Easy Agile Podcast Ep.4 Em Campbell-Pretty, CEO & Managing Director at Pretty Agile

TL;DR

Henrik Kniberg, the agile coach behind Spotify's model, discusses how AI is fundamentally transforming software development. Key takeaways: AI tools like Cursor and Claude are enabling 10x productivity gains; teams should give developers access to paid AI tools and encourage experimentation; coding will largely disappear as a manual task within 3–4 years; teams will shrink to 2 people plus AI; sprints will become obsolete in favour of continuous delivery; product owners can now write code via AI, creating pull requests instead of user stories; the key is treating AI like a brilliant intern – when it fails, the problem is usually your prompt or code structure, not the AI. Bottom line: Learn to use AI now, or risk being left behind in a rapidly changing landscape.

Introduction

Artificial intelligence is fundamentally reshaping how software teams work, collaborate, and deliver value. But with this transformation comes questions: How do we maintain team morale when people fear being replaced? What happens to code quality when AI writes most of the code? Do traditional agile practices like sprints still make sense?

In this episode, I sit down with Henrik Kniberg to tackle these questions head-on. Henrik is uniquely positioned to guide us through this transition – he's the agile coach and entrepreneur who pioneered the famous Spotify model and helped transform how Lego approached agile development. Now, as co-founder of Abundly AI, he's at the forefront of helping teams integrate AI into their product development workflows.

This conversation goes deep into the practical realities of AI-powered development: from maintaining code review processes when productivity increases 10x, to ethical considerations around AI usage, to what cross-functional teams will look like in just a few years. Henrik doesn't just theorise – he shares real examples from his own team, where their CEO (a non-coder) regularly submits pull requests, and where features that once took a sprint can now be built during a 7-minute subway ride.

Whether you're a developer wondering if AI will replace you, a product owner looking to leverage these tools, or a leader trying to navigate this transformation, this episode offers concrete, actionable insights for thriving in the AI era.

About Our Guest

Henrik Kniberg is an agile coach, author, and entrepreneur whose work has shaped how thousands of organisations approach software development. He's best known for creating the Spotify model – the squad-based organisational structure that revolutionised how large tech companies scale agile practices. His work at Spotify and later at Lego helped demonstrate how agile methodologies could work at enterprise scale whilst maintaining team autonomy and innovation.

Henrik's educational videos have become legendary in the agile community. His "Agile Product Ownership in a Nutshell" video, created over a decade ago, remains one of the most-watched and shared resources for understanding product ownership, with millions of views. His ability to distil complex concepts into simple, visual explanations has made him one of the most accessible voices in agile education.

More recently, Henrik has turned his attention to the intersection of AI and product development. As co-founder of Abundly AI, he's moved from teaching about agile transformation to leading AI transformation – helping companies and teams understand how to effectively integrate generative AI tools into their development workflows. His approach combines his deep understanding of team dynamics and agile principles with hands-on experience using cutting-edge AI tools like Claude, Cursor, and GitHub Copilot.

Henrik codes daily using AI and has been doing so for over two and a half years, giving him practical, lived experience with these tools that goes beyond theoretical understanding. He creates educational content about AI, trains teams on effective AI usage, and consults with organisations navigating their own AI transformations. His perspective is particularly valuable because he views AI through the lens of organisational change management – recognising that successful AI adoption isn't just about the technology, it's about people, culture, and process.

Based in Stockholm, Sweden, Henrik continues to push the boundaries of what's possible when human creativity and AI capabilities combine, whilst maintaining a pragmatic, human-centred approach to technological change.

Transcript

Note: This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.

Maintaining Team Morale and Motivation in the AI Era

Tenille Hoppo: Hi there, team, and welcome to this new episode of the Easy Agile Podcast. My name is Tenille Hoppo, and I'm feeling really quite lucky to have an opportunity to chat today with our guest, Henrik Kniberg.

Henrik is an agile coach, author, and entrepreneur known for pioneering agile practices at companies like Spotify and Lego, and more recently for his thought leadership in applying AI to product development. Henrik co-founded Abundly AI, and when he isn't making excellent videos to help us all understand AI, he is focused on the practical application of generative AI in product development and training teams to use these technologies effectively.

Drawing on his extensive experience in agile methodologies and team coaching, Henrik seems the perfect person to learn from when thinking about the intersection of AI, product development, and effective team dynamics. So a very warm welcome to you, Henrik.

Henrik Kniberg: Thank you very much. It's good to be here.

Tenille: I think most people would agree that motivated people do better work. So I'd like to start today by touching on the very human element of this discussion and helping people maintain momentum and motivation when they may be feeling some concern or uncertainty about the upheaval that AI might represent for them in their role.

What would you suggest that leaders do to encourage the use of AI in ways that increase team morale and creativity rather than risking people feeling quite concerned or even potentially replaced?

Henrik: There are kind of two sides to the coin. There's one side that says, "Oh, AI is gonna take my job, and I'm gonna get fired." And the other side says, "Oh, AI is going to give me superpowers and give us all superpowers, and thereby give us better job security than we had before."

I think it's important to press on the second point from a leader's perspective. Pitch it as this is a tool, and we are entering a world where this tool is a crucial tool to understand how to use – in a similar way that everyone uses the Internet. We consider it obvious that you need to know how to use the Internet. If you don't know how to use the Internet, it's going to be hard.

"I encourage people to experiment, give them access to the tools to do so, and encourage sharing. And don't start firing people because they get productive."

I also find that people tend to get a little bit less scared once they learn to use it. It becomes less scary. It's like if you're worried there's a monster under your bed, maybe look under your bed and turn on the lights. Maybe there wasn't a monster there, or maybe it was there but it was kind of cute and just wanted a hug.

Creating a Culture of Safe Experimentation

Tenille: I've read that you encourage experimentation with AI through learning – I agree it's the best way to learn. What would you encourage leaders and team leaders to do to create a strong culture where teams feel safe to experiment?

Henrik: There are some things. One is pretty basic: just give people access to good AI tools. And that's quite hard in some large organisations because there are all kinds of resistance – compliance issues, data security issues. Are we allowed to use ChatGPT or Claude? Where is our data going? There are all these scary things that make companies either hesitate or outright try to stop people.

Start at that hygiene level. Address those impediments and solve them. When the Internet came, it was really scary to connect your computer to the Internet. But now we all do it, and you kind of have to, or you don't get any work done. We're at this similar moment now.

"Ironically, when companies are too strict about restricting people, then what people tend to do is just use shadow AI – they use it on their own in private or in secret, and then you have no control at all."

Start there. Once people have access to really good AI tools, then it's just a matter of encouraging and creating forums. Encourage people to experiment, create knowledge-sharing forums, share your own experiments. Try to role-model this yourself. Say, "I tried using AI for these different things, and here's what I learned." Also provide paths for support, like training courses.

The Right Mindset for Working with AI

Tenille: What would you encourage in team members as far as their mindset or skills go? Certainly a nature of curiosity and a willingness to learn and experiment. Is there anything beyond that that you think would be really key?

Henrik: It is a bit of a weird technology that's never really existed before. We're used to humans and code. Humans are intelligent and kind of unpredictable. We hallucinate sometimes, but we can do amazing things. Code is dumb – it executes exactly what you told it to do, and it does so every time exactly the same way. But it can't reason, it can't think.

Now we have AI and AI agents which are somewhere in the middle. They're not quite as predictable as code, but they're a lot more predictable than humans typically. They're a lot smarter than code, but maybe not quite as smart as humans – except for some tasks when they're a million times smarter than humans. So it's weird.

You need a kind of humble attitude where you come at it with a mindset of curiosity. Part of it is also to realise that a lot of the limitation is in you as a user. If you try to use AI for coding and it wrote something that didn't work, it's probably not the model itself. It's probably your skills or lack of skills because you have to learn how to use these tools. You need to have this attitude of "Oh, it failed. What can I do differently next time?" until you really learn how to use it.

"There can be some aspect of pride with developers. Like, 'I've been coding for 30 years. Of course this machine can't code better than me.' But if you think of it like 'I want this thing to be good, I want to bring out the best in this tool' – not because it's going to replace me, but because it's going to save me a tonne of time by doing all the boring parts of the coding so I can do the more interesting parts – that kind of mindset really helps."

Maintaining Code Quality and Shared Understanding

Tenille: Our team at Easy Agile is taking our steps and trying to figure out how AI is gonna work best for us. I put the question out to some of our teams, and there were various questions around people taking their first steps in using AI as a co-pilot and producing code. There are question marks around consistency of code, maintaining code quality and clean architecture, and even things like maintaining that shared understanding of the code base. What advice do you have for people in that situation?

Henrik: My first piece of advice when it comes to coding – and this is something I do every day with AI, I've been doing for about two and a half years now – is that the models now, especially Claude, have gotten to the level where it's basically never the AI's fault anymore. If it does anything wrong, it's on you.

You need to think about: okay, am I using the wrong tool maybe? Or am I not using the tool correctly?

For example, the current market leader in terms of productivity tools with AI is Cursor. There are other tools that are getting close like GitHub Copilot, but Cursor is way ahead of anything else I've seen. With Cursor, it basically digs through your code base and looks for what it needs.

But if it fails to find what it needs, you need to think about why. It probably failed for the same reason a human might have failed. Maybe your code structure was very unstructured. Maybe you need to explain to the AI what the high-level structure of your code is.

"Think of it kind of like a really smart intern who just joined your team. They're brilliant at coding, but now they got confused about something, and it's probably your code – something in it that made it confused. And now you need to clarify that."

There are ways to do that. In Cursor, for example, you can create something called cursor rules, which are like standing documents that describe certain aspects of your system. In my team, we're always tweaking those rules. Whenever we find that the AI model did something wrong, we're always analysing why. Usually it's our prompt – I just phrased it badly – or I just need to add a cursor rule, or I need to break the problem down a little bit.

It's exactly the same thing as if you go to a team and give them this massive user story that includes all these assumptions – they'll probably get some things wrong. But if you take that big problem and sit down together and analyse it and split it into smaller steps where each step is verifiable and testable, now your team can do really good work. It's exactly the same thing with AI.

Addressing the Code Review Bottleneck

Tenille: One of our senior developers found that he was outputting code at a much greater volume and faster speed, but the handbrake he found was actually their code review processes. They were keeping the same processes they had previously, and that was a bit of a handbrake for them. What kind of advice would you have there?

Henrik: This reminds me of the general issue with any kind of productivity improvement. If you have a value stream, a process where you do different parts – you do some development, some testing, you have some design – whenever you take one part of the process and make it super optimised, the bottleneck moves to somewhere else.

If testing is no longer the bottleneck, maybe coding is. And when coding is instant, then maybe customer feedback – or lack of customer feedback – is the bottleneck. The bottleneck just keeps moving. In that particular case, the bottleneck became code review. So I would just start optimising that. That's not an AI problem. It's a process problem.

Look at it: what exactly are we trying to do when we review? Maybe we could think about changing the way we review things. For example, does all code need to be reviewed? Would it be enough that the human who wrote it and the AI, together with the human, agree that this is fine? Or maybe depending on the criticality of that change, in some cases you might just let it pass or use AI to help in the reviewing process also.

"I think there's value in code review in terms of knowledge sharing in a large organisation. But maybe the review doesn't necessarily need to be a blocking process either. It could be something you go back and look at – don't let it stop you from shipping, but maybe go back once per week and say, 'Let's look at some highlights of some changes we've made.'"

We produce 10 times more code than in the past, so reviewing every line is not feasible. But maybe we can at least identify which code is most interesting to look at.

Ethical Considerations: Balancing Innovation with Responsibility

Tenille: Agile emphasises people over process and delivering value to customers. Now with AI in the mix, there's potential for raising some ethical considerations. I'm interested in your thoughts on how teams should approach these ethical considerations that come along with AI – things like balancing rapid experimentation against concerns around bias, potential data privacy concerns.

Henrik: I would treat each ethical question on its own merits. Let me give you an example. When you use AI – let's say facial recognition technology that can process and recognise faces a lot better than any human – I kind of put that in the bucket of: any tool that is really useful can also be used for bad things. A hammer, fire, electricity.

That doesn't have so much to do with the tool itself. It has much more to do with the rules and regulations and processes around the tool. I can't really separate AI in that sense. Treat it like any other system. Whenever you install a camera somewhere, with or without AI, that camera is going to see stuff. What are you allowed to do with that information? That's an important question. But I don't think it's different for AI really, in that sense, other than that AI is extremely powerful. So you need to really take that seriously, especially when it comes to things like autonomous weapons and the risk of fraud and fake news.

"An important part of it is just to make it part of the agenda. Let's say you're a recruitment company and you're now going to add some AI help in screening. At least raise the question: we could do this. Do we want to do this? What is the responsible way to do it?"

It's not that hard to come up with reasonable guidelines. Obviously, we shouldn't let the AI decide who we're going to hire or not. That's a bad idea. But maybe it can look at the pile of candidates that we plan to reject and identify some that we should take a second look at. There's nothing to lose from that because that AI did some extra research and found that this person who had a pretty weak CV actually has done amazing things before.

We're actually working with a company now where we're helping them build some AI agents. Our AI agents help them classify CVs – not by "should we hire them or not," but more like which region in Sweden is this, which type of job are we talking about here. Just classifying to make it more likely that this job application reaches the right person. That's work that humans did before with pretty bad accuracy.

The conclusion was that AI, despite having biases like we humans do, seemed to have less biases than the human. Mainly things like it's never going to be in a bad mood because it hasn't had its coffee today. It'll process everybody on the same merits.

I think of it like a peer-to-peer thing. Imagine going to a doctor – ideally, I want to have both a human doctor and an AI doctor side by side, just because they both have biases, but now they can complement each other. It's like having a second opinion. If the AI says we should do this and the doctor says, "No, wait a second," or vice versa, having those two different opinions is super useful.

Parallels Between Agile and AI Transformations

Tenille: You're recognised as one of the leading voices in agile software development. I can see, and I'm interested if you do see, some parallels between the agile transformations that you led at Spotify and Lego with the AI transformations that many businesses are looking at now.

Henrik: I agree. I find that when we help companies transition towards becoming AI native, a lot of the thinking is similar to agile. But I think we can generalise that agile transformations are not really very special either – it's organisational change.

There are some patterns involved regardless of whether you're transitioning towards an agile way of working or towards AI. Some general patterns such as: you've got to get buy-in, it's useful to do the change in an incremental way, balance bottom-up with top-down. There are all these techniques that are useful regardless. But as an agilist, if you have some skills and competence in leading and supporting a change process, then that's going to be really useful also when helping companies understand how to use AI.

Tenille: Are you seeing more top-down or bottom-up when it comes to AI transformations?

Henrik: So far it's quite new still. The jury's not in yet. But so far it looks very familiar to me. I'm seeing both. I'm seeing situations where it's pure top-down where managers are like "we got to go full-out AI," and they push it out with mixed results. And sometimes just completely bottom-up, also with mixed results.

Sometimes something can start completely organically and then totally take hold, or it starts organically and then gets squashed because there was no buy-in higher up. I saw all of that with agile as well. My guess is in most cases the most successful will be when you have a bit of both – support and guidance from the top, but maybe driven from the bottom.

"I think the bottom-up is maybe more important than ever because this technology is so weird and so fast-moving. As a leader, you don't really have a chance if you try to control it – you're going to slow things down to an unacceptable level. People will be learning things that you can't keep up with yourself. So it's better to just enable people to experiment a lot, but then of course provide guidance."

AI for Product Owners: From Ideation to Pull Requests

Tenille: You're very well known for your guidance and for your ability to explain quite complex concepts very simply and clearly. I was looking at your video on YouTube today, the Agile Product Ownership in a Nutshell video, which was uploaded about 12 years ago now. Thinking about product owners, there's a big opportunity now with AI for generating ideas, analysing data, and even suggesting new features. What's your advice for product owners and product managers in using AI most effectively?

Henrik: Use it for everything. Overuse it so you can find the limits. The second thing is: make sure you have access to a good AI model. Don't use the free ones. The difference is really large – like 10x, 100x difference – just in paying like $20 per month or something. At the moment, I can particularly strongly recommend Claude. It's in its own category of awesomeness right now. But that of course changes as they leapfrog each other. But mainly: pay up, use a paid model, and then experiment.

For product owners, typical things are what you already mentioned – ideation, creating good backlog items, splitting a story – but also writing code. I would say as a PO, there is this traditional view, for example in Scrum, that POs should not be coding. There's a reason for that: because coding takes time, and then as PO you get stuck in details and you lose the big picture.

Well, that's not true anymore. There are very many things that used to be time-consuming coding that is basically a five-minute job with a good prompt.

"Instead of wasting the team's time by trying to phrase that as a story, just phrase it as a pull request instead and go to the team and demonstrate your running feature."

That happened actually today. Just now, our CEO, who's not a coder, came to me with a pull request. In fact, quite often he just pushes directly to a branch because it's small changes. He wants to add some new visualisation for a graph or something in our platform – typically admin stuff that users won't see, so it's quite harmless if he gets it wrong.

He's vibe coding, just making little changes to the admin, which means he never goes to my team and says, "Hey, can you guys generate this report or this graph for how users use our product?" No, he just puts it in himself if it's simple.

Today we wanted to make a change with how we handle payments for enterprise customers. Getting that wrong is a little more serious, and the change wasn't that hard, but he just didn't feel completely comfortable pushing it himself. So he just made a PR instead, and then we spent 15 minutes reviewing it. I said it was fine, so we pushed it.

It's so refreshing that now anybody can code. You just need to learn the basic prompting and these tools. And then that saves time for the developers to do the more heavyweight coding.

Tenille: It's an interesting world where we can have things set up where anyone could just jump in and with the right guardrails create something. It makes Friday demos quite probably a lot more interesting than maybe they used to be in the past.

Henrik: I would like to challenge any development team to let their stakeholders push code, and then find out whatever's stopping you from doing that and fix that. Then you get to a very interesting space.

Closing the Gap Between Makers and Users

Tenille: A key insight from your work with agile teams in the past has been to really focus on minimising that gap between maker and user. Do you think that AI helps to close that gap, or do you think it potentially risks widening it if teams are focusing too much on AI predictions and stop talking to their customers effectively?

Henrik: I think that of course depends a lot on the team. But from what I've seen so far, it massively reduces the gap. Because if I don't have to spend a week getting a feature to work, I can spend an hour instead. Then I have so much more time to talk to my users and my customers.

If the time to make a clickable prototype or something is a few seconds, then I can do it live in real time with my customers, and we can co-create. There are all these opportunities.

I find that – myself, my teams, and the people I work with – we work a lot more closely with our users and customers because of this fast turnaround time.

"Just yesterday I was teaching a course, and I was going home sitting on the subway. It was a 15-minute subway ride. I finally got a seat, so I had only 7 minutes left. There's this feature that I wanted to build that involved both front-end and back-end and a database schema change. Well, 5 minutes later it was done and I got off the subway and just pushed it. That's crazy."

Of course, our system is set up optimised to enable it to be that fast. And of course not everything will work that well. But every time it does, I've been coding for 30 years, and I feel like I wake up in some weird fantasy every day, wondering, "Can I really be this productive?" I never would have thought that was possible.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Agile Teams

Tenille: I'd like you to put your futurist hat on for a moment. How do you see the future of agile teamwork in, say, 10 to 15 years time? If we would have this conversation again in 2035, given the exponential growth of AI and improvements over the last two to three years, what do you think would be the biggest change for software development teams in how they operate?

Henrik: I can't even imagine 10 years. Even 5 years is just beyond imagination. That's like asking someone in the 1920s to imagine smartphones and the Internet. I think that's the level of change we're looking at.

I would shorten the time a little bit and say maybe 3 or 4 years. My guess there – and I'm already seeing this transfer happen – is that coding will just go away. It just won't be stuff that we humans do because we're too slow and we hallucinate way too much.

But I think engineering and the developer role will still be there, just that we don't type lines of code – in the same way that we no longer make punch cards or we no longer write machine code and poke values into registers using assembly language. That used to be a big part of it, but no longer.

"In the future, as developers, a lot of the work will still be the same. You're still designing stuff, you're thinking about architecture, you're interacting with customers, and you're doing all the other stuff. But typing lines of code is something that we're gonna be telling our kids about, and they're not gonna believe that we used to do that."

The other thing is smaller teams, which I'm already seeing now. I think the idea of a cross-functional team of 5 to 7 people – traditionally that was considered quite necessary in order to have all the different skills needed to deliver a feature in a product. But that's not the case anymore. If you skip ahead 2 or 3 years when this knowledge has spread, I think most teams will be 2 people and an AI, because then you have all the domain knowledge you need, probably.

As a consequence of that, we'll just have more teams. More and smaller teams. Of course, then you need to collaborate between the teams, so cross-team synchronisation is still going to be an issue.

Also, I'm already seeing this now, but this concept of sprints – the whole point is to give a team some peace of mind to build something complex, because typically you would need a week or two to build something complex. But now, when it takes a day and some good prompting to do the same thing that would have taken a whole sprint, then the sprint is a day instead. If the sprint is a day, is there any difference between a sprint planning meeting and a daily standup? Not really.

I think sprints will just kind of shrink into oblivion. What's going to be left instead is something a little bit similar – some kind of synchronisation point or follow-up point. Instead of a sprint where every 2 weeks we sit down and try to make a plan, I think it'll be very much continuous delivery on a day-to-day basis. But then maybe every week or two we take a step back and just reflect a little bit and say, "Okay, what have we been delivering the past couple of weeks? What have we been learning? What's our high-level focus for the next couple of weeks?" A very, very lightweight equivalent of a sprint.

I feel pretty confident about that guess because personally, we are already there with my team, and I think it'll become a bit of a norm.

Final Thoughts: Preparing for the Future

Henrik: No one knows what's gonna happen in the future, and those who say they do are kidding themselves. But there's one fairly safe bet though: no matter what happens in the future with AI, if you understand how to use it, you'll be in a better position to deal with whatever that is. That's why I encourage people to get comfortable with it, get used to using it.

Tenille: I have a teenage daughter who I'm actually trying to encourage to learn how to use AI, because I feel like when I was her age, the Internet was the thing that was sort of coming mainstream. It completely changed the way we live. Everything is online now. And I feel like AI is that piece for her.

Henrik: Isn't it weird that the generation of small children growing up now are going to consider this to be normal and obvious? They'll be the AI natives. They'll be like, "Of course I have my AI agent buddy. There's nothing weird about that at all."

Tenille: I'll still keep being nice to my coffee machine.

Henrik: Yeah, that's good. Just in case, you know.

---

Thank you to Henrik Kniberg for joining us on this episode of the Easy Agile Podcast. To learn more about Henrik's work, visit Abundly AI or check out his educational videos on AI and agile practices.

Subscribe to the Easy Agile Podcast on your favourite platform, and join us for more conversations about agile, product development, and the future of work.

"The episode highlights that Interaction, collaboration, and helping every team member reach their potential is what makes agile work" - Terlya Hunt

In this episode join Terlya Hunt - Head of People & Culture at Easy Agile and Caitlin Mackie - Marketing Coordinator at Easy Agile, as they chat with Jazmin Chamizo and Rakesh Singh.

Jazmin and Rakesh are principal contributors of the recently published report "Reimagining Agility with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion".

The report explores the intersection between agile, business agility, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I), as well as the state of inclusivity and equity inside agile organizations.

“People are the beating heart of agile. If people are not empowered by inclusive and equitable environments, agile doesn't work. If agile doesn't work, agile organisations can't work."

📌 What led to writing the report
📌 Where the misalignments lie
📌 What we can be doing differently as individuals and business leaders

Be sure to subscribe, enjoy the episode 🎧

‍

Transcript

Terlya Hunt:

Hi, everyone. Thanks for joining us for another episode of the Easy Agile podcast. I'm Terlya, People & Culture business partner in Easy Agile.

Caitlin Mackie:

And I'm Caitlin, marketing coordinator at Easy Agile. And we'll be your hosts for this episode.

Terlya Hunt:

Before we begin, Easy Agile would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land from which we broadcast today, the Wodiwodi people of the Dharawal nation, and pay our respects to the elders past, present and emerging, and extend the same respect to any Aboriginal people listening with us today.

Caitlin Mackie:

Today, we'll be joined by Jazmin Chamizo and Rakesh Singh. Both Jazmin and Rakesh are principal contributors and researchers of Reimagining Agile for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, a report that explores the intersection between Agile business agility and diversity equity and inclusion published in May, 2021.

Terlya Hunt:

We're really excited to have Jazmin and Rakesh join us today. So let's jump in.

Caitlin Mackie:

So Jazmin and Rakesh, thank you so much for joining us today. We're so excited to be here with you both today, having the conversation. So I suppose today we'll be unpacking and asking you questions in relation to the report, which you were both principal contributors of, Reimagining Agility with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. So for our audience tuning in today who may be unfamiliar the report, Jazmin, could you please give us a summary of what it's all about?

Jazmin Chamizo:

Absolutely. And first of all, thank you so much for having us here today and for your interest in our report. Just to give you a little bit of background of our research and how everything started out, the founder and the owner of the Business Agility Institute, Evan Leybourn, he actually attended a talk given by Mark Green. And Mark who used to be, I mean, an Agile coach, he was referring to his not very positive experience with Agile. So this actually grabbed the attention of Evan, who was a big advocate of agility, as all of us are. And they decided to embark upon this adventure and do some research trying to probe on and investigate the potential relationship between diversity, equity and inclusion and Agile.

So we had, I mean, a couple of hypothesis at the beginning of the research. And the first of hypothesis was that despite the positive intent of agility and despite the positive mindset and the values of Agile, which we all share, Agile organizations may be at the risk of further excluding marginalized staff and customers. And the second hypothesis that we had was that organizations who actually embed diversity, equity and inclusion directly into their Agile transformation and then strategy may outperform those organizations who don't. So we actually spent more than a year interviewing different participants from many different countries. And we actually ended up seeing that those hypothesis are true. And today, we would like to share with you, I mean, part of this research and also need to encourage you to read the whole report and also contribute to this discussion.

Terlya Hunt:

Amazing. And Jazmin, you touched on this a little bit in your answer just then, but I guess, Rakesh, could you tell us a bit more about what was the inspiration and catalyst for writing this report?

Rakesh Singh:

Yeah. So thanks for inviting once again. And it's a great [inaudible 00:03:51] talk about this beautiful project. The BAI was actually into this activity for a long time, and I happened to hear one of the presentation from Evan and this presentation actually got me interested into business agility and associated with DEI. So that was one thing. And second thing when Evan talked about this particular project, invited all of us, I had been with transformation in my job with Siemens for about three decades for a very long time. And we found that there were always some people, whenever you do transformation, they were not interested or they were skeptical. "We are wasting our time." And okay, that was to be expected, but what was surprising that even though Agile came up in a big way and people thought, "Okay. This is a solution to all our miseries," even though there was a focus on culture, culture was still our biggest issue. So it appeared to me that we are not really addressing the problem.

And as Jazmin talk about our goal and our hypothesis, and that was attractive to me that maybe this project will help me to understand why some [inaudible 00:05:12] to get the people on board in some of the Agile transformation.

Terlya Hunt:

Thank you. That was awesome. I think it definitely comes through in the report that this is a topic that's near and dear to all of you. And in the report you mentioned, there's a lack of consensus and some misalignment in defining some of these key terms. So thought to frame the conversation today, Jazmin, could you walk us through some of these key definitions, agility, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Jazmin Chamizo:

That's a great question now, because over the last year, there's been a big boom on different topics related to diversity, equity and inclusion, I mean, especially with the Black Lives Matter movement and many different events that have affected our society in general. And with the rise of social movements, I mean, there's been a lot of talk in the area of diverse, equity and inclusion. And when we talk about agility, equality, equity and inclusion and diversity, I mean, it's very important to have a very clear understanding of what we mean with this terms. Agility is the mindset. I mean, it's really about having the customer, people, at the very center of the organization. So we're talking about agile ways of working. We're talking about more collaborative ways of working. So we can bring the best out of people and then innovate and put products into the market as fast as possible.

Now, when we were thinking about agility and this whole idea of putting people at the very core and customer at the very core of organization so we can respond in a very agile and nimble way to the challenges that our society presents at the moment, we found a lot of commonalities and a lot of similarities with diversity, equity and inclusion. However, when we talk about diversity, equity and inclusion, there's some nuances in the concepts that we need to understand. Diversity really refers to the mix. It refers to numbers, to statistics, all the differences that we have. There's a very long list of types of diversity. Diversity of gender, sexual orientation, ways of our thinking, our socioeconomic status, education and you name it, several types of diversity.

Now, when we talk about equality, I mean, we're talking about applying the same resources and support structures, I mean, for all. However, equality does not actually imply the element of equity, which is so important when we talk about now creating inclusive environments. With equity, we're talking about the element of fair treatment, we're talking about social justice, we're talking about giving equal access to opportunities for all. So it's pretty much about leveling the filed, so all those voices can be part of the conversation and everybody can contribute to the decision making in organizations and in society. So it's that element of fair treatment, it's that element of social justice that the element of equity has to contribute and that we really need to pay attention to.

And inclusion is really about that act of welcoming people in the organization. It's about creating all the conditions so people, everybody, can thrive and everybody can succeed in an organization. So I think it's very important, I mean, to have those definitions very clear to get a better understanding of how they overlap and how there's actually, I mean, a symbiotic relationship between these concepts.

Caitlin Mackie:

Yeah. Great. And I think just building on that, interaction, collaboration and helping every team member reach their potential is what makes Agile work. So your report discusses that there are lots of overlaps in those values with diversity, equity and inclusion. So I think, Rakesh, what are those key overlaps? It seems those qualities and traits go hand in hand. So how do we embrace them?

Rakesh Singh:

So if you see most of the organization which are big organization and being for about two decades or so, and you compare them with the startup organization, so in the traditional setup, normally people are working in their functional silos, so to say. And so the Agile transformation is taken care by one business function. It could be a quality team. It could be a transmission team. And DEI normally is a domain of an HR or people who enter the organization. And the issue is that sometime these initiatives, they are handled separately and the amount of collaboration that's required does not happen, whereas in a startup company, they don't have these kind of divisions.

So looking that as a basis, what we need to look at is that the organization should be sensitize that they work together on some of these projects and look at the underlying what is the commonality, and we can possibly either help each other or complement each other, because one example is, if I can give, it's very easy to justify an Agile transformation relating to a business outcome, okay, but any people related change is a very long-term change. So you cannot relate that to a business outcome in a shorter timeframe. So I call Agile and DEI as symbiotic. An Agile can be helped by a DEI process and DEI itself can be justified by having an Agile project. So they are symbiotic.

Now, what is the common thing between the two? So there are four items. I mean, there are many things which are common, but four things which I find are most important. Yeah? The first thing is respect for people, like Jazmin talked about being inclusive. So respect for people, both Agile and DEI, that's a basis for that. And make people feel welcomed. So no matter what diversity they come from, what background they come from, they're feeling welcome. Yeah? The second part is the work environment. So it's a big challenge to create some kind of a psychological safety. And I think people are now organizing, the management is now understanding that they think that they have provided a safe place, but people are still not feeling safe for whatever reason there. That's one thing.

The other thing is that whatever policies you write, documentation, policies or announcement, the basic things that people see, is it fair and is it transparent? Yeah? So I used to always see that if there are two people given bonus, if one person get 5% more, no matter how big is the amount, there's always felt that, "I have not got my due." Yeah? So be fair and be transparent. And the last one is that you have to invest in people. The organization need to invest in people. The organization need to invest in enabling them with opportunity to make use of new opportunity, and also grow and through learning. So these are four things that I can see, which actually can help both being an agile, and also having inclusive environment in the company.

Caitlin Mackie:

The report mentions that some of those opportunities to combine agile and diversity equity inclusion are being overlooked. Why do you think this is?

Rakesh Singh:

So I think that the reason why they're being overlooked is that, it's basically, educating the leaders. So it's just, if I'm in the agile world, I do not really realize that there are certain people related aspect. I think, if I just make an announcement, people will participate. Okay? So that's the understanding. On the other side, we got an input from quite a few responders saying that some of the DEI projects are basically words, are not really sincere about it. It's a waste of time. "I'm being forced to do certain training. I'm forced." So the sincerity part, sometime there's a lacking, so people have to be educated more at a leadership level and on at a employee level.

Caitlin Mackie:

I think a really interesting call out in your research is that many agile processes and rituals are built to suit the majority, which excludes team members with diverse attributes. Jazmin, what are some of those rituals?

Jazmin Chamizo:

Yeah, that's a great question. Now, if you think about agile and agile rituals and for example, I mean, daily standups, a lot of those rituals have not actually thought about diversity, or the design for diversity and inclusion. I mean, agile is a very on the spot and is a very, who can talk, type of rituals. But there's a lot of people, I mean, who might need more time to process information before they can provide inputs, so fast. So that requirement of processing information or giving input in a very fast manner, in daily standups, that might be overlooking the fact that a lot of people, with a different type of thought processing styles or preferences may need more time to carry out those processes.

So that would be, I mean, number one; the fact that it's very on the spot and sometimes only the loud voices can be heard. So we might be losing a lot of opportunities, trying to get feedback and input from people with different thinking styles.

Now, also, if you think about organizations in different countries, where English is not the native language of a lot of people, they may also feel a lot of disadvantage. This happens a lot in multinational organizations, where people whose, you know, first language is English, they feel more confident and they're the ones who practically may monopolize now the conversations. So, for people who's first language is not English, I mean, they might feel at a disadvantage.

If you think about older employees who sometimes may not be part of an agile transformation, they might also feel that are not being part of the team and they may not have the sense of belonging, which is so important in an agile transformation and for any organization. Another example, I mean, would be people, who because of their religious belief, I mean, they need maybe to pray five times in a day, and I mean maybe a morning stand up might mean very difficult to adapt to, or even people with disabilities or language differences, they feel a little intimidated by agile. So there's a lot of different examples. And Doug report actually collects several lived experiences, by the respondents that we interview that illustrate how agile has been designed for the majority and for a more dominant type of culture and that highlights the need to redesign many of these rituals and many of these practices.

Caitlin Mackie:

Yeah, I think just building on that in your recommendations, you mentioned consciously recreating and redesigning these agile ways of working. What are some of the ways we can rethink and consciously create these?

Jazmin Chamizo:

Mm-hmm (affirmative). Well, the good news is that, during our research, and during our field work and the conversations that we had with some organizations mean there's a lot of companies and organizations that have actively implementing them different types of practices, starting from the way they're managing their meetings, their rituals, their stand ups, giving people an opportunity to communicate in different ways. Maybe giving some room for silence, so people can process their information or providing alternative channels for people to communicate and comment either in writing or maybe the next day. So it doesn't have to be right there on the spot., and they don't feel under that type of pressure.

Now, another example would be allowing people, I mean, to also communicate in their native language. I mean, not necessarily using English, I mean, all the time as, I mean, the main language. I think it's also important for people to feel that it can contribute with their own language, and also starting to analyze, I mean, the employee experience. We're talking about maybe using non-binary options in recruitment processes or in payroll. So, I mean, starting to be more inclusive in the different practices and analyzing, I mean, the whole employee journey. I mean, those are some examples that we can start implementing to creating a more inclusive environments. And the one that is the most important for me is encouraging leadership to intentionally design inclusive work environments through the use of, like creating environments that are really where people feel safe, where they have this. Psychologically safe.

Terlya Hunt:

The whole section on exploring and challenging existing beliefs is so interesting. And I would definitely encourage everyone listening to go and read it. I could ask you so many questions on this section alone, because I think it was full of gold, and honestly, my copy is highlighted and scribbled and I read it and reread it, there was so much to absorb. The first thing that really stood out to me as a HR practitioner in an agile organization was this belief that focusing on one or two areas of diversity first is a good start. And from your research, what you actually found was that survey respondents found this method ineffective and actually harmful for DEI. And in your research, you also reference how important it is to be intentional and deliberate. So I guess, how do we balance this need for focus and creating change with these findings that being too narrow in our focus can actually be harmful? Might throw this one to you, Rakesh.

Rakesh Singh:

So actually, thanks to the reform data report, very interesting, in fact, we presented to quite a few groups. And one of the thing that I observed when we are talking about some of the beliefs and challenges, there were immediate to response say, "Hey, we do experience in our area." So, what we realized is that this whole aspect, as Jazmin talked about, many dimensions. So if you look at inclusiveness, and diversity and equity across organization, there are many streams, and many triggers. As diversity, we understand, okay, in very limited way, it may be gender, or it may be religion or country, but actually, it's much more in a working environment, there are many dynamics which are [inaudible 00:22:15]. So the challenges, what we saw was that if you pick up a project in a very sincere way and say, "I'll solve one problem, okay?" Let me say I solve problem of a region or language, yeah? Now the issue is that most of the time, we look at the most dominant and identify that problem.

So what happens is that you actually create an inequity right there, because there are other people they are suffering. They are, I won't say, "Suffering," but they're influenced by other factors of diversity and they felt, "Okay, nobody's really caring for me." Yeah? So you have to look at in a very holistic picture, and you have to look at in a way that everybody is on board, yeah? So you may not be able to find solution to every specific problem, but getting everybody on board, and let people work in some of the environment or either psychological safety or the policy level, so create an environment where everybody can participate, and issues can be different so they can bring up their own issues, and make sure they feel that they they're cared for. And that's what we actually observed.

Terlya Hunt:

And the second belief I thought was really interesting to call out was that this belief that we will adapt to somebody's beliefs if they ask. And your research found that not everyone is able to disclose their needs, no matter how safe the working environment, so that by relying on disclosure is the first step in the process,. Organizations will always be a step behind and, and also place the burden of change on marginalized groups. What are some things we can do, Rakesh, to remove this pressure and to be more proactive?

Rakesh Singh:

So there are a couple of things that we need to look at when we talk to people, actually, they discussed about the problem, and they also recommended what could be right, we are doing it. And we also discussed among ourselves. So one thing which was very clear that there was a little doubt about the sincerity of leadership. And so, we felt that any organization where leader was very proactive, like, for example, what is the basic reason, if I have a problem, if I talk about it, I am always worried what will happen when I disclose it? And is it the right issue to talk about it? So, these are the questions would inhibit a lot of people not to talk about it at all. So, that's where the proactive leadership can help people to overcome their inhibition and talk about it, and unless they discuss about it, you'll never know if there's a problem. So, that's the one thing. So, that's the approach.

So there are a couple things that we could also recommend, is proactive leadership to start with, and something which can be done is there are a lot of tools available for the managers, yeah? People leaders, I would call it. Things like coaching, so you have a grow model where you can coach an individual person, even as a manager or as an independent coach, then having a facilitation techniques. When I started my career, they were not a training on facilitation, just going to the room and conduct the meeting. But they're very nice tools, facilitation techniques, which can be brought out to get people to participate, and so things like that can be very useful for being proactive and drawing people out of their inhibition. That definitely is with the leader. That's why we call it servant leadership. It is their job to initiate and take the lead, and get people out of their shell.

Terlya Hunt:

It ties quite nicely into the next question I had in mind. You both actually today have mentioned a lot of challenging beliefs, and calling things out. We need to build this awareness, and create safe spaces, and create psychological safety in our teams. What are some examples of how we can create safe spaces for these conversations?

Rakesh Singh:

The examples of someone creating safe places is ... I would say that educating people and the leaders. What I have seen is that if the leadership team recognizes that and educates the managers and other people ... You need to actually train people at different level, and create an environment that everybody's participating in the decision making, and they're free to make choices within, of course, the constraint of the business.

The focus, where I would put it, is that there are many educational programs and people would like to educated, because I normally felt that I was never trained for being a good leader. There was never training available. But these days we find that a lot of educational programs highlighting a various issue, like microaggression, unconscious bias, psychological safety. People should understand it. Things like being empathetic. These terminologies are there, but I find that people don't really appreciate it and understand it to the extent that they need to do, even though they are in a leadership position.

Caitlin Mackie:

Thanks for sharing, Rakesh. I really love what you mentioned around proactive leadership, there. Your research found that 47% of respondents believed organizations who achieved this unity of Agile, and diversity, and equity, and inclusion will reap the benefits and exceed competitors. Jazmin, what did these organizations do differently?

Jazmin Chamizo:

Yes. That's a great question. Actually this ties very nicely with idea of servant leadership, inclusive leadership, and how leaders have this incredible challenge of creating workspaces that are psychologically safe, as Rakesh just mentioned. This is really everybody's responsibility, but it has a lot to do with a very strong leadership.

We found that several other organizations that we interviewed, they had a very strong leadership team, that they were really committed with diversity, equity, and inclusion in their agile transformation, and they were able to put DEI at the very core of the organization. That's number one, having a very strong leadership team that's actually committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and that does not perceive DEI efforts as isolated actions or initiatives.

This is something that we're seeing a lot nowadays. As a DEI coach and consultant, sometimes you see, unfortunately, several organizations that only try very isolated and very ... They don't have long-term strategy. What we have seen that actually works is having this committed leadership team that has been able to put DEI at the very core of their strategy.

Also a team that has been able to serve as an advocate in diversity, equity, and inclusion, and agility, and they're able to have advocates throughout the organization. It's not just one person's job. This calls for the effort of the whole organization and individuals to commit to DEI and be actively part of the agile transformation.

Also, I would say, leaders that embrace mistakes and embrace errors throughout the process. This is something that came up a lot during our conversations with people in different organizations, that in many cultures and in many organizations, mistakes are punished. They're not perceived as a source of opportunity.

One of the tips or best practices would be having leaders who are able to show the rest of their organization that mistakes are actually learning opportunities, that you can try things out of the box, and you can be more innovative. That even if you fail, you're not going to be punished, or there won't be any consequences because of that, and, quite on the country, that this is actually a learning opportunity that we can all thrive on.

Caitlin Mackie:

Yeah. I completely agree. What benefits did they see?

Jazmin Chamizo:

They definitely saw a greater working environment. This is something that was quoted a lot during our interviews with respondents, that individuals saw that they had the chance to try new and innovative ideas. Definitely greater innovation, more creativity. Business morale actually ultimately went up, because they saw that the organization was actually embracing different perspectives, even if they fail. This definitely called for greater innovation.

I would say innovation, more creativity, and a better working environment. Absolutely new products, new ideas. That if you think about the current circumstances with COVID, this is what organizations have to aim at. New products, more innovation to face all the challenges that we have nowadays.

Terlya Hunt:

Powerful things for the listeners to think about. Here at Easy Agile, our mission is to help teams be agile. Because we believe for too long the focus has been on doing, when the reality is that Agile is a constant journey of becoming.

There's a specific part in the report that really stood out to me that I'd like to read. "Agility is a journey with no fixed endpoint. The road towards creating diverse, equitable, and inclusive environments is the same. Agility and DEI can be pursued, but never fully achieved. They are a process of ongoing learning, reflection, and improvement. A team cannot enter the process of improving business agility or DEI with a mindset towards completion, and any model that unites Agile and DEI will ultimately be ineffective if those taking part are not ready to embark on an ongoing quest for self improvement."

I absolutely love this quote. Rakesh, let's explore this a little bit further. What more can you tell me about this?

Rakesh Singh:

Actually there's an interesting thing that I would like to share to start with. We wanted to look for a organization who would help us interview their people and talk to their people. The way organizations responded ... Some responded, "Shall I allow my people to talk to somebody? It could be a problem." But then we got other organizations, they were actually chasing us. "We would like to be part of this, and we would like to get our people interviewed." They were very positive about the whole thing.

I happened to talk to the DEI corporate manager, a lady, and the way she was talking was ... She was so much, I would say, passionate about the whole thing, even though at least I felt that they were very high level of awareness of DEI. But the quest for learning and finding out what they could do better was quite astonishing and quite positive.

That's where my answer is, is that ... If you look at the current pandemic, and people realized that, "Okay. We have to work from home," initially some people found it great. It's a great thing. Work-life balance. "I can attend my home." But after some time they found it's a problem. There's other problem.

The point is that, in any organization, where it's a business or a social life, or people, it just keeps changing. There's no method or policy which is going to be forever valid. There's a continuous learning process that we have to get in.

What we need to do is focus on our goal that we want to achieve. Depending on the environment, that's what we call business agility. Now bring it to people as well, because it is a people ... We talk about customer centricity, and all that. But finding it's the people who are going to deliver whatever organization want to. You have to see how their lives are getting impacted.

We are discussing about getting people back to office. The problem is that, a city like Bangalore, it's a very costly city and very clouded city. People have gone to their hometown and they can work from there. Now, to bring them back, you have to approve them back again. To cut short the explanation, our life is changing, constantly changing, and technology and everything is putting ... People have to look at methods and approach of how they can be adapting themself on a continuous basis.

Learning is a continuous process. In fact, when I got into Agile and people ask me, "How many years of experience you have?" I generally say five years, because anything that I did before five years is actually the wrong practice. You have to be continuously learning, and DEI and Agile is no stranger to this situation.

Caitlin Mackie:

I love that. I think fostering that continuous learning environment is really key. I suppose, on that, a few of the recommendations from the report are centered around getting deeper training and intentional expertise. Jazmin, what further recommendations, or courses, or practitioners are there that people can engage with after this episode?

Jazmin Chamizo:

Sure. An important part of our report was a series of recommendations to the entire agile community, and practitioners, to organizations, and agile coaches. You can see that. You could get more specific information in our reports. I would like to encourage all of you to read. Definitely when it comes to agile coaches and consultants, we're encouraging people to learn more about diversity, equity, and inclusion because one of the insights and the learnings we drew from this research is that diversity, equity, and inclusion is not specifically included in the agile world.

When we talked to the respondents in many different countries, they did not spontaneously made the connection between agility, Agile, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. But the more we talk about it, they discovered that, indeed, they were very closely overlapped. There was a symbiotic relationship between them, because you're putting the person and everything that relates to that individual on the very core of the organization, on the transformation.

Definitely we do encourage ... Leaders and agile coaches need to start learning more about our DEI, building that proficiency, learning more about unconscious bias and the impact of unconscious bias, and discrimination, and racism that we'll continue to see in organizations. They're more mindful of those voices that are not being heard at the moment in the present conversations. They can learn different techniques or different methods to be more engaging and more inclusive.

When it comes to the agile community in general and influencers, it is important to mention that Evan Leybourn, the founder of the Agility Institute, is having at the moment some conversations with important institutions in the agile community, such as the Agile Alliance, because we are looking for ... That's what Gen Z-ers are looking for. There's a big call out there for organizations to embrace this type of transformation, but putting DEI at the very core of the organization. That's what I would like to say.

Contribute to the discussion. This is a pilot project. That we are hoping to conduct more research on other DEI areas related to agility. We would like listeners to be part of the conversation, and to contribute with their experience, to improve the state of agility in the current moment.

Caitlin Mackie:

Thank you both so much for joining us today. Thoroughly enjoyed our conversation. I can't wait to see how Agile and diversity, and equity, and inclusion evolves in the future. Thank you.

Jazmin Chamizo:

Thank you so much for having us. It's been a pleasure.

Rakesh Singh:

Thanks a lot to both of you. It was nice to share our experience. Thank you very much.

In this episode, we dive deep into the challenges of aligning teams with strategic goals across organisations of all sizes. From fast-growing startups to large enterprises, teams everywhere struggle with the same fundamental issue: translating high-level objectives into actionable work that drives real value.

Our guest Andreas Wengenmayer, Practice Lead for Enterprise Strategy and Planning at catworkx (the #2 Atlassian partner worldwide and #1 in EMEA), shares his 11 years of experience helping organisations bridge the gap between strategic vision and team execution.

Want to see these concepts in action? Andreas and Hayley hosted an interactive webinar where they demonstrated practical techniques for strategic goal alignment using Easy Agile Programs. Watch the recording here→

About Our Guest

Andreas Wengenmayer is the Practice Lead for Enterprise Strategy and Planning at catworkx, one of the leading Atlassian Platinum Solution Partners globally and the #1 in EMEA. With over a decade of hands-on experience helping enterprise teams scale agile effectively, Andreas specialises in bridging the gap between strategy and execution. His work focuses on guiding organisations through complex transformation programs, optimising portfolio planning practices, and helping teams adopt frameworks like SAFe with clarity and purpose. Known for blending pragmatic insight with systems thinking, Andreas brings stories from the field - ranging from fast-moving startups to complex, multinational enterprises.

Transcript

Note: This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity, readability, and flow while preserving the authentic conversation and insights shared.

Recognising the signs - when teams aren't aligned

Hayley Rodd: Awesome to have you here. So I'm going to start with a bit of a reality check. We've worked in organisations across the spectrum from really fast-growing startups to really big enterprises. From your experience, when you walk into a PI planning or quarterly planning session, and I'm sure they're pretty hectic, what are the telltale signs that teams aren't truly aligned on what success looks like?

Andreas Wengenmayer: That's a great question - one I hear frequently. You can imagine, especially post-COVID when teams returned to in-person planning sessions. Back in 2017, we'd have huge arenas with hundreds of people in one place. People are happy to see each other, excited to chat with colleagues from different locations. This became even more pronounced after COVID, when everyone was working from home more frequently. That's a good sign - the mood is positive.

But you also notice some teams under pressure. They'd rather be working on actual deliverables. They know they have to be there, and it takes two full days to complete all the planning. Meanwhile, they're carrying a mental backlog - technical debt, unfinished work from the previous PI, catching up on delayed items.

This is what I often observe: teams get bogged down discussing minor details. People debate specifics, and you can see they're frustrated about something deeper - but they're not addressing the root cause. This creates its own negative momentum and can derail otherwise solid planning sessions.

Teams get bogged down discussing minor details. People debate specifics, and you can see they're frustrated about something deeper - but they're not addressing the root cause. This creates its own negative momentum and can derail otherwise solid planning sessions.

Sometimes you have to step in and ask what's really underneath. What's the actual cause? People say, "Yeah, I have to be here because that's the format, but I'm not engaged." Maybe it didn't work well in the past and there's lingering skepticism.

The prevailing attitude then becomes: "This isn't really collaborative. Leadership plans from the top anyway. The outcomes are predetermined - here's the plan, just make it work and update your boards." When people feel they can't meaningfully contribute or influence direction, they simply go through the motions.

My favourite example happens at the end when teams must formulate their objectives. It becomes a box-checking exercise - create something that satisfies the coach or Release Train Engineer so everyone can "get back to real work."

What good alignment actually looks like

Hayley Rodd: You've touched on so many things there. I can imagine walking into that room and feeling the pressure. People getting caught up in minor details rather than talking about root causes, or not asking the five whys to get to that root cause. You also touched on getting buy-in across the organisation. When people are really nailing it, when alignment is really there, what does that room feel like?

Andreas Wengenmayer: Yes, I've fortunately experienced those environments, and they're actually more common than you might think. When companies genuinely commit to grassroots planning, truly investing the time it requires, and ensure teams aren't overwhelmed from the start with everything marked "priority zero," you create the foundation for successful planning.

When companies genuinely commit to grassroots planning, truly investing the time it requires, and ensure teams aren't overwhelmed from the start with everything marked "priority zero," you create the foundation for successful planning.

You can see it immediately in people's body language and interactions. The energy in the room is palpable. If people appear resigned or intimidated, afraid to speak up, that's typically a red flag. The opposite creates magic.

Think about high-performing teams, like being a Scrum Master with an exceptional group. The best teams aren't just collections of highly skilled individuals in specific roles.

The best teams are those who communicate openly, genuinely enjoy each other's company, maintain positive energy, and actively support one another. This dynamic enables remarkable achievements. Maybe someone knows a contact in another tribe, release train, or department who can provide crucial answers and facilitate communication. Communication is absolutely fundamental.

That collaborative spirit is the hallmark of truly effective teams.

Hayley Rodd: Absolutely. We would know it in our day-to-day work, right? If your teams aren't communicating, if they're too overburdened as you said, it's not a good place to start. But if you can get that starting point right, if you can get that communication right, so many things will flow after that.

Andreas Wengenmayer: Absolutely. Looking back at any planning cycle, the real test is: did you plan the right things? You only know at the quarter's end whether you estimated capacity accurately.

Here's the crucial question: How does your organisation respond when goals aren't met? Do stakeholders focus on finding solutions? Do team members feel safe asking probing questions and seeking answers? Or does the blame game begin, searching for scapegoats?

How does your organisation respond when goals aren't met? Do stakeholders focus on finding solutions? Do team members feel safe asking probing questions and seeking answers? Or does the blame game begin, searching for scapegoats?

When you're permitted, encouraged, even, to be genuinely open and honest, you become much better at assessing realistic capacity. What makes stakeholders universally happy is predictability. You want confidence that your plans will actually materialise, that your commitments will be fulfilled.

Success breeds success, creating a positive foundation for the next PI. It's a continuous cycle that can spiral upward toward excellence or downward toward dysfunction.

The startup vs. enterprise spectrum

Hayley Rodd: Let's talk about the two ends of the spectrum. You've got a lot of experience, so I love hearing about this. Small companies will often say, "We're agile, we can pivot quickly, we don't need formal goal setting." Then enterprises are going all out on OKRs, cascading objectives, saying they're aligned because they've got those things in place. Yet both struggle with the same core problem. What's really going on?

Andreas Wengenmayer: You're absolutely right. I've been in agile projects since 2014, 11 years now, and I've seen a lot of companies pre-COVID, post-COVID, different sizes.

Starting with the really small ones, startup companies - what's really astonishing is that some very small startup companies tend to become overly complex, which is amazing. Some want solutions that are way too overblown. Basically, they need a sailing boat, but they're thinking about ordering an aircraft carrier.

Some startups want solutions that are way too overblown. Basically, they need a sailing boat, but they're thinking about ordering an aircraft carrier.

Maybe that's part of startup CEO culture - where everyone's a CEO on LinkedIn, and they think, "We're corporate, we have to be like that." They mostly get to their senses in the end, but small companies tend to be overly complex and overblown when it comes to technology, tooling, and organisation.

On the other end, large corporations sometimes seem to try their best to become truly agile - living the values everywhere. Still, it's a challenge. In most cases, there's some kind of hybrid planning going on. There's still a roadmap, which is good, but at some level, some people still stick to classical approaches, have some waterfall going on in the back.

I personally have never seen, for example, a full SAFe organisation where it's done truly at every level. There's a good balance and it should be healthy, but it all comes down to execution.

I feel like mid-sized companies are often the healthiest when it comes to that.

There's a balance of method and tooling, but you still need a solid understanding of goal setting and tracking. This includes pivoting when goals aren't right and learning from how you did things in the past. The gap between management and teams isn't that huge, and it's easier to bridge.

Avoiding death by KPI

Hayley Rodd: You've touched on so many fundamental things around getting the method and tooling right, but also that cultural aspect. I love the insight around mid-size organisations often striking that balance well. When we're thinking about the enterprise risk - which could be "death by KPI" or OKR, do you agree? Can you paint a picture of what that looks like and how it actually makes teams less focused?

Andreas Wengenmayer: Absolutely. There is such a thing as "death by KPI." KPIs are important to get a clear picture - you do need metrics, and there's merit to it. But as always, it's about choosing the right KPIs, the right metrics.

My favourite example is comparing story points across teams or ARTs. You measure velocity, and I have to repeat again and again: it's only individual to one team. You shouldn't compare it to another team or across tribes or ARTs - that doesn't work because you're creating the wrong incentives.

You see what will happen: "Well, okay, my stakeholders want higher amounts of story points. Let's estimate the stories bigger." Of course, that's a continuous loop, but it doesn't give you anything. Story points as a metric are just guidance for a team to get a better feeling for estimations.

You see what will happen: "Well, okay, my stakeholders want higher amounts of story points. Let's estimate the stories bigger." Of course, that's a continuous loop, but it doesn't give you anything. Story points as a metric are just guidance for a team to get a better feeling for estimations.

You want predictability - you want to meet a certain range. So it's not a great KPI when it comes to monitoring progress across teams. They have better KPIs in place.

Other metrics tend to create what I call bureaucracy. If you spend too much time creating reports, you have less time to create anything of value.

Hayley Rodd: I think there's so much in what you're saying about people being realistic and honest, open to pivoting or changing a goal if it's not the right one. Admitting to that is really difficult because no one wants to admit that what they set out to do is failing. But understanding that failure can sometimes be a benefit - you can learn from that. There's so much in that cultural aspect, right?

Andreas Wengenmayer: Absolutely. Coming back to goals rather than KPIs - KPIs are like being on a boat in your control room. You see what the engine is doing, the temperature - those are KPIs. Goals, on the other hand, are the course that you set.

KPIs are like being on a boat in your control room. You see what the engine is doing, the temperature - those are KPIs. Goals, on the other hand, are the course that you set.

You could be a small company like a startup - you're in a canoe, you're rowing. Or you're a large company - you're like a big freighter. Still, if you don't set the right course, the right goal, you will never reach your destination. Your team can be as proficient and perfectly working as they could be. If the course isn't right, hopefully you have enough provisions on board to survive a long journey.

Where organisations get stuck in goal setting

Hayley Rodd: Where do organisations typically get stuck? Is it defining the goals, communicating the goals, or translating them into action - that execution point you made before?

Andreas Wengenmayer: It could be basically any one of those. If you have a smaller or mid-size company, it's easier to communicate - you don't have to bridge as huge a gap. But still, you have high-level goals that have to be translated into real work. Real value is created in the teams.

If you have a high-level goal that's highly abstract and sounds good on paper - "increase customer satisfaction," "create better products," "make the world a better place" - people still have to understand: What does that mean to my daily work? If I'm a developer, what's my stake in that? How can I contribute?

If you have a high-level goal that's highly abstract and sounds good on paper - "increase customer satisfaction," "create better products," "make the world a better place" - people still have to understand: What does that mean to my daily work? If I'm a developer, what's my stake in that? How can I contribute?

That's when communication and breaking down goals becomes really important. Breaking them down the right way, having them visible and transparent, and creating that feeling of contribution. You make it visible that you're not just working for yourself or your team, but you're really contributing. You understand what you're working on and why you're doing it. Purpose is critical.

Bridging the strategy-to-sprint gap

Hayley Rodd: That's a really good segue into the next question about translating strategic vision into team-level objectives that people can grab onto and execute. Leadership will often say something like "increase customer satisfaction," and teams are left going, "What does that mean for me in my sprint this week?" How does an organisation bridge that gap between the high-level leadership view and what we can do in our sprints as a team?

Andreas Wengenmayer: First of all, you as company management need to take the time. There have been, and still are, a lot of approaches with company values, putting posters on walls, creating marketing. Those are all values - that's what a company is like. Then you link it with your products, services - great services, customer satisfaction. Okay. Then comes the real challenge: we want to succeed and create the next service, software solution, or product.

The goal is clear on a high level, but how do we break it down? That's when the real work comes into play - breaking down the goals into smaller pieces.

It's like building a LEGO space station when I was a kid. You have the picture on the box in the beginning - 'Oh, that's what we're going to build.' Then you have to start putting together all the small pieces. You need a plan, you need the little pictures of the steps. You start with the big picture, then you're breaking it down one piece at a time. You create different parts, and they come together at the end. Same goes for goals.

It's like building a LEGO space station. You have the picture on the box in the beginning - 'Oh, that's what we're going to build.' Then you have to start putting together all the small pieces. You need a plan, you need the little pictures of the steps. You start with the big picture, then you're breaking it down one piece at a time. You create different parts, and they come together at the end. Same goes for goals.

Hayley Rodd: Nice. A colleague of mine often says you eat an elephant one bite at a time - similar thing, right? When you see that big goal, it's really overwhelming. But if you can break it down into those chunks and smaller pieces, it becomes so much more manageable and achievable. People can get behind that vision.

Managing moving targets

Hayley Rodd: In fast-moving environments, goals often shift. We're agile, we're always moving. How do you help teams stay connected to a moving target without either ignoring changes or constantly thrashing around?

Andreas Wengenmayer: Back in the nineties and early 2000s, there was a computer game that wasted a lot of time in offices where you were shooting at geese in Scottish Highlands. It was a big phenomenon because people were trying to get the next high score.

If you think of moving targets, it's a bit like that. Imagine you're doing your work - whether you're a hunter or developer doesn't matter - but you approach, you take aim, and the geese keep flying up. You miss the target. Same thing if you have moving goals.

It's harder to aim and approach them right. What you should avoid as a company or someone in charge is constant interference. Stick to your goals or objectives that were agreed upon during PI planning. Don't change them midterm during a PI.

What you should avoid as a company or someone in charge is constant interference. Stick to your goals or objectives that were agreed upon during PI planning. Don't change them midterm during a PI.

That doesn't mean you can't learn from mistakes or wrong goals. You can adjust them, but you have to adjust them in the right place and time, which is during planning. Of course, if something security-related comes up, you have to act, but it has to be agreed upon, and you still have to communicate it and create understanding.

Keeping goals visible and actionable

Hayley Rodd: Even when goals are well-defined, keeping them visible and actionable throughout a PI is tough. What practices or tools have you found most effective for maintaining connection between daily work and high-level strategic objectives?

Andreas Wengenmayer: Good question. Having the goals present at all times helps a lot. If you just meet for planning, have your goals set, and never look back during the PI, it doesn't do you any good.

That could be a piece of paper on the wall like we had back in the day - and still could be if you're working in the office. Also, choose the right tools to track the goals and create acceptance for tools. Really use them. Look into them - whether it's an OKR tool or some other solution, even PI objectives. Are we still on track?

What really helps is if it's not static but shows progress, and especially shows the link of what you're contributing - like what you achieved in your last sprint and how it plays into the objectives or goals, progress moving ahead. There's always a good feeling - everybody loves a green bar moving ahead or a checklist.

What really helps is if your tool is not static but shows progress, and especially shows the link of what you're contributing - like what you achieved in your last sprint and how it plays into the objectives or goals, progress moving ahead. There's always a good feeling - everybody loves a green bar moving ahead or a checklist.

It helps keep the vision and goals present.

Hayley Rodd: When I was a teenager in my final year of high school here in Australia, I wanted a specific score on my final exams. I had a big poster in front of my desk that I sat at for hours every day studying. Looking back, I didn't know what I was doing - I just wanted to visualise my goal, and I didn't know the psychology behind it. But I'm happy to report I got that mark and above.

I think it was as you were saying - that constant reminder, that piece of paper worked for me. In organisations, we're looking for something a bit more complex sometimes, but I like your "keep it simple" advice. It doesn't always have to be super complex. It can just be a checklist, progress bar, or piece of paper - something that helps you feel connected to the goal and reminds you of it often.

When good work doesn't align with goals

Hayley Rodd: Have you seen situations where teams were delivering lots of work - good work, but it wasn't clearly contributing to company goals? What tends to cause that disconnect?

Andreas Wengenmayer: Yeah, that happens quite a bit. I can think of one example with very technical teams, like in semiconductors. Very smart people - everyone has a PhD in physics, material science. Awesome, smart people who tend to love their job. They're awesome, but they're also perfectionists who can still improve things and want to make them even better.

If you're in the business of producing machines used to produce semiconductors, for example, it's a complex task with a complex supply chain or value chain. You're creating lithography machines to create wafers used by other companies, and in the end, you have a customer planning the release of a new phone.

Your customer waits, the end customer waits, and you have to deliver on time. Sometimes this creates a challenge because teams still want to improve and make it even better. That's when economics come into play - the view of the big picture. You still have to communicate it. You shouldn't discourage such a great team, but you need to get the bigger perspective back to the teams and create acceptance instead of saying, "Hey, stop what you're doing, it's good enough." You don't want that. It all comes back to transparency and communication.

On the other spectrum, what you sometimes have is just too much workload on teams. Time for planning gets cut short, and if you don't take enough time to plan well, no wonder the results don't work out. It's just a lot of busy work - a lot of things getting done, but not necessarily the right things at the right time.

On the other spectrum, what you sometimes have is just too much workload on teams. Time for planning gets cut short, and if you don't take enough time to plan well, no wonder the results don't work out. It's just a lot of busy work - a lot of things getting done, but not necessarily the right things at the right time.

Hayley Rodd: If you don't do that planning at the start, you're setting yourself up for misalignments. If you're not communicating that plan regularly, you're setting yourself up for that busy work and people getting distracted. It's just so common. That planning part is so fundamental to getting it right.

One piece of advice for frustrated leaders

Hayley Rodd: We're on the home stretch now. If you could give one piece of advice to an engineering or product leader who's been frustrated because their teams seem to be going through the motions of PI planning or quarterly planning without real buy-in, what would it be?

Andreas Wengenmayer: I can resonate with that so well, and many can. I'd say: take the time to find out what's really going on. Investigate the root cause. It's like if you have a house and you're trying to fix a crack in the wall - you can look at the crack and do some superficial fixing or use a thick layer of paint, but you still have to find out what's causing that issue. Maybe something deeper.

You mentioned the five whys - that can be one way, but you have to have some understanding of the right way to approach people. You don't want to put anyone on the spot. Looking for a scapegoat doesn't help anybody.

We need to look at what's behind it, what's causing it. It all comes back to investing enough time for planning, but doing it with purpose. Not doing the whole planning like theatre, where everybody acts their part - that doesn't do you any good.

It all comes back to investing enough time for planning, but doing it with purpose. Not doing the whole planning like theatre, where everybody acts their part - that doesn't do you any good.

People have to understand why they're doing it. There has to be purpose and understanding - enough time, no distractions, and a positive atmosphere where everybody can contribute and be open.

You don't want people saying nothing because they don't dare to criticise or say no.

The connection between goal clarity and team motivation

Hayley Rodd: What's one thing you wish more organisations understood about the connection between goal clarity and team motivation?

Andreas Wengenmayer: We could get back to the boats we mentioned before. You want to arrive at your destination. If you're not clear about the destination, or maybe some people in your rowing boat don't want to go there, they might not join the rowing. If your crew is not invested, it will take you longer to reach a destination, or you won't get there as well.

It's the same thing. Motivation is key, and I don't talk about superficial motivation that just annoys everybody. Motivation is a positive environment where people rely on each other. They really like spending time with those people.

"Hey, I really like to go to lunch with you and talk to you" - not "I'd rather be home and not talk to anybody." You're not annoyed if your teammate asks you a question; you're happy to help. You're feeling safe that when you have a problem or question, you will get help.

That creates the right kind of motivation - that positive environment, and that can make a lot of things happen. It comes back to openness and transparency, not as buzzwords, but to get the clear picture. As a stakeholder, you get the correct current state because you get true answers.

I've seen strange situations in major corporations where people really didn't report what they were working on or show the right results. I've seen complete shadow Jira environments - one for internal use and one for external use with customers. There can be huge misalignments because people didn't dare to show real progress. In the long term, it will backfire. If you don't have trust in your environment, in your company, you will have a hard time.

I've seen strange situations in major corporations where people really didn't report what they were working on or show the right results. I've seen complete shadow Jira environments - one for internal use and one for external use with customers. There can be huge misalignments because people didn't dare to show real progress. In the long term, it will backfire. If you don't have trust in your environment, in your company, you will have a hard time.

Wrapping up

Hayley Rodd: There are so many key themes coming up throughout our conversation. You've talked about ongoing communication across teams, really planning with purpose, getting that context and buy-in to help with motivation, and allowing for radical candour - being really open if something's not working and being okay to call it out. So many cultural and communication elements are critical to the success of quarterly planning, PI planning, and organisations generally. Great takeaways.

We're going to end it there, but I want to end with a teaser for our interactive webinar that you and I are doing together on September 4th, which dives deeper and shows how to operationalise the ideas we've chatted about here using Easy Agile Programs and linking back to the fundamental services that catworkx provides organisations.

Andreas, it's been super wonderful to chat with you. I look forward to our webinar coming up on September 4th.

Andreas Wengenmayer: Thank you so much for having me. Looking forward to September 4th and seeing you again, talking more about tooling, boats, duck hunt, and anything in between.

Ready to transform your strategic planning?

The conversation doesn't end here. Andreas and Hayley hosted an interactive webinar where they showed how you can put these strategic alignment concepts into practice.

They spoke about:

• Practical techniques for breaking down strategic goals into actionable team objectives
• How to maintain goal visibility throughout your PI cycles
• Real-world examples of successful alignment transformations

Watch the webinar recording here →