Stelian ROMANProject Manager| MicroSafetyCarlingford, New South Wales, Australia
As Agile practices mature, many organisations adopt frameworks that introduce greater structure and process. Some also incorporate traditional practices, tools, and metrics, sometimes presenting them as novel Agile solutions. While learning from other methodologies can be beneficial, significant ethical concerns arise when content is copied, relabelled as ‘scaled’ Agile, and implemented without alignment to the core values of the Manifesto for Agile Software Development.
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Yes, I have seen this happen in several large-scale Agile transformations.
In many cases, the issue was not the integration of ideas from Lean, Project Management, quality management, or other disciplines. Management knowledge has always evolved through adaptation and recombination.
The deeper problem emerged when practices were relabelled as “Agile” without sufficient transparency about: • Where they originated, • Why they were adopted, • What trade-offs they introduced.
I have also seen teams initially embrace Agile because it increased ownership, collaboration, responsiveness, and customer proximity. But as frameworks scaled, additional layers of governance, metrics, reporting, and coordination sometimes made teams feel less empowered and more process-constrained.
At that point, teams are often not resisting agility itself. They are reacting to environments where the language of Agile is preserved, while many underlying management behaviors remain fundamentally unchanged.
I also believe it is important to distinguish more carefully between Lean, Lean Six Sigma, traditional management approaches, and Agile, because these traditions emerged from different historical and operational contexts, even if they later influenced one another.
Process and structure are not inherently anti-Agile. Large-scale adaptive systems require some level of coordination and governance.
The real risk begins when structure stops enabling adaptation and starts constraining it.
An important and valuable discussion for the profession. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
I don’t think the problem is mixing practices from different approaches. The issue starts when everything gets labeled as “Agile” while the way teams work and make decisions stays the same.
I’ve also seen cases where scaling added so much governance and reporting that teams ended up feeling less empowered instead of more adaptive. Saving Changes...
Stelian ROMANProject Manager| MicroSafetyCarlingford, New South Wales, Australia
Luis Branco, thank you. Agile is, by definition, an empirical process, and adapting to change is the core value. Therefore, it should be expected that Agile should evolve faster and deeper than traditional practices. Unfortunately, one reason for the 'success' of scaled Agile is the ability to hide a conservative mindset behind an Agile label. Lean, Lean Six Sigma, and Agile were well defined before 2001. Lean is a manufacturing concept with a focus on quality and cost, mainly by eliminating waste. Six Sigma is a mathematical tool that was added to Lean to facilitate measurement of process improvement initiatives. "Agility is the ability to thrive and prosper in a competitive environment of continuous and unanticipated change, to respond quickly to rapidly changing markets driven by customer-based valuing of products and services. It is the coming business system that will replace the mass production businesses of today." (US Agility Forum Literature 1990s). Lean and Agile are product development approaches; management is a different science that, in principle, should balance Lean and Agile. "The real risk begins when structure stops enabling adaptation and starts constraining it." deserves a separate discussion. Risk and Risk Management is one of the known Agile practice weaknesses.
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Jun 27, 2026 5:33 AM
Luis Branco
...
Thank you, Stelian.
I completely agree that management has a distinct role and should not be confused with either Lean or Agile.
Perhaps the challenge is not finding the right balance between structure and agility, but ensuring that every layer of structure exists to enable better decisions, faster learning and continuous adaptation, rather than becoming an objective in itself.
As organizations grow, additional governance is often necessary. The key question is whether each new layer improves learning, coordination and value creation, or simply reinforces existing ways of working under a different label.
In my view, that is where many transformations gradually drift away from the very capabilities Agile was intended to develop.
Saving Changes...
Stelian ROMANProject Manager| MicroSafetyCarlingford, New South Wales, Australia
Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa , thank you. That's one of the reasons for some of the 'scaled' Agile successes: Keeping the old management style as 'new Ways of Working.' Saving Changes...
Ming YeungAdjunct Professor| Various academic institutesToronto, Ontario, Canada
Dan, I have seen several “scaled Agile” initiatives where traditional methodologies were repackaged, rebranded, and sold as cutting‑edge Agile solutions. And the impact on teams was anything but positive. What concerns me most is not the borrowing of practices itself, but the lack of transparency about where those practices come from and whether they align with Agile values. When organizations adopt a framework because it’s marketed as the new industry standard, rather than because it fits their context, the result is often a culture of compliance rather than collaboration. In one transformation I experienced, a heavily prescriptive framework was introduced with the promise of “enterprise agility.” In reality, it reintroduced layers of hierarchy, rigid stage gates, and standardized templates that looked suspiciously like the waterfall processes we were supposedly leaving behind. Teams quickly felt constrained rather than empowered. The language was Agile, but the lived experience was not. Morale dropped, psychological safety eroded, and the organization ended up with the worst of both worlds: bureaucracy dressed in Agile terminology. The biggest lesson I learn is that ethics matter in transformation. When frameworks are imposed without attribution, without adaptation, and without respect for the Agile Manifesto, teams lose trust, not just in the framework, but in leadership. If I were approaching this again, I would advocate for transparency about the origins of practices, co‑creation with teams, and a clear test: does this change increase autonomy, learning, and customer value? If not, it is not Agile, no matter what the label says. Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
May 20, 2026 12:58 AM
Replying to Stelian ROMAN
...
Luis Branco, thank you. Agile is, by definition, an empirical process, and adapting to change is the core value. Therefore, it should be expected that Agile should evolve faster and deeper than traditional practices. Unfortunately, one reason for the 'success' of scaled Agile is the ability to hide a conservative mindset behind an Agile label. Lean, Lean Six Sigma, and Agile were well defined before 2001. Lean is a manufacturing concept with a focus on quality and cost, mainly by eliminating waste. Six Sigma is a mathematical tool that was added to Lean to facilitate measurement of process improvement initiatives. "Agility is the ability to thrive and prosper in a competitive environment of continuous and unanticipated change, to respond quickly to rapidly changing markets driven by customer-based valuing of products and services. It is the coming business system that will replace the mass production businesses of today." (US Agility Forum Literature 1990s). Lean and Agile are product development approaches; management is a different science that, in principle, should balance Lean and Agile. "The real risk begins when structure stops enabling adaptation and starts constraining it." deserves a separate discussion. Risk and Risk Management is one of the known Agile practice weaknesses.
Thank you, Stelian.
I completely agree that management has a distinct role and should not be confused with either Lean or Agile.
Perhaps the challenge is not finding the right balance between structure and agility, but ensuring that every layer of structure exists to enable better decisions, faster learning and continuous adaptation, rather than becoming an objective in itself.
As organizations grow, additional governance is often necessary. The key question is whether each new layer improves learning, coordination and value creation, or simply reinforces existing ways of working under a different label.
In my view, that is where many transformations gradually drift away from the very capabilities Agile was intended to develop. Saving Changes...
"Ambition is like a frog sitting on a Venus Flytrap. The flytrap can bite and bite, but it won't bother the frog because it only has little tiny plant teeth. But some other stuff could happen and it could be like ambition."
Community Champion
