The Agile Establishment

Gunnar Fischer recently published a Substack newsletter titled Nobody is safe in times of crisis. He references me in the article and makes some very kind remarks. I appreciate his kindness. But that’s not why I’m writing this post.

At the very end of the article, he closes with this—

Now the good news: What does not change? I believe that better ways of working are attractive to aim for. There are many honest and decent agile practitioners on the ground floor. I would only take a very critical look at the “agile establishment”. Maybe it is time to leave it behind - even more than any frameworks or techniques...

And I was struck by this statement

I would only take a very critical look at the “agile establishment”. Maybe it is time to leave it behind - even more than any frameworks or techniques...

In parallel to reading Gunnar’s article, I also saw the announcement from PMI/Agile Alliance of the Manifesto for Enterprise Agility yesterday (March 4^th, 2026).

As I read the manifesto, a couple of things stood out for me—

1. Most, if not all, of the Agile influencers, reviewers, signatories, etc., who helped create the new manifesto were established experts, consultants, and thought leaders from the Agile community. Not necessarily bad, but I didn’t see many new names or voices.

2. The role that PMI is playing with the Agile Alliance. It’s clear in the messaging and focus that Agile Alliance has been subsumed by PMI. Not necessarily bad, but the “acquisition dynamics” are visibly emerging. Clearly, PMI is the lead-dog.

3. There was no WOW for me. Sure, the four values seemed fair. That said, I couldn’t say I would expect to hear enterprise leaders actively quoting them in board or senior leadership meetings. And the nine principles, bundled across Leadership Behavior, Organizational Design, and Execution, also seemed fair. But again, do I see them and the overall manifesto changing enterprise-level leadership conversations, behaviors, and cultural dynamics? I’d say, maybe-to-no.

I also think there were two large misses in the work that I’ll explore next. Misses that disappointed me greatly.

2 Big Misses

1. Involving new voices: Involving new generations, younger voices, and inexperienced voices. Involving neurodivergent voices. Involving broadly diverse voices

Sure, there was some diversity in the crowd of contributors, influencers, reviewers, and creators. But as I looked over the lists, it largely appeared to be the same old folks to me. I wanted an entirely new generation of contributors. All the existing ones should have recruited other voices, not their own, to stand in and provide new thoughts, ideas, energy, and focus.

And including the broad PMI influence just amplified the same old, same old flavor. It was a missed opportunity to stand back and let the next generation sort things out and form a new vision.

2. Involving REAL organizational leaders.

Another big gap was the lack of true senior corporate and organizational leadership perspectives in the work. Sure, there were a lot of CEO titles, but if you peeked under the covers, they were CEOs of very small companies or consultancies. The other problem was surveying leaders. Yes, that was a convenient way to gain feedback, but I’m looking for engagement.

Ask yourself, why couldn’t Agile Alliance and PMI, with their gravitas, get ~50-100 real enterprise leaders in a room to explore the dynamics of a Manifesto that serves THEM? Truly engage them and serve them. I’m still wondering if the Manifesto represents these leaders’ thoughts, needs, and goals, or what we think they are.

I believe it’s the latter, and this lack of true partnership with organizational leaders will still be THE problem for us.

My Concern

My concern is that we’ve done this before. That it’s the same old, same old, and indicative of—

• The Agile Industrial Complex

• Agile Establishment thinking

• PMI is trying to guide a futuristic agile strategy

• A lack of true partnership with and empathy for organizational leaders

• Desperation on our part to do “something” to meet the current business climate tensions

Wrapping Up

For those who are thinking to themselves—Bob, aren’t you part of the Agile Establishment?

I will answer, of course, I am. A big part.

That’s specifically why I didn’t participate in this effort. I felt that my time was largely over. Yes, I continue to write to challenge the status quo, be a thought-provoker, and share my thoughts, but I’ve been stepping back for years to create space for others. And I feel—

• Most current agile-ish trainers and consultants should step back.

• Most current agile-ish change agents and coaches should step back.

• Most agile-ish pundits and thought leaders should step back.

Why?

Because we’ve potentially become too pickled to be of real use, and we’re not opening the door sufficiently for the next generation.

Back to the Manifesto…

• Is it solid work and reasonably valuable? Sure.

• Is it something new that will last for the next 25 years? No.

• Is it going to change everyone and everything in the way the original Manifesto did? Of course, not.

• Does it need to be refactored? I think so. But don’t we all?

Stay agile, my friends,

Bob.

Postscript

After I wrote this article, I found this post by Denise Jarvie. I’m only grabbing the beginning of the post here—

𝐓𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐰𝐞’𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐄𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐀𝐠𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲.

This work started with a simple but uncomfortable question we kept hearing from leaders across industries:

𝘈𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦—𝘰𝘳 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳?

Enterprise agility is not about scaling Agile practices.

It’s about building the 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩, 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 that allow an organization to adapt at speed without losing coherence—even when conditions are uncertain, resources are constrained, and pressure is high.

At its core, enterprise agility is a 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭:
to make purpose actionable, to align the enterprise around outcomes, and to continually reinvent how the organization works.

It struck me that all of this is well and good, IF we could have broadly included the constituencies I mentioned above. Otherwise, we’re simply prognosticators in a back room formulating our judgements without direct experience and expecting everyone to be amazed by and happily adopt our vast wisdom.