client values than their own company?

Silvio’s Experience:

“I was more aligned with clients’ values than with Cognizant’s values. This happens a lot when you spend time on a project. When the contract ends, you find yourself out of values for everyone. You don’t align with your company anymore. You don’t align with the new client anymore.”

Pierre’s Analysis:

Consultants (McKinsey, Bain, BCG, Cognizant) are fundamentally alone:

Proud of prestigious business cards, but family asks “Are you happy?” (forced to say yes)
Never in office, so don’t know colleagues
At client site, not acknowledged as team member because you’re external
“You’re alone all the time”
Advice to daughter: “Go to consulting company, but don’t stay too long. Your mission: be hired by your customer”

This structural isolation makes cultural belonging nearly impossible for consultants.

Q: Why do cultural initiatives die out after a certain time?

Dominic’s Observation:

“A lot of these things die out after a certain time. Senior leadership stops looking at this, needs to focus on what board is looking at. Culture takes really a long time to implement, not just training.”

Pierre’s Answer:

This is the “January 1st intention” problem—like buying a gym membership and never going. Book recommendation: Change or Die addresses this phenomenon.

Solution:

Create routines, not intentions
Build context that prevents backsliding
Establish rituals and celebrations (Confucian wisdom—rituals reinforce culture)
Make it “how we work” not “special initiative”
Family example: Annual Christmas/Easter reunions create cultural continuity through ritual

Q: How do you measure culture? What KPIs work?

Chris’s Observation:

“I never saw any KPIs in the culture implementation of any of my companies. There is no follow up. You just guess, ‘Yeah, I have the feeling it’s okay.’ Everybody’s happy with the culture. But based on nothing.”

Dominic’s Agreement:

“It’s really tough to find metrics that really drive and move the needle, that are measurable over time.”

Pierre’s Answer:

Measurement must be continuous and evolve toward simplicity:

Turnover rate – Sustainable companies: <15%. Switzerland often >20% (red flag for leadership quality)
Don’t overcomplicate – Start with detailed metrics, but over time focus on core human values. Eventually reduces to: “Behave like a decent human being”
Link to strategy – If you can’t link cultural work to strategy, you’ll be considered noise/distraction
Track trends – Weather channel/mood tracking shows patterns over time
Use for reinforcement – Metrics aren’t just for follow-up, they’re “the blocker for the Sisyphus wheel”—preventing regression

Q: What about feedback going both ways—teams giving feedback to leaders?

Chris’s Insight:

“Something I found very powerful in only one company: feedback both ways. The team also feedback the performance of their own leader. You need to be very open-minded. Being a real leader requires accepting feedback. Sometimes, feedback hurts.”

Linked to psychological safety—people must feel safe to give honest feedback to leaders, even if initially anonymous surveys.

Pierre’s Implicit Agreement:

This aligns with his philosophy of transparency and constructive feedback. Leaders who can’t accept upward feedback can’t create psychologically safe environments.

Q: What about offboarding—how important is it?

Chris’s Experience:

Some companies have bad culture. They forget to learn during offboarding. It’s important to listen to why people left and improve. But outside, they talk and spread: ‘It was a piece of shit in this company, the manager did that.’ It’s known very fast. I know companies not able to hire at all because of this. If you go on Glassdoor, you see that company doesn’t have much feedback—nobody wants to go there. To kill it and come back to the good side is going to be a lot of effort.

Pierre’s Context:

Offboarding is part of talent architecture. When someone leaves, it’s a grieving process for the team—part of culture is going away, new culture forms. In small industries (“everybody knows each other” like aerospace design), bad offboarding creates a toxic reputation. This reputation spreads rapidly. It destroys future recruitment ability.

Q: How do you handle hiring when HR uses templates instead of manager specifications?

Pierre’s Frustration:

Multi-month delays common. Example process:

Manager requests specific profile
HR uses their own templates (ignoring manager’s request)
ATS system connects to recruitment company
Recruitment company never talks to manager or HR, just sees opening
After 3-6 months, manager gets first contact
Candidate doesn’t have required skills because HR “polished” the requirements

Historical Better Practice:

Managers could hire and fire people directly. HR’s role: ensure procedure compliance and protect people. Managers had budget to hire external service providers (coaches, consultants) without procurement gatekeeping.

Current Problem:

Procurement automation leads to “not the best people” because ATS systems filter out qualified candidates.

Pierre’s Personal Experience:

“100% rejection in Switzerland, even on jobs where I’m an expert. Agile Coach, nevermind.” Recruiters struggle to understand roles and show CVs for wrong positions. “This happens a lot more in Switzerland than anywhere else.”

Contrast: BCG Hiring Process:

“50 minutes total. BCG Director from Australia calls: ‘We have this mission. Interested? Yes/no? Available tomorrow? Okay, I send flight ticket. Meeting 10 o’clock London. Join.’ Ending process took 2 minutes. Everything straight to the point.

Sometimes started mission after first hour, then: ‘Pierre, you have to leave. Architect disagrees with you. He doesn’t want you here because he believes you studied NLP.’ Done.”

Q: How do you handle hiring people who challenge or annoy you?

Pierre’s Provocative Advice:

“You have to hire the person that annoys you or maybe pisses you off. The one who scratches, who stresses you. Because you see in that person something you don’t like in yourself. This person will push you to become a better person.”

Diversity Imperative:

If I have a team of mid-age white males from Switzerland, you need to hire different people. Hiring only similar people will change nothing. I need young people, old people, men, women, in between, all the colors of the rainbow. I’ll feel more comfortable that maybe one will see from a different angle, which is maybe part of the solution.

Q: How did performance reviews work at Cognizant, and how did you improve them?

Silvio’s Reflection on Standard Process:

“The process wasn’t wrong. In the past, you would have reportees, you’d forget about them. End of year comes, reviews, you’re asked about direct reportees—what did they do, do they deserve raise, bonuses? You have no idea because one year passed, you never saw them. If you worked together in same project, you’d have feedback. But like Pierre and me working in totally different areas, he’d have no idea what I did. Having set checkpoints is nice, but it was very little.”

Pierre’s Enhancement Approach:

Asked at beginning of year: “Silvio, what’s your plan for this year? What do you want to work on?”
If response: “I want your position” → “All right, fine. Let’s take a look, what do you need to get there?”
Documented everything in system (tracking progress)
Rating approach: “For me, you all have five points [maximum]. Based on what you’re doing, maybe you don’t deserve five. What can you do to get the five next time? Please do it.”
Gave constructive feedback with clear path to top rating
Defended team members’ ratings to directors when merited
Example: Colleague rated down by others. “I was really angry because it was based on work delivered and interactions during six months. Somebody said ‘it’s impossible, too much, you should not deserve it because it’s limited.’ Not my problem. He deserved this. You have to defend your people if you believe.”

Silvio’s Conclusion:

Pierre’s approach improved the process. It gave us the opportunity to set really clear goals. We could have exact checkpoints and something to measure against. If you discuss once every six months, that’s not good, not going to be enough.

Cultural Requirement:

“Culture needs to come from above. They need to trust that you’re doing a good job with your reportees. If they question how you did it, we have a problem. If you gave me a five and they question the five, we have a problem.”

Key Takeaways and Action Items

For Individual Leaders

Link all cultural work to business strategy—or risk being dismissed as “noise”
Establish weekly reflection routines (e.g., Friday 11-12) for continuous improvement
Use behavioral interviews focused on curiosity, character, and communication
Defend your team members when their work merits recognition
Create bridges with other departments rather than forcing conformity
Focus on your sphere of influence; make your approach attractive through results

For Organizations

Embed culture into all talent processes: hiring, Onboarding, development, offboarding
Measure what matters: turnover rates, engagement, time-to-productivity
Create cultural zones where new practices can demonstrate value
Give critical projects to high-functioning teams to showcase effectiveness
Require new hires to experience best-practice teams during Onboarding
Establish rituals and ceremonies that reinforce desired culture

Cultural Sustainability Principles

Culture is an ongoing system, not a one-time initiative
Simplify over time to core human values
Use rituals to create belonging and continuity
Make implicit expectations explicit
Celebrate learning and wins (even small ones)
Protect culture through thoughtful offboarding
Adapt cultural approaches to local contexts

Conclusion

Building sustainable organizational culture requires patience, strategic alignment, leadership accountability, and systemic thinking. It cannot be imposed top-down or achieved through workshops alone. Culture emerges from daily practices, reinforced through rituals, measured through meaningful metrics, and protected through every talent management touchpoints.

The most effective approach is to focus on your sphere of influence. Work so well that your methods become attractive to others. Build bridges that allow collaboration without forcing conformity. As Pierre emphasized, “The best change is the way you’re working makes everything else obsolete.”

Culture work must connect to business strategy, or it will be dismissed as distraction. When done well, culture work requires clear values and continuous learning. It also involves accountable leadership and thoughtful talent practices. Sustainable culture becomes the foundation for long-term performance, innovation, and organizational resilience.

Next Steps

Review diagnostic checklist and assess current state
Implement weekly reflection routine (Kata every two weeks)
Access shared documents and templates on Circle platform
Plan 30-day commitment based on workshop insights
Schedule follow-up session for practical game-based planning exercise using Miro

The AO Method (Agile Organization/Agile Organizations Method) is Pierre Neis’s own framework. It is distilled from more than a decade of agile coaching. This includes organizational transformation work across many companies, cultures, and contexts.

Core origins

Practice-based patterns: Neis describes AO as emerging from recurring patterns. He observed these while coaching and redesigning organizations of different sizes over many years. He then consolidated these into a coherent model. Later, he wrote a book called “AO.”
Response to “Agile as system dynamic”: AO starts from the hypothesis that “Agile” is not a method. It is a dynamic within a social system (the organization). An “Agile Organization” enables highly efficient human interactions for better response to threats and opportunities.
Organic/anthropomorphic view of organizations: AO was formulated as an answer to the mechanistic, purely structural view of organizations. It favors an organic, anthropomorphic model. In this model, all actors are engaged around a shared purpose. Agility emerges from conditions rather than imposed methods.

Theoretical influences

Complexity and complex adaptive systems: AO integrates complexity science and views organizations as living, adaptive systems. It focuses on emergence, feedback loops, and enabling conditions. It does so rather than using rigid frameworks.
Agile values beyond teams: It extends agile principles. These include individuals and interactions, responsiveness to change, and iterative learning. The extension moves from the team/process level to organization-wide design, leadership, and culture.
Organizational design & systemic thinking: AO is explicitly positioned alongside frameworks like Requisite Organization and the Viable System Model. It draws on systemic organizational theory while emphasizing adaptive structure and human-centric design.

First FORMALIZATION

Initial consolidation (around 2018): Neis publicly consolidated recurring agile patterns into the AO Model around 2018. He presents it as “key agile patterns from a decade of experience.”
Program for coaches, managers, HR: He created a program for agile coaches. It was also designed for managers and HR practitioners. This happened about five years before the 2022 Agile Alliance book listing. It was deliberately decoupled from any single agile methodology. This approach later fed into the AO concepts and patterns.
Books and “New Normal” framing: The Agile Alliance description of “The New Normal – AO Concepts and Patterns of 21st Century Agile Organizations” shows AO being framed as a comprehensive model with five areas (e.g., “Structure is not Organization,” transition phases, five experiences, five work areas) used to guide large-scale transformation.

Distinctive design choices

People-centric, organic growth: AO explicitly promotes “people-centric organic growth.” It is based on pillars such as coherence, cohesion, and simple rules. It also emphasizes avoidance and separation. These pillars reflect its origin in lived transformation work rather than abstract org charts.
Systemic, human-centric method: It positions itself as a systemic, human-centric method for agile transformation. This approach contrasts with more structural or team-bounded agile approaches.
Integration with existing agile practices: AO is often presented as something that extends or complements Scrum. It also enhances other frameworks. AO enables internal startups, swarms, and plexus-like networks inside organizations.

Five experiences or metrics in AO-method

The AO‑method defines five experiences (or experience‑based metrics) as its core measurement dimensions:

Enterprise experience – How the whole enterprise experiences agility. This includes strategy coherence and economic performance. It also covers the ability to respond to threats and opportunities. Lastly, it involves the perceived “agility of the business” at the top level.
Organization experience – This refers to how the internal organization experiences its own design. This includes the clarity of structures and roles, the flow of work, and decision latency. It also assesses how well the organizational setup supports agile dynamics.
People experience – How individuals and teams experience work. It includes engagement, autonomy, mastery, and psychological safety. It also encompasses the everyday feel of collaboration and leadership.
Customer experience – It encompasses how customers perceive the organization’s delivery. This includes value relevance, speed, reliability, and the ease of interacting with the company.
System experience – This refers to the behavior of the overall socio-technical system. It includes aspects such as stability, adaptability, and quality of feedback loops. Additionally, it considers how well the technical and social systems support continuous learning.

AO uses these five experiences as feedback loops. They are not merely output numbers like velocity. The “Experience Metrics Workbook” then breaks each dimension down into concrete indicators and templates.

Five work areas in AO-method

In AO, the “five work areas” are:

The platform – The stable, shared backbone of the organization. It includes core services, enabling functions, governance, and standards. These provide a safe container for experiments and day‑to‑day work. It is where you ensure coherence, basic rules, and support structures.
The Plexus – The dynamic network of relationships, communities, and cross‑cutting coordination mechanisms that connect units beyond the formal hierarchy. This is where knowledge flows, sense‑making, and alignment across silos happen.
Programs – Longer‑lived, mission‑driven streams that coordinate multiple initiatives around strategic themes or products. They give continuity, funding, and direction to clusters of work aligned with strategic outcomes.
Projects – Time‑bounded efforts with a clear goal, scope, and delivery horizon. They organize work that needs focus and structure but does not require a permanent or semi‑permanent stream.
Swarms – Highly adaptive, short‑lived, cross‑functional groups that self‑organize around urgent opportunities or problems. They embody the most fluid, emergent form of collaboration in AO, forming and dissolving quickly as needs arise.

Pr Dr Peter Nieschmidt Conference on “Rolle und Wertschätzung menschlicher Arbeit im gesellschaftlichen Wandel” is available on YouTube. It is (only in German). This conference was a source of inspiration to me. It helped me understand cultural challenges in my projects. Unfortunately, I didn’t find any English transcription. So, I created a short Executive Summary.

This learning script begins by outlining the core ideas of Peter Nieschmidt’s presentation. Then, it applies these ideas to the practical experience of managers and organizations. It is intended as a basis for reflection, discussion, and personal notes.

1. Work in a Changing Society

Today, work is much more than simply securing one’s livelihood. It fosters identity. It provides social integration. It gives meaning to life.
At the same time, many people experience a growing discrepancy between their commitment and the appreciation they get.

For leadership, this means not just “organizing jobs.” It involves shaping the conditions under which people experience their work as meaningful. It also ensures they feel valued.

2. Historical Development of Work Perceptions

In pre-modern societies, work was often linked to coercion, social hierarchy, and survival. Appreciation was more related to status than to specific tasks.
With industrialization and Taylorism, efficiency, standardization, and measurability took center stage; people often became mere “appendages of the machine.”

For today’s knowledge-based and service-oriented work, this mechanical thinking is no longer enough. The contribution of individual judgment is crucial. Creativity and interaction are also essential.

3. Present: Decoupling of Performance and Appreciation

Many employees invest additional emotional, cognitive, and temporal effort. However, they primarily experience recognition through formal key performance indicators. They also receive recognition via bonuses or target achievement.
Digitization, bureaucratization, and a fast pace mean that genuine personal feedback and dialogic recognition are often marginalized.

Typical practical phenomenon:

Annual performance review as the only “official” moment of appreciation, while daily life is dominated by emails, KPIs, and meetings.
Employees experience: “If I make a mistake, I notice it immediately – if I do good work, no one notices.”

4. Dimensions of Appreciation

Appreciation is not only expressed in words, but also in structures, rules, and routines. Four practical dimensions:

Person-related: Respect for the individual, recognition of their background, skills, and limitations.
Task-related: Interest in the specific work, understanding of the effort involved, complexity, and quality standards.
Context-related: Transparent integration of the work into the bigger picture, explanation of decisions and framework conditions.
Participative: Involvement in decisions, serious consideration of suggestions and objections.

Leadership that relies solely on bonuses, titles, and formal feedback often remains superficial in these dimensions.

5. Societal Trends with Consequences for Work

Demographic change and skills shortages increase the value of human labor, but structures often still treat people as easily replaceable.
Knowledge work, service work, and care work bring a new quality. In these fields, results are difficult to measure. Relationship building and emotional labor are central.

Practical areas of tension:

Economic logic demands continuous efficiency improvements. However, meaning, relationships, and learning time are more difficult to translate into short-term key performance indicators.
Employees expect more autonomy, development, and purpose, but encounter organizations with rigid rules and strong control.

6. Typical Misunderstandings of Appreciation

Confusing “feel-good sentimentality” with genuine recognition: Praise without substance comes across as paternalistic.
Reduction to material recognition: Salary and bonuses are necessary, but they don’t replace genuine, situation-based recognition of specific contributions.

Practical Example:

A team receives a bonus once a year but has little influence on goals and working methods.
Employees report that honest feedback in their daily work would mean more to them than a bonus. Feedback provides guidance. It promotes learning and encourages dialogue.

7. Consequences for Motivation and Health

Experiencing appreciation is a key protective factor against burnout, cynicism, and quiet quitting.
Conversely, a lack of recognition, combined with increasing demands and low autonomy, exacerbates exhaustion and psychological stress.

For managers, this means:

Not only managing workload but also actively integrating “recognition practices” into daily routines.
Systematically create spaces where employees can showcase their performance, reflect on it, and receive feedback.

8. Leadership Behavior in Everyday Life

Concrete levers for managers to make appreciation tangible:

Show presence: Regularly go to the places where value is created, listen, ask questions, without immediately “optimizing.”
Provide concrete feedback: Not “Good work,” but “The way you resolved the conflicts in today’s meeting made the decision possible.”
Recognize interests: Ask about learning interests and strengths and align task allocation accordingly, as far as the framework allows.
Respect boundaries: Respect occupational safety, breaks, availability, and private obligations; don’t tacitly expect constant availability.

9. Structural Framework Conditions

Appreciative leadership often fails not due to good intentions, but due to structures. Typical structural pitfalls:

KPI and reporting obligations that consume almost all of a manager’s time.
Positioning and budget logics that treat people as a cost item, not as a core resource.
Organizational design that fragments responsibility, so that no one sees “whole people” anymore, only functions.

Possible countermeasures:

Redesign meetings to create space for reflection, learning, and recognition, not just status reports.
Add key performance indicators (KPIs): In addition to output KPIs, use indicators for learning progress, collaboration, and customer/patient feedback.

10. Examples of leadership practices:

Concrete, easy-to-implement practices that capture the spirit of the presentation:

Appreciative weekly reviews: Briefly gather the team each week to ask: “What did we accomplish this week? Who benefited from what?”
Recognition retrospective: Dedicate 60 minutes each quarter. Highlight successful contributions and unexpected successes. Acknowledge quiet achievements that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Storytelling in Meetings: In each meeting, one person shares a short story from their workday. They recount an experience where they found meaning or value.

For you as a leader:

Each week, express appreciation to different employees at least three times with very specific words.
Observe how the quality of relationships and openness within the team changes.

11. Linking to Productivity and Quality (MTM Context)

In productivity-oriented approaches like MTM, the analysis and optimization of work systems are paramount.
Appreciation and efficiency are not mutually exclusive: Good system design that takes people seriously reduces waste, overload, and errors.

Important Mindset:

People are not disruptive elements in the system, but rather the central drivers of learning, adaptability, and quality awareness.
Appreciation therefore also means designing work in a way that is feasible, understandable, and manageable.

12. Reflection Questions for Your Own Learning

To conclude, here are some questions you can use for your learning script:

Where in your environment is performance visible but undervalued?
Which routines in your team foster appreciation, and which undermine it?
When did you last experience appreciation as powerful – what exactly happened?
Which specific practice from this script would you like to try out in the next four weeks?

These questions will help you understand the concepts of the role and appreciation of human work theoretically. They will also help anchor them in your own everyday leadership practice.

Using the three supervision functions (normative, formative, restorative), the dual‑relationship situation surfaces different types of challenges. Each function highlights specific risks you would want to explore in supervision.

Normative function: ethics and standards

From a normative (ethical/standards) lens, challenges include:

Ambiguity about conflicts of interest and whether the dual relationship breaches your code of ethics or internal coaching policy (e.g. coaching someone you also appraise or influence organizationally).
Pressure from the organization or sponsor that pulls you away from agreed boundaries (e.g. requests for confidential information, subtle alignment with management’s agenda).

Formative function: learning and practice

From a formative (learning/development) lens, challenges include:

Limited skill or repertoire to work cleanly in a dual role: contracting. This includes resetting boundaries mid‑engagement. It also involves naming power dynamics in the room.
Your other role, whether HR, leader, or Agile coach, shapes your questions. It affects your challenge level and the topics you unconsciously avoid with this client.

Restorative function: well-being and impact on you

From a restorative (support/well-being) lens, challenges include:

Emotional strain arises from “split loyalties” between the client and the organization. There is also anxiety about “getting it wrong” ethically in a political system you belong to.
Over‑involvement or depletion: ruminating about the case. It includes difficulty switching off. You feel isolated because you can’t freely discuss it with internal peers due to confidentiality.

Systemic themes to surface in supervision

Across all three functions, supervision would explore:

How organizational culture (politics, expectations of HR/OD, leadership style) amplifies dual‑relationship risks for internal coaches.
What structures are missing or weak? These include policy, allocation rules, or access to external supervision. This issue is making you personally carry too much of the ethical and emotional load.

Internal coaches face several recurring ethical challenges, mostly around confidentiality, role conflict, and organizational power dynamics. Even when aligned with a formal code of ethics (e.g. ICF), the internal context makes these dilemmas more frequent and ambiguous.

Key ethical tensions

Confidentiality vs. sponsor expectations
- Leaders or HR often expect detailed “updates” on the coachee’s progress or mindset. This expectation clashes with strict confidentiality obligations in most coaching codes.
- Internal coaches can be formally or informally pressured to reveal sensitive information. This includes whether someone is a “flight risk”, under-performing, or critical of leadership. Such pressures directly test the code of ethics.
Conflict of interest and multiple roles
- Internal coaches commonly hold another role, like manager, HR, OD, or Agile coach. This creates overlapping obligations and loyalties to the organization, the boss, and the client.
- Expectations to “follow the boss’s directive” are a major source of pressure. This pressure often leads HR and internal practitioners to compromise ethical standards.
Perceived independence and psychological safety
- Coachees not fully trust an internal coach’s independence. They fear that what they share harm their careers. This fear persists even if the coach adheres strictly to the code.
- Organizational politics and informal networks can influence how people perceive the coach’s neutrality. They can also subtly shape which topics Coachees feel safe to explore.

Code of ethics specifics that get strained

Confidentiality and privacy
- Professional frameworks (like ICF) emphasize that what is shared in sessions stays private unless explicitly agreed otherwise in the contract.
- In internal coaching, standard HR practices (e.g. documenting risk, performance, misconduct) can clash with these commitments when the coach is also part of HR or management.
Autonomy and non-maleficence (no harm)
- Ethical guidance highlights protecting client well‑being and autonomy, avoiding harm, and not exploiting the relationship.
- Internal coaches are aware of organizational plans. These can include restructuring, layoffs, or performance procedures. These plans affect the client. But, coaches can’t always share them. This inability creates moral tension around “harm” and transparency.
Objectivity and avoiding misuse of power
- Codes emphasize fairness, avoiding favoritism, and keeping clear boundaries with other roles.
- Internal coaches are drawn into political games. They are used to influence employees towards certain decisions. Coaches also be subtly expected to “align” employees with management agendas rather than the client’s goals.

Typical dilemma patterns for internal coaches

Triangular relationship: sponsor–coach–Coachees
- Ambiguity around what is shared at “three‑way” meetings (e.g. between HR, manager and Coachees) risks sliding from high‑level themes into personal details, breaching the code.
- Misaligned expectations at the contracting stage can often lead to ethical conflict later in the engagement. The manager expects behavioral reports, but the coach promises confidentiality.
Boundary management and scope creep
- Internal coaches can be asked to “just give some advice” on HR or performance issues. This can cross into consulting, assessment, or even disciplinary influence. These areas differ from coaching.
- Coachees also seek special treatment or information since the coach is “on the inside”. This tests the boundary between coaching and confidential organizational knowledge.
Supervision and escalation challenges
- Internal coaches sometimes lack a truly independent supervisor or ethics body inside the organization to discuss dilemmas safely.
- Without clear internal policies and an external reference (e.g. ICF’s ethical complaint and review structures), coaches can feel isolated when they need to push back against senior leaders.

Practices that help uphold the code

Robust contracting and transparency
- Clear three‑way contracting that spells out goals, reporting limits, and confidentiality boundaries from the start reduces later pressure and misunderstanding.
- Documented coaching policies are aligned with a recognized code of ethics. They give internal coaches a formal reference when they need to say “no” to inappropriate requests.
Structural protections for independence
- Some norms help preserve perceived and actual independence. One such norm is coaching outside one’s line of control. Another is having an independent ethics or review board.
- Regular supervision, often with an external supervisor, aids reflection on ethical tensions. It also helps find blind spots and assess the impact of organizational politics on the coaching stance.

If helpful, the next step can be to map your specific internal role (e.g. HR, Agile coach, OD) against these patterns and design a tailored “ethical operating model” for your internal coaching practice.

Dual relationships are best handled by minimizing them where possible. When they can’t be avoided, it is important to make them highly explicit, contracted, and supervised. As an internal coach, that usually means separating roles structurally, naming conflicts early, and sometimes declining or ending coaching relationships.

Clarify what “dual relationship” means

A dual relationship exists when you and the Coachees have more than one role or relationship (e.g. coach and line manager, coach and HRBP, coach and close colleague/friend).
These situations create conflicts of interest and power imbalances. The ICF and EMCC codes need you to recognize, reveal, and manage or avoid these conflicts.

Design structural safeguards

Avoid coaching people where you have evaluative or formal power (direct reports, people you appraise, HR cases you manage). Swap coaches across units or levels instead.
Define in your internal coaching policy who internal coaches can and not coach (e.g. “never within own reporting line, never in active HR processes”).

Use transparent contracting

In the intake, name the dual role explicitly. You say, “I am both your Agile coach and your internal coach; here is how that will affect us.” Then explore risks together.
Build the dual role and its limits into the written coaching agreement: what you will not do (e.g. no performance advice, no participation in promotion decisions) and what happens if a conflict appears.

Monitor boundaries in practice

Regularly check: “Are my other roles influencing this conversation?” and “The client feel pressured because of my position?”
If topics drift into areas where your other role is dominant (e.g. HR investigation, performance rating), pause and either re‑route that topic to the appropriate process or end the coaching relationship for that issue.

Escalate, supervise, or step out

Use supervision (ideally external) to unpack any dual‑relationship tensions, blind spots, or emotional hooks before they harm the client.
If the conflict of interest can’t be mitigated, ethics guidance supports ending or transferring the coaching. For example, you must soon evaluate the Coachees. In such cases, it’s important to explain clearly why this step is necessary.

If you share your specific dual roles (e.g. “HR + internal coach for managers”), a concrete script and decision rules can be drafted for your context.

In a dual‑relationship case, HR gets involved when organizational risk or formal processes are triggered. An external supervisor is involved as soon as you feel ethically “stuck”. You should also involve them if you feel emotionally entangled or unsure how to continue. In practice, internal coaches are encouraged to consult supervision early. They should escalate to HR when the dilemma touches employment decisions. This includes policy breaches or potential harm to the client or others.

When to involve HR

Involve HR (or your equivalent role) when:

There is possible misconduct, discrimination, harassment, or safety risk disclosed in coaching. The organization is legally or ethically obliged to tackle these issues.
The dual relationship intersects with formal HR processes. These include performance management, restructuring, investigation, grievance, and whistle-blowing. You are expected to play a role in those processes.
You need to renegotiate the three‑way contract (sponsor–coach–Coachees). For example, do this if expectations on confidentiality have become misaligned. You should also do it if reporting has become impossible to honor.

When to seek external supervision

Seek an external (or at least independent) supervisor when:

You notice conflicting loyalties, strong emotions, or attraction. Over‑identification with the client can cloud your judgment in the dual relationship.
You are unsure whether to continue, refer, or terminate the coaching because of boundary issues or conflict of interest.
You need help to clarify options that protect client welfare. These options should respect the coaching code of ethics. They must also remain realistic in your internal political context.

How to decide whom to involve first

If the issue is primarily about organizational rules or employment risk, start with HR. Consult a trusted senior HR or ethics contact. Ideally, obtain the client’s knowledge where possible.
If the issue is primarily about your own boundaries, bias, or confusion, begin with external supervision. Consider a confidential ethics consultation. Then decide whether HR involvement is needed.

Good practice in a case study response

For a written case study or exam scenario, you can show ethical maturity by:

Stating that you would seek supervision early when a dual relationship emerges or shifts, to explore impact and options.
Explain clear criteria for HR escalation. These include risk, policy breach, and formal processes. State your intention to be transparent with the client about any need to involve HR.