11institutetext: University of Applied Sciences and Arts Hannover
Dpt. of Business Information Systems
Hannover, Germany
11email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>22institutetext: Bagilstein GmbH
Mainz, Germany
22email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>33institutetext: University of
Applied Sciences Emden/Leer
Dpt. of Economics
Emden, Germany
33email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>44institutetext: IU International
University
Frankfurt, Germany
44email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
# Agile Culture Clash: Unveiling Challenges in Cultivating an Agile Mindset in
Organizations 111This paper is an extended version of our conference paper
titled Which Challenges Do Exist With Agile Culture in Practice? [24]. In this
paper, we updated the related work and added an in-depth presentation of the
sample of our study. Furthermore, we provide a detailed discussion of each key
challenge including a clustering of the challenges related to the dimensions
of being and doing agile. Finally, we explain in more detail our conceptual
model and present key take aways for practitioners and researchers.

Michael Neumann 11 Thorben Kuchel 22 Philipp Diebold 2244 Eva-Maria Schön 33

###### Abstract

Context: In agile transformations, there are many challenges such as alignment
between agile practices and the organizational goals and strategies or issues
with shifts in how work is organized and executed. One very important
challenge but less considered and treated in research are cultural challenges
associated with an agile mindset. Although research shows that cultural
clashes and general organizational resistance to change are part of the most
significant agile adoption barriers. Objective: We identify challenges that
arise from the interplay between agile culture and organizational culture. In
doing so, we tackle this field and come up with important contributions for
further research regarding a problem that practitioners face today. Method:
This is done with a mixed-method research approach. First, we gathered
qualitative data among our network of agile practitioners and derived in sum
15 challenges with agile culture. Then, we conducted quantitative data by
means of a questionnaire study with 92 participants. Results: We identified 7
key challenges out of the 15 challenges with agile culture. These key
challenges refer to the technical agility (doing agile) and the cultural
agility (being agile). The results are presented in type of a conceptual model
named the Agile Cultural Challenges (ACuCa). Conclusion: Based on our results,
we started deriving future work aspects to do more detailed research on the
topic of cultural challenges while transitioning or using agile methods in
software development and beyond.

Keywords: Agile software development, agile methods, agile culture, agile
mindset, organizational culture, challenges, barriers, conceptual model

##  1 Introduction

Agile methods have been used in software development for more than 20 years
[1] and are widely adopted to respond to rapidly changing market conditions
[4]. With an iterative approach and emphasis on collaboration, communication
and interaction, agile methods allow for adequate responses to changing
requirements and individual customer needs, enabling companies to remain
competitive even in volatile markets. Nowadays, the term VUCA222The VUCA
acronym was introduced by the U.S. military and describes markets that are
characterized by highly dynamic conditions and thus, rapidly changing
environments like customer needs and requirements. [4] (volatility,
uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity) is used to characterize this context
[4]. However, values and principles are of high importance when introducing
and using agile methods in practice due to their focus on social aspects such
as communication, interaction, and stakeholder integration [8]. The Agile
Manifesto [3] provides a ground for a value-based approach to product
development. Furthermore, the guidelines for specific agile methods such as
Scrum [36] or Kanban [2] define further and specific values for these
approaches.

Many companies face various challenges when transitioning to agile methods
[43]. A successful agile transformation depends on several factors, including
the involvement of stakeholders [18], correct application of agile practices
across different organizational levels [30], and cultural aspects of the
organization [11]. The State of Agile Report [45] identifies contradictions
between organizational culture and agile values as a core challenge in agile
transition. For example, actively promoting the self-organization of agile
teams requires a culture that values transparency and critical thinking
regarding the agile approach in use [37]. However, challenges arising from
cultural aspects when introducing and applying agile methods in practice are
diverse [48]. Thus, contextual differences, such as regions, industries, or
organizational levels, should be considered when studying agile methods [14,
32].

One well-known distinction in applying agile is between doing and being agile
[25, 39]. Doing agile (technical agility) involves the methodological
application of agile methods and practices, while being agile (cultural
agility) emphasizes an agile mindset based on underlying values and
principles. The interplay between these two dimensions is of high relevance
for a successful agile transformation and provides a starting point for an
understanding of an agile culture independent from the organizational context.
Thus, we define agile culture as follows:

Definition Agile Culture [24]: An Agile Culture reflects the behavior of
people working in an organization using agile practices based on the
underlying values and principles defined in the Agile Manifesto and the
guidelines of agile methods.

Literature presents many studies regarding the application of technical
agility [6, 19]. However, agile culture has been underrepresented in the
recent literature (e.g., [14]). To address this gap, our mixed-method study
aims to identify key challenges associated with the interplay between agile
culture and organizational culture.

Hence, this paper addresses the following research questions:

  * •

RQ1: What are the key challenges with agile culture?
As described above, literature show various challenges with regard to agile
transformations or the use of agile methods in practice. However, we
identified a lack of understanding which challenges relate to an agile
culture. Thus, we want to fill this gap by answering this research question by
identifying key challenges with an agile culture.

  * •

RQ2: How can we describe the relationships of the key challenges with agile
culture in a systematic manner?
We know that identifying and analyzing challenges can be complex as the
challenges may have interrelations with each other. Thus, this second research
questions aims to provide a systematic description of the relationships
between the identified challenges.

The paper at hand is structured as follows: In Section 2, we outline the
related work. Section 3 explains our mixed method research approach with
qualitative and quantitative data. Section 4 presents our identified key
challenges with agile culture and categorizes them to technical agility and
cultural agility. Then, Section 5 presents our conceptual model that shows the
relationships between the key challenges with agile culture. Section 6
discusses the implications on practitioners and researchers and presents the
limitations of our study. Finally, the paper closes with Section 7, a
conclusion of this work and future research directions.

##  2 Related Work

We searched for both, primary and secondary studies in order to provide an
overview of the literature related to key challenges of cultural aspects while
transitioning or using agile methods or practices. The search was performed
using Google Scholar. We argue the choice to use Google Scholar by considering
diverse publishers (e.g. ACM, IEEE) and the high consistency of results with
digital libraries like Scopus [47]. The literature review was designed
according to the guidelines for rapid reviews by Cartaxo et al. [7]. We
focused our literature search on agile cultural related aspects. Table 1 gives
a brief overview of the identified related work.

Table 1: Overview of the related work in accordance with [24] Reference |  Cultural level(s) |  Findings
---|---|---
Neumann et al. (2023) [32] |  National culture & organizational culture |  The authors present a causal model describing the impact of cultural aspects on agile practices. They focus on national culture using the six cultural dimensions by Hofstede and the two dimensions from the Competing Values Model. The hypothetical causal impact is described systematically per each cultural dimension on one agile practice. In total, their model presents 384 possible relationships of cultural impact on agile practices.
Gelmis et al. (2022) [14] |  National culture |  Hierarchical cultural structures, which are described for Turkish culture, are challenging the use and transition of agile methods. The authors recommend transforming to a more flat organizational structure, which supports the use of agile methods and should optimize the performance of agile teams.
Gupta et al. (2019) [17] |  Organizational culture |  The results of the study show that a hierarchical culture hinders the use of social and technical agile practices. Development cultures support both social and technical agile practices. The authors recommend considering the underlying cultures in the organization before starting an agile transformation and describe a six-step process according to Cameron and Quinn [5].
Iivari and Iivari (2011) [21] |  Organizational culture |  Based on an empirical study, the authors point out that a hierarchical culture is incompatible with the use of agile methods. For example, it is shown that the transition and use of agile methods in hierarchical organizational cultures leads to a steadily increasing formalization of the agile method and that it can lose key elements of agile work over time.
Siakas and Siakas (2007) [38] |  National & organizational culture |  In their work, the authors describe an agile culture based on well-known success factors such as user satisfaction and stakeholder involvement. They present the connections between organizational and cultural aspects and elements of agile working such as practices and roles. The authors also point out the importance of employee motivation and dynamics and draw parallels to established frameworks such as ETHICS [28] or TQM [9].
Strode et al. (2009) [43] |  Organizational culture |  Based on their empirical study, the authors present specific correlations between organizational culture characteristics and the successful application of agile methods. They point to the importance of positive evaluation of feedback and learning, a trustful social interaction, a collaborative cooperation and focusing on results.
Strode et al. (2022) [42] |  Organizational culture |  The authors discuss the challenges of transforming into an agile organization, which involves significant changes in strategy, structure, culture, operations, and technology. These transformations led to various tensions, of which 13 are highlighted. The study demonstrates that such tensions arise not only in fully agile organizations but also during the transformation process.
Tolfo et al. (2011) [44] |  Organizational culture |  The authors address the supporting and hindering influences of organizational culture on the transition of agile methods. A superficial examination of these influences can be a hindrance and lead to incorrect measures. Rather, it is important to consider the different levels of organizational culture in order to be able to develop an agile culture in the long term.

Various authors point to the multiple facets of culture [17, 32, 38, 40]. The
overview of the related work also shows that different cultural levels
(country, regions, companies, departments, teams, and individuals) may have
different influences on the transition and use of agile methods and practices.
In addition, agile methods can be very diverse in practice due to the
tailoring of the respective method [10, 30]. Most of the articles we
identified address the influence of organizational culture on the transition
or use of agile methods and practices. Interestingly, different levels of
detail are considered here. While some use organizational culture and its
characteristics on an abstract level [21, 38], others try to make a specific
reference to teams and individuals [44].

However, it is worth mentioning that most of the identified studies were
published a decade ago. Agile has evolved since these studies were published.
The diversity of agile practices and methods has grown steadily. Furthermore,
the challenges in organizations have changed due to factors such as increasing
digitization, volatile markets, and the Covid-19 pandemic [31].

Although we tried to find related work dealing with key challenges of cultural
aspects while using agile methods and practices, we could not identify
literature dealing closely with the aim of our study. We identified some
additional papers that deal with cultural facets or an agile mindset. However,
we did not identify these papers as related work because they are not strongly
related to our main topic, particularly the agile cultural aspect. So, to the
best of our knowledge, this is the first publication that identifies key
challenges with agile culture.

##  3 Research Design

This paper aims to identify challenges that arise from the interplay between
agile culture and organizational culture.

Based on the aforementioned aim, we formulate the following research
questions:

  * •

RQ1: What are the key challenges with agile culture?

  * •

RQ2: How can we describe the relationships of the key challenges with agile
culture in a systematic manner?

RQ1 is answered with a mixed-method approach (see Fig. 1), where we collect
qualitative and quantitative data and derive the key challenges. At each step
of this mixed-method research approach, we gathered feedback from
practitioners and discussed it extensively among the group of authors. Based
on this, we develop the ACuCa model to answer our RQ2. The ACuCa model shows
how the identified key challenges are interrelated. In the subsequent
discussion, we show how practitioners can apply the key challenges and the
ACuCa model in practice to mitigate problems with the agile culture.

Figure 1: Overview mixed-method research approach [24]

#### Step 1:

In the beginning, we started with a qualitative survey among our network of
agile practitioners in order to gather input for our quantitative
questionnaire. Therefore, the third author of the paper asked the question on
the professional network LinkedIn: “What do you see as tangible problems with
agile and culture?” We discussed how to phrase this questions in such a manner
that our target group understands it and we receive reasonable data for our
study. With this regard, we tried to avoid the term “agile culture” since this
opens another field of discussions, that was not our focus in this research.
In sum, we received 34 qualitative answers from 28 participants.

#### Step 2:

We analyzed the data with a qualitative context analysis according to Hsieh
and Shannon [20]. We used a combination of directed and conventional context
analysis. For the former one, we used the research literature on Agile, and
the latter one complemented the analysis since research on agile culture is
rather limited. The data was categorized by a coding scheme, which ended up
with 15 groups in Excel (agile values, willingness to change, fixed
structures, and hierarchies, agile leadership, technical vs. cultural agility,
respect, transparency of decisions, transparency of processes, trust,
perseverance, feedback culture, experiments, failure culture, comfort zone,
and flight levels). This preliminary result was intensively discussed among
the authors and then refined where appropriate.

#### Step 3:

In the next step, we derived items for our quantitative questionnaire. We took
our 15 codes from Step 2 and used them for this purpose. First, we formulated
one problem statement for each code based on the corresponding data sets. Then
we reformulated these problem statements into questions. These items were
discussed and refined among the authors in several iterations. An example that
illustrates this process is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Example of the derivation of a challenge (see Step 3) [24] ID |  Problem statement |  Item (1. Iteration) |  Item (Final)
---|---|---|---
C5 |  The existing structures of an organization prevent an agile way of working. |  How important is it to create structures that support an agile way of working? |  How important is it to create organizational structures that support an agile way of working?

#### Step 4:

We then conducted the quantitative questionnaire study. Accordingly, we set up
an online survey using Google Forms. We used appropriate guidelines for
developing our questionnaire [15, 13, 35] and pretested it with five
participants. In sum, the questionnaire comprises 21 items. Five of those
items queried socio-demographic data which helps us to describe our sample,
and 15 items queried the potential key challenges with agile culture (see
C1-C15 in Appendix A.1) and one item posed additional comments. The
participants of the survey rated the potential key challenges with agile
culture (see C1-C15 in Appendix A.1) in terms of importance using a 7-point
Likert scale (totally unimportant, unimportant, rather unimportant, neutral,
rather important, important, and totally important). In addition, participants
had the option to give no statement.

###  3.1 Data Collection and Analysis

In the following, we present more details regarding the data collection and
analysis of our quantitative questionnaire (see Step 4). The quantitative
questionnaire was online between 11/26/2021 and 12/17/2021. It was spread via
the professional network LinkedIn and personal contacts of the authors. In
sum, we received 93 fully completed datasets. No participant terminated the
questionnaire before the end. So, the dropout rate is 0%. This surprised us,
but can be explained by the good design of the questionnaire, oriented towards
the target group. However, we removed one set of data from the sample because
one participant showed unusual response behavior. The unusual response
behavior was identified by analyzing the data set in detail. We found one
respondent who selected the same value of the Likert scale for all questions
except one.

Furthermore, we used statistical data (mean, standard deviation, and
confidence interval) for the analysis of the data. We defined challenges as
key in those cases where 50% of the participants weighted them as totally
important. Based on this interpretation, we were able to identify a total of
seven key challenges (see Table 4).

###  3.2 Description of the Sample

The participants of the quantitative questionnaire (sample size N=92) had
between 0 to 30 years (mean 6.13) of experience with an agile way of working.
Of the 92 participants, 74 work in the private sector, 9 in the public sector,
10 work at universities or research institutes while 18 are self-employed
(multiple answers were possible). A detailed description of the sample is
given below in Table 3.

Table 3: Description of the sample of the quantitative questionnaire study (Step 4) ID |  Item | Options | n | N
---|---|---|---|---
E1 |  Experience with agile ways of working | Yes | 85 | 92
No | 7
E2 |  Years of experience with agile ways of working |  $<$ 3 years | 21 | 85
3-5 years | 18
6-9 years | 20
$>$ 9 years | 26
E3 |  General opinion on agility | Overrated | 2 | 92
Neutral | 1
Applied where useful | 58
Urgently needed | 31
D1 |  Type of organization | Private | 74 | 92
Public Institutes | 19
Self-employed | 18
D2 |  Industry | Consulting | 20 | 92
E-Commerce | 12
R&D | 7
IT | 56
Other | 22

Moreover, participants work in different industries such as IT, consulting,
e-commerce, research and development, automobile, logistics, eHealth,
insurance, energy, and social. We asked the participants for their general
opinion on agility and they answered as follows: “overrated, a buzzword to me”
(2,2%), “should be applied where appropriate” (63%), “urgently needed in
today’s world” (33,7%), and “neutral” (1,1%). Summarizing this information, we
can observe that on the one hand, the sample has a good mix in terms of their
experience with agile ways of working as well as working in different
industries. On the other hand, the sample is not opposed to agile ways of
working.

##  4 Key Challenges with Agile Culture

In this section, we answer our first research question RQ1: What are the key
challenges with agile culture? In doing so, we have identified seven key
challenges related to agile culture, which are presented in Table 4. To
evaluate the responses, we used the Likert scale options to range from 1
(totally unimportant) to 7 (totally important). The challenges in Table 4 were
rated as totally important by over 50% of our survey participants.
Additionally, all key challenges were found to be between important and
totally important, as indicated by the small confidence interval. The
statistical data for all queried challenges is provided in Appendix A.1.

Table 4: Key Challenges with Agile Culture [24] ID |  Item (EN) |  Mean |  Stand. deviation |  Confid. (p=0.05) |  totally important |  N
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
C1 |  Humans in an organization do not treat each other with respect. |  6.70 |  0.81 |  0.17 |  80.4% |  92
C2 |  Management expects change from employees without embodying agile values themselves. |  6.43 |  1.17 |  0.24 |  69.6% |  92
C3 |  The organizational culture does not create a context for trusting interactions. |  6.60 |  0.63 |  0.13 |  67.4% |  92
C4 |  Humans in an organization are not allowed to make mistakes. |  6.49 |  0.75 |  0.15 |  60.9% |  92
C5 |  The existing structures of an organization prevent an agile way of working. |  6.40 |  0.96 |  0.20 |  59.8% |  92
C6 |  Agile cultural change does not occur at all levels (individual, team, management) of the organization. |  6.23 |  1.12 |  0.23 |  53.3% |  90
C7 |  Feedback is not valued in an organization. |  6.35 |  0.76 |  0.16 |  51.1% |  92

Our analysis revealed that there are challenges related to embracing agile
values in the organization, particularly with respect (C1) and trust (C3, C4,
and C7). Furthermore, our data highlighted issues with existing organizational
structures (C5) that hinder agile ways of working, as well as issues with
cultural change at various levels within an organization (C6).

###  4.1 Discussion of the Key Challenges with Agile Culture

The identified key challenges with agile culture (see Table 4) can be
categorized into technical agility (doing agile) and cultural agility (being
agile). Figure 2 shows the result of the clustering process. The challenges
leadership (C2) and feedback culture (C7) are borderline cases as parts of the
problem relate to technical agility and other parts to cultural agility. In
the case of leadership (C2, Management expects change from employees without
embodying agile values themselves) parts such as existing control structures
and micro management in the respective organization relates to technical
agility, whereas embodying agile values or having a fixed mindset [12] is part
of cultural agility. The case of feedback culture (C7, Feedback is not valued
in an organization) relates to technical agility, e.g., if no tools or agile
practices for providing feedback are in place, whereas valuing feedback is
part of cultural agility.

Figure 2: Clustering of key challenges according to technical agility and
cultural agility

In the following, we present a detailed explanation of each key challenge with
agile culture.

Item C1 (respect) highlights that within an organization, there is a lack of
respectful behavior towards each other, as indicated by 80% of the respondents
considering it very important. The workplace often faces the common issue of
lacking respect in communication and interactions, which can be addressed to
create a positive work environment. Fostering a respectful atmosphere promotes
openness and transparency, empowering teams to self-manage their work. Agile
leaders have a responsibility to exemplify respectful behavior, and when
respect becomes a core value actively practiced within an organization, it can
motivate employees and extend to the respectful treatment of customers. Mutual
respect cultivates open communication and collaboration, fostering
constructive and productive work processes.

Item C2 (leadership) represents another highly relevant aspect. The underlying
leadership structure should emphasize agile values such as trust, respect, or
open communication to support the continuous and step-wise adaption of agile
practices in organizations. Today’s complex work environment requires a
different style of leadership to that of previous industrial revolutions. For
example, agile leaders take responsibility and inspire performance. They also
show empathy and vulnerability. Probably one of the biggest changes that
modern organizations and leaders have to go through in the course of agile
transformation is the delegation of responsibility to self-organized teams
[23]. This change requires a shift in the mindset of leaders and an adaptation
of existing control structures.

Item C3 (trust) points to the significance of trust in an agile work culture.
It emphasizes that trust among team members and between leaders and employees
is crucial for cooperation and interdisciplinary work. The item reveals that
67% (n=62) of respondents rated the absence of a framework for a trusting work
environment as ”very important.” The lack of trust can impede the sharing of
knowledge and skills, which are vital for applying agile methods and
practices. Agile leaders should embody company values such as respect,
courage, and openness to establish trust. A trusting work environment can
eliminate time-consuming and costly control structures, allowing individuals
to focus on their core tasks.

Item C4 (learning culture) is highly important within an organization in order
to view mistakes as growth opportunities rather than solely blaming
individuals. We propose that organizations should prioritize learning from
mistakes instead of assigning blame. This can be achieved through open
communication that encourages experimentation and public acknowledgment of
mistakes. Agile leaders should lead by example by admitting and openly
discussing their own mistakes. By fostering an environment where mistakes are
not feared but embraced as chances for improvement, organizations can enhance
innovation and motivation. It is crucial to emphasize that allowing
individuals to make mistakes is insufficient; handling mistakes constructively
and positively is equally vital.

Item C5 (rigid structures/hierarchies) points to the importance towards an
agile way of working due to adapting the existing structures and hierarchies.
A hierarchical culture has been shown to have a negative impact on the use of
social agile practices (e.g. facilitating social interaction, collaboration,
and direct communication) and a negative impact on the use of technical agile
practices (coding/testing-oriented software engineering practices) [17]. For
this reason, communication at eye level should be encouraged within an
organization, regardless of the level (individual, team, management) at which
it takes place.

Item C6 (involvement of all levels) addresses the significance of a cultural
shift in introducing agile working within an organization. The management
level expects this change to initiate from the level below them, known as the
flight levels (operational level, coordination, and strategic portfolio
management) [26]. However, a top-down approach cannot enforce a cultural
change, and intrinsic motivation among employees at all levels is necessary
for successful agile transformation. Agile leaders play a critical role by
involving and engaging employees, helping them understand and identify with
the change. Flight levels, which represent different perspectives on agile
work within an organization, can be utilized to gradually introduce agile
structures, without requiring every individual to work in an agile manner
simultaneously. A cultural change on all levels, including leadership, is
indispensable for long-term success in adapting to evolving organizational
requirements.

Item C7 (feedback culture) is a pivotal aspect of agile work and influences
organizational culture [43]. Feedback enables continuous reflection and
adaptation, while providing a safe space for individuals to express their
thoughts and ideas. However, many organizations undervalue feedback. The
quality of dialogue among colleagues and superiors influences relationship
quality, which, in turn, reflects the company’s culture. The retrospective,
conducted at the end of an iteration, plays a key role in establishing a
secure environment for a feedback culture. Feedback is recognized as the key
to continuous development, lifelong learning, and constructive collaboration
[34]. Embracing an open feedback culture can help organizations better
navigate ongoing environmental changes and transition towards agile work
practices through continuous and constructive dialogue.

##  5 Model of Agile Cultural Challenges

This section answers our second research question RQ2: How can we describe the
relationships of the key challenges with agile culture in a systematic manner?
The clustering of the key challenges (see Fig. 2) enables us to derive a
conceptual model that shows the interrelationships between the key challenges
with agile culture. A conceptual model allows us to clarify complex ideas and
relationships by providing a visual representation. The result of the
clustering process (see Fig. 2) provided the ground for creating our
conceptual model named Agile Cultural Challenges (ACuCa) (see Fig. 3). The
ACuCa model helps to identify causal factors, dependencies and potential
outcomes associated with the key challenges. In this Section, we first give a
brief explanation about the creation process of the ACuCa conceptual model.
Next, we introduce the model on detail and explain in particular the
relationships among the clustered key challenges.

The model was created by the second author and improved based on a thorough
review by the fourth author. The creation process consisted of two steps. In
the first step, we clustered the key challenges. Our analysis led to the
result that we have mainly different facets in the conceptual model. One facet
covers the value-related key challenges, while the other facet consists of
such challenges that implicitly or explicitly affect each other. Thus, we
decided to create one cluster for the value-related key challenges C1, C3, C4,
and C7. We also created three clusters, each consisting of one key challenge.

The second step aimed to analyze and identify the realtionships among the key
challenges using existing literature. We decided to use the guidelines of the
well-known agile method Scrum [36] as well as the Agile Manifesto [3]. In
addition, the analysis included the extracted insights from the identified
related work. For example, our analysis led to an in-depth understanding of
how specific key challenges (e.g. C5) influence the core of clustered value-
related key challenges.

Figure 3: The ACuCa conceptual model [24]

We found that fixed structures, established thought patterns, and strict
hierarchies with a command-and-control approach are major barriers to agile
ways of working. The existing structures of an organization hinder an agile
way of working, and a change in both culture and structural conditions is
required for introducing more agility. The interaction between the two
dimensions of cultural and technical agility (see Fig. 2) cannot be neglected,
as structural conditions can have both performance-enhancing and inhibiting
effects. Hierarchy, silos, and micromanagement pose a major hurdle to agile
cultural development, and the biggest challenge lies in overcoming old
paradigms and enabling a shift towards a structure that focuses on customer
and business agility [29]. In larger organizations, this can lead to the
creation of silos that are more product-, value-, and customer-centric. It is
important to adapt the dimensions of culture and structure in small steps that
are coordinated with each other.

Organizational structures involve all levels (individual, team, organization),
and organizations should iteratively adapt their structures to optimize
interactions between levels while considering the organizational culture.
Additionally, organizational structures contain the management level, and
changing from a boss to a leader culture is a key factor for increased
agility. This involves exemplifying values, behaviors, and a culture of open
feedback and learning to establish a growth mindset [12] among employees. We
define a boss as a manager who has a hierarchical understanding of the
organization and a top-down approach to decision-making. We believe it is
crucial for agile leaders to act as role models for agile teams within an
organization.

To lead effectively in an agile environment, leaders must have experienced
agility themselves and embody agile values. The role of a leader shifts
towards becoming a coach and role model, rather than a commander. Self-
organized teams require guidance through shared visions, values, and
transparency, with a focus on communication and motivation. Leaders must set
the frame for the team and plan adaptively while providing protection, trust,
continuity, and support for employees’ development through coaching and
mentoring. By demonstrating and embodying agile values, leaders can facilitate
the organization’s adoption of agile practices step-by-step. The
transformation towards an agile leadership style requires targeted training
and development for future agile leaders.

##  6 Discussion

In the following section, we discuss the implications for practitioners and
researchers and suggest ways in which the key challenges we have identified
can help to promote an agile culture. In addition, we discuss the limitations
of this study.

###  6.1 Discussion of Implications for Practitioners and Researchers

Comparing our research findings (see Section 4) to the existing literature
(see Section 2), we discovered that cultural conflicts and resistance to
change are major barriers to agile adoption [45]. Our key challenges with
agile culture (listed in Table 4) emphasize the importance of respect (C1) and
trust (C3, C4, and C7) as crucial factors in the success of an agile
transformation. These challenges could be attributed to inadequate support and
guidance during the transformation process [22].

To address these challenges, our research provides practical solutions for
both practitioners and researchers. Practitioners can use our key challenges
as a tool to drive cultural change in their organizations. The challenges
raise awareness of problems that come up when trying to integrate agility into
an existing organizational culture, and help to prioritize which challenges
are most important to tackle. For example, C6 highlights the importance of
considering the pace of cultural change across different levels (individual,
team, organization), and practitioners can use this information to develop
appropriate solutions.

Changing organizational culture is a complex process that requires time and
appropriate models or frameworks [22, 23]. The Cynefin framework [41], Haufe
Quadrant [16] or the Deming circle [9] are useful models for initiating and
managing change. Researchers can support agile transformation and cultural
change by developing appropriate tools, for example, to measure agility and
thus support agile transformation [27, 33, 38]. Based on this tool support,
researchers may develop new or adapted approaches, methods and even tools
specifically focused on agile cultural change in an organization, using our
identified key challenges as a basis for its development. Our key takeaways
for practitioners and researchers are summarised below:

Key takeaways:

  * •

Live the agile values, especially respect and trust

  * •

Leadership must embody agile values

  * •

Trust is the basis for cooperation, knowledge transfer and interdisciplinary
interaction

  * •

Innovation requires experimentation, which sometimes fails

  * •

Focus on customers and users

  * •

Communication at eye level instead of power and hierarchy

  * •

Transformation should take place at all levels (Flightlevels model)

  * •

Agile working is about living and sharing in real time, so it needs a culture
that values feedback

###  6.2 Threats to Validity & Limitations

Despite our rigorous adherence to establishing a research protocol by means of
using appropriate guidelines and using a profound research approach, here are
limitations and threats in our study that must be considered and discussed,
according to Wohlin et al. [46]:

Construct validity: Our mixed-method research approach included pretests and
feedback from the target group to ensure the validity of our data collection.
To prevent interpolations in our quantitative survey, we used a 7-point Likert
scale and provided the option for participants to choose ”no comment” for each
item. As a lesson we learned, next time we would rephrase ”no comment” to ”no
answer” even if from our perspective no comment fits better to our concrete
question. Furthermore, for the comparison and check with the existing state of
the art, we used a rapid review [7]. We are aware of the fact that the
replicability of the survey is limited due to the open target group of our
professional network. Nevertheless, we did not only focus on agile
practitioners in the network but spreaded it to all. However, we know that the
practitioners in our community are more related to agile than other topics.
Apart from a higher dropout rate or lower participation rate, we accepted this
threat for our survey.

Internal validity: The design of the questionnaire is crucial for accurate
data collection. Therefore, we conducted several pretests in different stages
with individuals who met the criteria of the target group. All these pretests
resulted in a 0% dropout rate. In addition, we removed the data set of the one
participant who showed conspicuous response behaviour.

External validity: The surveys were conducted in German, as we aimed to reach
individuals within our personal professional/business networks. While this
approach allowed us to achieve a 0% dropout rate in the quantitative survey,
it may limit the generalizability of our results to other groups. However,
since our demographics showed that many participants work in the international
IT industry, the general transferability of our findings may not be
significantly impacted. To assess the generalizability of our results further
we have started further studies to conduct surveys in other languages.

##  7 Conclusion and Future Work

This paper is an extended version of our study Which Challenges Do Exist With
Agile Culture in Practice? [24]. This extended version presents the findings
of a study aimed at addressing the key challenges of implementing agile
culture in practice. We further present ACuCa as a conceptual model explaining
the relationships between the identified challenges. Seven key challenges,
including respectful treatment between humans (C1), agile leadership (C2),
trust in interactions (C3), learning culture (C4), rigid hierarchies (C5),
involvement of all organizational levels (C6), and not valued feedback (C7),
emerged from the interplay of organizational culture and agile practices.

The ACuCa model reveals that a rigid hierarchical structure impedes the
development of an agile culture aimed at optimizing aspects such as value-
based work and learning culture. Moreover, involvement of all organizational
levels, including management, teams, and individuals, is essential for
optimizing both the structure and culture of the organization. To support
agile software development teams’ self-optimization, we encourage the
management level to transform from a boss to a leader and exemplify relevant
values for successful agile method usage. Based on our results, we provide
practical implications and specific recommendations for cultural change in
organizations, such as utilizing transformation frameworks like the Cynefin
framework or the Deming circle.

However, our findings reveal the need for further research on cultural
influences on agile methods and practices. As agile methods become more
tailored, selecting the right approach in specific situations becomes more
complex. The various cultural aspects and influences described at different
levels, such as the department or specific teams, may pose complex challenges
in organizations. Therefore, we call on other researchers to study the
relationship and interplay of cultural influences on the use and transition of
agile methods in software development and beyond. We support the findings of
other researchers who have suggested the usage of transformation frameworks
and encourage more research to be conducted in this area, as there is still
much to be explored.

##  Appendix A Appendices

###  A.1 Challenges with Agile Culture

The full data set including the 15 challenges with agile and organizational
culture is shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Appendix 1: Key Challenges with Agile Culture [24] ID |  Item (EN) | Mean |  Stand. deviation |  Confid. (p=0.05) |  Confid. intervall min. |  Confid. intervall max. | totally important | N
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
C1 |  Humans in an organization do not treat each other with respect. | 6.70 |  0.81 |  0.17 |  6.53 |  6.86 | 80.4% | 92
C2 |  Management expects change from employees without embodying agile values themselves. | 6.43 |  1.17 |  0.24 |  6.20 |  6.67 | 69.6% | 92
C3 |  The organizational culture does not create a context for trusting interactions. | 6.60 |  0.63 |  0.13 |  6.47 |  6.73 | 67.4% | 92
C4 |  Humans in an organization are not allowed to make mistakes. | 6.49 |  0.75 |  0.15 |  6.34 |  6.64 | 60.9% | 92
C5 |  The existing structures of an organization prevent an agile way of working. | 6.40 |  0.96 |  0.20 |  6.21 |  6.60 | 59.8% | 92
C6 |  Agile cultural change does not occur at all levels (individual, team, management) of the organization. | 6.23 |  1.12 |  0.23 |  6.00 |  6.47 | 53.3% | 90
C7 |  Feedback is not valued in an organization. | 6.35 |  0.76 |  0.16 |  6.19 |  6.50 | 51.1% | 92
C8 |  Humans in an organization do not want to change the way they work. | 6.16 |  1.03 |  0.21 |  5.94 |  6.37 | 46.7% | 90
C9 |  In an organization, there is no transparency regarding decisions. | 6.35 |  0.76 |  0.16 |  6.13 |  6.44 | 45.7% | 92
C10 |  In an organization, there is no transparency regarding processes. | 6.25 |  0.76 |  0.16 |  6.09 |  6.41 | 45.1% | 91
C11 |  Humans in an organization do not understand that agile transformation needs perseverance. | 6.13 |  0.94 |  0.19 |  5.94 |  6.33 | 44.4% | 90
C12 |  Humans in an organization don’t want to leave their comfort zone. | 5.97 |  1.05 |  0.22 |  5.75 |  6.18 | 37.8% | 90
C13 |  There is no safe environment for experiments in the organization. | 5.97 |  0.87 |  0.18 |  5.79 |  6.15 | 30.8% | 91
C14 |  Humans in an organization have not internalized the difference between technical and cultural agility. | 5.73 |  1.18 |  0.24 |  5.49 |  5.97 | 30.3% | 89
C15 |  The cultural values of humans within an organization do not align with agile values. | 5.96 |  1.12 |  0.23 |  5.72 |  6.19 | 30.0% | 90

## References

  * [1] Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., Warsta, J.: Agile software development methods: Review and analysis (478), 7–94 (2002)
  * [2] Anderson, D.J.: Kanban - Successful Evolutionary Change for your Technology Business. Blue Hole Press. (2010)
  * [3] Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Greening, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., Thomas, D.: Agile manifesto (2001), https://agilemanifesto.org/
  * [4] Bennett, N., Lemoine, G.: What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a vuca world. Business Horizons 57(3), 311–317 (2014), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681314000020
  * [5] Cameron, K.S., Quinn, R.E.: Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2006)
  * [6] Campanelli, A.S., Parreiras, F.S.: Agile methods tailoring – a systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software 110, 85–100 (2015)
  * [7] Cartaxo, B., Pinto, G., Soares, S.: Rapid Reviews in Software Engineering, pp. 357–384. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2020)
  * [8] Chow, T., Cao, D.B.: A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects. Journal of Systems and Software 81(6), 961–971 (2008)
  * [9] Deming, W.E.: Out of the Crisis: Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position. MIT Press (1986)
  * [10] Diebold, P., Dahlem, M.: Agile practices in practice: A mapping study. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (2014)
  * [11] Diebold, P., Küpper, S., Zehler, T.: Nachhaltige agile transition: Symbiose von technischer und kultureller agilität. In: Engstler, M., Fazal-Baqaie, M., Hanser, E., Mikusz, M., Volland, A. (eds.) Projektmanagement und Vorgehensmodelle 2015. pp. 121–126. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Bonn (2015)
  * [12] Dweck, C.: Mindset: Changing The Way You think To Fulfill Your Potential (Updated ed.). Robinson, London (2017)
  * [13] Finstad, K.: Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-point scales. J. Usability Studies 5(3), 104–110 (may 2010)
  * [14] Gelmis, A., Ozkan, N., Ahmad, A., Guler, M.: Impact of turkish national culture on agile software development in turkey. In: Lean and Agile Software Development. pp. 78–95. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2022)
  * [15] Gräf, L.: Assessing internet questionnaires: The online pretest lab. Online social sciences pp. 49––68 (2002)
  * [16] Group, H.: Haufe quadrant (2023), https://www.haufe.de/konzept/haufe-quadrant
  * [17] Gupta, M., George, J., Xia, W.: Relationships between it department culture and agile software development practices: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Information Management 44, 13–24 (2019), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401218306662
  * [18] Hoda, R., Noble, J., Marshall, S.: The impact of inadequate customer collaboration on self-organizing agile teams. Information and Software Technology 53(5), 521–534 (2011)
  * [19] Hoda, R., Salleh, N., Grundy, J., Tee, H.M.: Systematic literature reviews in agile software development: A tertiary study. Information and Software Technology 85, 60–70 (2017)
  * [20] Hsieh, H.F., Shannon, S.E.: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9), 1277–1288 (2005)
  * [21] Iivari, J., Iivari, N.: The relationship between organizational culture and the deployment of agile methods. Information and Software Technology 53(5), 509–520 (2011), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095058491000193X, special Section on Best Papers from XP2010
  * [22] Kotter, J.: Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail (1995), https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail-2
  * [23] Krieg, A., Prenner, N., Guckenbiehl, P., Theobald, S., Schneider, K.: A scientific baseline for agile leadership - a workshop study. In: Fazal-Baqaie, M., Linssen, O., Volland, A., Yigitbas, E., Engstler, M., Bertram, M., Kalenborn, A. (eds.) Projektmanagement und Vorgehensmodelle 2022. pp. 25–36. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Bonn (2022)
  * [24] Kuchel, T., Neumann, M., Diebold, P., Schön, E.M.: Which challenges do exist with agile culture in practice? In: Proceedings of the 38th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing. p. 1018–1025. SAC ’23, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2023)
  * [25] Küpper, S., Kuhrmann, M., Wiatrok, M., Andelfinger, U., Rausch, A.: Is there a blueprint for building an agile culture? In: Volland, A., Engstler, M., Fazal-Baqaie, M., Hanser, E., Linssen, O., Mikusz, M. (eds.) Projektmanagement und Vorgehensmodelle 2017 - Die Spannung zwischen dem Prozess und den Mensch im Projekt. pp. 111–128. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn (2017)
  * [26] Leopold, K.: Practical Kanban From Team Focus to Creating Value. Leanpub (2017), http://leanpub.com/practicalkanban
  * [27] Looks, H., Fangmann, J., Thomaschewski, J., Escalona, M., Schön, E.M.: Towards a standardized questionnaire for measuring agility at team level. In: Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming. XP 2021. pp. 71––85 (2021)
  * [28] Mumford, E.: Socio-technical design: an unfulfilled promise or a future opportunity? In: Organisational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology, IFIP TC8 WG8.2 International Working Conference (2000)
  * [29] Narayan, S.: Agile IT organization design: for digital transformation and continuous delivery. Pearson Education, Inc (2015)
  * [30] Neumann, M.: The integrated list of agile practices - a tertiary study. In: Lean and Agile Software Development. pp. 19–37. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2022)
  * [31] Neumann, M., Bogdanov, Y.: The impact of covid 19 on agile software development: A systematic literature review. In: Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2022)
  * [32] Neumann, M., Schmid, K., Baumann, L.: Characterizing the impact of culture on agile methods: The moca model. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Software and System Processes (2023)
  * [33] Patel, C., Ramachandran, M.: Agile maturity model (amm): A software process improvement framework for agile software development practices. International Journal of Software Engineering 2(I), 3––28 (2009)
  * [34] Ram, P., Rodriguez, P., Oivo, M., Martinez-Fernandez, S.: Success factors for effective process metrics operationalization in agile software development: A multiple case study. In: ICSSP 2019. pp. 14–23 (2019)
  * [35] Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 14(2), 131–164 (2009)
  * [36] Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J.: The scrum guide (2020), https://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html
  * [37] Schön, E., Escalona Cuaresma, M., Thomaschewski, J.: Agile values and their implementation in practice. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence 3(5), 61–66 (2015)
  * [38] Siakas, K., Siakas, E.: The agile professional culture: a source of agile quality. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 12(6), 597–610 (2007)
  * [39] Sidky, A., Arthur, J., Bohner, S.: A disciplined approach to adopting agile practices: the agile adoption framework. Innovation in Systems and Software Engineering 3(3), 203––216 (2007)
  * [40] Šmite, D., Gonzalez-Huerta, J., Moe, N.B.: “when in rome, do as the romans do”: Cultural barriers to being agile in distributed teams. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Agile Software Development 2020. pp. 145–161. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2020)
  * [41] Snowden, D., M.E., B.: A leader’s framework for decision making (2007), https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making
  * [42] Strode, D.E., Sharp, H., Barroca, L., Gregory, P., Taylor, K.: Tensions in organizations transforming to agility. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 69(6), 3572–3583 (2022)
  * [43] Strode, D., Huff, S., Tretiakov, A.: The impact of organizational culture on agile method use. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. pp. 1–9 (2009)
  * [44] Tolfo, C., Wazlawick, R., Gomes Ferreira, M., Forcellino, F.: Agile methods and organizational culture: reflections about cultural levels. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 12(6), 597–610 (2011)
  * [45] VersionOne, Collabnet: 17th annual state of agile survey (2023), stateofagile.com
  * [46] Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg (2012)
  * [47] Yasin, A., Fatima, R., Wen, L., Afzal, W., Azhar, M., Torkar, R.: On using grey literature and google scholar in systematic literature reviews in software engineering. IEEE Access 8, 36226–36243 (2020)
  * [48] Šmite, D., Moe, N.B., Gonzalez-Huerta, J.: Overcoming cultural barriers to being agile in distributed teams. Information and Software Technology 138, 106612 (2021)