Agile Coaches: Is It Time to Tap Out?

With the rapid expansion of agile methodologies and the increasing presence of agile coaches from around 2009 until the post-COVID era, agile became a ubiquitous term in organizational transformation. Yet, despite its widespread adoption, many companies saw agile transformations falter and were left wondering what went wrong. Reflecting on this trend, it’s essential to ask the question: Did coaching kill agile? 

I discussed this question with Dave Prior and Sandra Cain on the DrunkenPM Radio podcast.  

The Downfall of Agile Coaching 

Why did agile transformations fail in so many organizations? Why are we witnessing a significant reduction in agile coaches, scrum masters, and other related roles? 

I’ve come to the conclusion that coaching, in a way, brought agile into an early grave. This statement isn’t a denouncement of coaching itself but rather an observation about the quality and readiness of many who assumed the coaching role. Due to the high demand in the last decade, many individuals volunteered for agile coaching positions without the necessary experience or understanding of organizational dynamics. Many attended a few days of training, read a couple of books, and suddenly found themselves leading enterprise-level transformations without a solid foundation. 

Agile coaches may have been well-versed in agile principles, but often failed to grasp how to navigate, influence, and reorganize organizations to deliver optimal value under a vast number of constraints. 

These coaches often lacked a deep understanding of the intricacies of organizational pressures, such as the impact that internal politics play on leaders, or the tough decisions when a CFO demands a 15% budget cut with a tight deadline. Agile coaches may have been well-versed in agile principles, but often failed to grasp how to navigate, influence, and reorganize organizations to deliver optimal value under a vast number of constraints. 

This gap in expertise meant that even if agile coaches had mastered usage of agile practices, they couldn’t effectively manage the broader organizational dynamics essential for a successful transformation. As a result, clients frequently found themselves with unmet expectations. They were promised streamlined process flows that were forever under construction, and value that was never fully realized, leading to dissatisfaction and questioning the agile approach itself. 

It’s also important to recognize that this issue isn’t solely on the coaching side. Clients often claimed to want transformation but were unprepared for the extent of change required. They didn’t fully grasp the commitment, the funding, and the depth of transformation necessary to truly embed agile within their organizational culture.  Couple this dynamic with coaches who didn’t understand how to get organizational change moving in the right direction, and the odds of success were low, at best. 

The Difference Between Agile Coaching and Consulting 

Coaching and Consulting are two different approaches, and most companies need both, but usually at different times. Coaching is about asking the right questions, fostering self-discovery, and facilitating change. Conversely, consulting involves providing concrete advice, sharing expertise, and offering direct solutions to problems at a moment in time.  

Instead, they got coaches who were great at facilitating but not necessarily equipped to handle an enterprise-level transformation’s immediate, practical needs.

In many cases, organizations needed consultants who could provide clear guidance and strategic direction. Instead, they got coaches who were great at facilitating but not necessarily equipped to handle an enterprise-level transformation’s immediate, practical needs. This mismatch was exacerbated by market conditions: a high demand for agile expertise, coupled with procurement practices that favored lower rates, led to hiring underqualified coaches for complex roles. 

When I was at SolutionsIQ, we identified ourselves as a consulting company, not a coaching company. This distinction is vital. I believe that consulting and coaching exist on a continuum, each with its place and purpose in an organization’s transformation journey. Furthermore, I think every person has a natural spot on that continuum; a spot where he/she gravitates to under normal circumstances.  I sit more on the consulting side of that continuum, and I’ve sat in training courses where that stance has been heavily frowned upon.  Somewhere, along the way, coaching became the leading edge of the transformation, rather than leaning in and helping organizations navigate significant process and cultural changes, then transitioning to coaching when appropriate.  

The shift from consulting-led to coaching-led transformations happened gradually and without a clear catalyst. I view myself as a natural consultant. I can’t sit idly by as a company heads toward potential pitfalls; I feel compelled to provide guidance, warn them of upcoming challenges, and prepare them for what’s ahead. My natural inclination is to consult first and coach second. 

However, many agile transformations were driven by individuals whose natural tendencies leaned heavily toward coaching. These individuals often lacked the consulting skills needed to guide organizations through the initial, critical stages of transformation. For example, I once talked with a lead engineer at a client who was very resistant to coaching. I learned through those discussions that the lead engineer didn’t want to be coached; he just wanted to be told what the organization needed him to do, why it was important, and how his involvement would change.   

The key takeaway is that coaching and consulting are both essential but must be applied in a complementary fashion. Leading with consulting provides the foundation and direction needed for an organization to start its agile journey effectively. Once the groundwork is laid, coaching can help sustain and deepen the transformation. The failure to recognize and appropriately balance these roles led to many of the issues we’ve seen with agile implementations. 

Organizations must ensure that those leading their transformations also possess the right mix of skills. They need leaders who seek better understanding of what’s possible, asking consultants the hard questions, and not being gullible to take whatever advice is thrown their way; finally, they are open to coaching for personal and organizational growth that complements the consultant’s advice. Business transformations can only succeed and deliver on their promises by balancing these approaches. 

What Makes a Good Agile Coach? 

A good coach is more than just someone who has taken a few training courses or read a couple of books on agile. True coaching requires a depth of understanding, humility, and a keen awareness of one’s own experience and limitations; in short, a level of wisdom that takes time to develop. For those new to coaching, it’s crucial to recognize their place and have the humility to understand where they are in their own learning journey. 

A good coach understands that their role is not to be an omniscient figure but to guide and support the team in their growth and problem-solving efforts. This self-awareness helps avoid the trap of arrogance, which can be a significant barrier to effective coaching. 

One troubling trend I’ve observed is the emergence of the so-called “holier-than-thou” agile coach who seems to metaphorically sit with their legs crossed on the mountaintop. This type of coach adopts an unhelpful, arrogant stance, believing they are above the rest and, most importantly, their way is the only way. This attitude, often coupled with poor communication skills, alienates leaders, teams, and individuals rather than fostering their development. It reflects a misunderstanding of the coaching role, leaning more towards a dictatorial, “you must follow my narrow path” approach without the necessary empathy, pragmatism, and connection that true coaching requires. 

Successful coaches understand when to employ the coaching and consulting stances.

Working with clients effectively involves understanding when to adopt different stances. Successful coaches understand when to employ the coaching and consulting stances. They have a keen awareness of the current state of the organization, the political climate, the short and long-term goals, as well as the organization’s ability to consume change. They meet clients where they are, which can often be a challenging and unclear place. Clients may need more consultative guidance to see the future, understand the path to get there and manage the change required. 

Transformational work often begins with heavy consulting activities. Clients need clear direction and actionable advice to navigate their immediate challenges. Only after this foundational work is done and trust has been established can coaching become effective. This transition from consulting to coaching can take time—sometimes up to a year or more—depending on the organization’s complexity and the transformation’s scale. 

This process is even more intricate in highly complex environments, especially at the enterprise level. Coaches must be patient, adaptable, and ready to switch between coaching and consulting as the situation demands. They need to be skilled in both areas to support the client’s journey through transformation effectively. 

Balancing Leadership and Client Expectations in Agile Coaching 

A critical aspect of successful agile transformations lies in the initial evaluation of both the client and their leadership. It’s essential to assess where the organization stands, not just in terms of agile maturity but also regarding the readiness and mindset of its leaders. Often, leaders may hesitate to enforce new ways of working due to a fear of backlash or damaging relationships within existing teams. They might seek someone to shoulder the burden of delivering difficult news, which changes the nature of the engagement and the skill sets required. 

It’s not uncommon for clients to express a desire for one thing while their actions suggest something entirely different.

When a client reaches out to us with a request, it initiates a comprehensive discovery process. This involves in-depth conversations to understand the real situation, the behind-the-scenes challenges, and the motivations driving the client’s actions. It’s not uncommon for clients to express a desire for one thing while their actions suggest something entirely different. This disconnect often stems from misaligned motivations or expectations that must be delicately navigated. 

Good coaches and consultants must be adept at recognizing and addressing these types of discrepancies, which collectively may present an opportunity for one to take a consultative stance, offering clear direction and solutions, or a moment to adopt a coaching stance, facilitating self-discovery and growth. This balance is crucial and requires significant experience to navigate effectively. Inexperienced coaches may struggle with this balance, leading to misaligned priorities, frustration, and possibly a premature withdrawal from an engagement. 

I remember a call, from several years ago, where a CIO said they had read a Gartner study that stated at least 15% of all projects within an organization should be run in an agile fashion. In that call, the CIO asked us to come in and install agility within 15% of his organization. In my opinion, that’s not a very compelling reason to change. I suggested reframing the “success” criteria around tangible business outcomes that can impact both the operational efficiency of the business and the users of that organization’s products or services. In such cases, I’ve found it’s essential to establish a compelling “why” — why is it important to your organization and your team? At one recent client, the primary leader initiated an internal “Why? Conference” to explain and discuss the business outcomes they were trying to achieve and how their agile approach enabled that pursuit. It was a critical one-day event that fostered alignment across all levels of the organization.  

At Adaptivity, we emphasize iterative and incremental change that sticks. Our goal is to create an environment where change is not just accepted but desired. This involves significant effort and investment, more than most organizations anticipate. However, the results speak for themselves. Clients who have experienced the typical consulting or coaching approaches often find our methods refreshingly different and more effective. They see the tangible results and appreciate our unique approach to transformation. 

Conclusion: Should Agile Coaches Tap Out? 

To address the issues plaguing agile transformations, we must first acknowledge the hard truth: the landscape for agile coaching has shifted. The days of high-dollar coach salaries are waning, and agile, for now, carries a somewhat tarnished reputation. However, the potential for agile to improve teamwork and organizational effectiveness remains undeniable. 

The solution lies in a recalibrated approach that blends professionalism in both consulting and coaching. Organizations need to see tangible results to regain confidence in agile. This means implementing the right scaling patterns and demonstrating the promised value of agile through real-world successes. 

Moving forward, only those with the skill to adeptly balance consulting and coaching will thrive. These individuals will lead and participate in transformations that are impactful and practical. They will know when to step in with key advice, or when to guide and facilitate, tailoring their approach to each organization’s unique needs. 

To fix the current situation, we must emphasize continuous learning and adaptability in our coaches. Organizations must invest in those who can deliver results and be prepared for a journey that requires patience, effort, and a sustained willingness to change. By leading with professionalism and focusing on near-term goals that ladder up to tangible business outcomes, we can restore hope in agile concepts and help organizations realize the benefits they were promised all along.