Beyond Framework Dogma: Why the Agile Manifesto Describes a State, not a Process 

The Agile Manifesto describes characteristics of systems that successfully navigate complexity and uncertainty. Yet most organisations treat it as a step-by-step manual. 

This article argues that the Manifesto articulates an organisational state of being rather than a prescribed methodology. It demonstrates why no framework implemented dogmatically produces genuine agility. The prevailing approach to “agile transformation” mirrors the waterfall methodology it seeks to replace, explaining why 47% of transformations fail despite widespread adoptions¹. 

The Misunderstanding That Undermines Transformation

Organisations consistently misinterpret the foundational nature of the Agile Manifesto. While the document describes observable patterns in successful software development, companies implement it as prescriptive instructions ². 

The four values and twelve principles characterise what agility looks like when achieved. They don’t prescribe how to achieve it³. 

The process isn’t semantic wordplay. The distinction fundamentally shapes transformation outcomes. 

Teams that pursue agility as a state develop adaptive capabilities. Teams that follow “agile processes” create cargo cult implementations: superficial adoption of ceremonies without cultivating the underlying mindset⁴. 

The statistics reveal the cost of this misunderstanding: 

• 86% of software teams claim agile adoption⁵ 

• Only 42% report improved software quality⁶ 

• 31% admit to incomplete implementation⁷ 

Organisations mistake compliance with framework rules for achievement of agile capabilities. 

“Control without competence is chaos.” – L. David Marquet 

How Dogmatism Contradicts Core Values 

Rigid adherence to agile frameworks violates the first Manifesto value: individuals and interactions over processes and tools⁸ . 

When organisations mandate strict compliance with Scrum ceremonies, Kanban rules, or SAFe prescriptions regardless of team context, they prioritise process over people—the antithesis of agile thinking⁹. 

Consider Spotify’s widely imitated “Squad Model.” The framework achieved mythical status despite never being fully implemented at Spotify itself. 

As former Spotify employee Jeremiah Lee documented, “Even at the time we wrote it, we weren’t doing it. It was part ambition, part approximation”¹⁰. 

The model failed because it¹¹: 

• Assumed collaborative competencies that teams lacked 

• Created matrix management confusion 

• Optimised for autonomy at the expense of alignment 

Organisations copied Spotify’s structure without understanding its context, creating what agile coaches term “agile dogma”¹². 

Teams conducted stand-ups without real autonomy. They ran sprints while maintaining waterfall planning cycles. They implemented retrospectives without empowering people to act on insights¹³ . 

This pattern repeats across industries. The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe), used by 37% of organisations¹⁴, often becomes a bureaucratic overlay rather than an agility enabler when implemented dogmatically. 

Teams follow prescribed roles, ceremonies, and artefacts, yet lack the adaptive capability that constitutes genuine agility. 

The Waterfall Transformation Paradox 

Perhaps the greatest irony in contemporary organisational practice: applying waterfall methodologies to agile transformation itself. 

Companies planning comprehensive “big bang” implementations¹⁵ create detailed roadmaps, establish fixed timelines, and treat transformation as a project with defined deliverables¹⁶. 

This approach contradicts agile principles at every level: 

Predictive Planning: Assumes organisational needs can be determined upfront 

Linear Progression: Follows sequential phases rather than iterative cycles 

Top-Down Imposition: Mandates change rather than enabling emergence 

Fixed Scope: Defines success metrics without continuous adaptation 

Research validates the consequences. Organisations attempting big-bang transformations report 40-60% higher failure rates than incremental approaches¹⁷ . 

When waterfall leadership drives agile adoption, failure rates approach 95%¹⁸. These leaders optimise for control and predictability—the opposite mindset required for agility. 

ING Bank’s successful transformation demonstrates the alternative. Rather than implementing frameworks across the organisation simultaneously, ING created 350 cross-functional squads over six months, allowing organic adaptation to context¹⁹ 

The results²⁰ 

• Product development cycles decreased from 18 months to 3-6 months 

• Mobile app satisfaction increased 20% 

The key: treating transformation as capability development, not process installation. 

Systems Thinking Reveals the Path Forward 

Systems theory illuminates why dogmatic implementation fails and prescribes the alternative. 

Organisations are complex adaptive systems. Outcomes emerge from interactions, feedback loops, and nonlinear dynamics²¹. Imposing linear frameworks on nonlinear realities creates dysfunction. 

Game Theory and Misaligned Incentives 

Game theory explains why misaligned incentives produce defensive structures. When teams lack shared visibility into system state, each function creates friction to avoid blame. 

Gates, approvals, and review boards proliferate not to manage risk but to distribute accountability²². Automation and transparency reshape this dynamic by creating shared truth and aligned incentives. 

Agency Theory and the Trust Gap 

Agency theory highlights the trust gap between leadership and delivery teams. This gap fuels status meetings, manual documentation, and process overhead: costly workarounds for a transparency deficit²³. 

Systems-based approaches replace episodic oversight with continuous observability. Trust is earned through demonstrated capability rather than imposed authority. 

Modern Compliance Validates the Approach 

Modern compliance practices exemplify this transformation. Organisations like Capital One reduced lead times 40-60% while improving audit outcomes by automating compliance into delivery pipelines rather than adding manual gates²⁴ 

The FDA now accepts automated validation reports for medical devices, citing improved reliability and traceability over manual processes. 

Compliance becomes a byproduct of delivery, not an afterthought. 

From Compliance to Capability

Organisations seeking genuine agility must abandon framework dogmatism and waterfall transformation approaches. The alternative requires fundamental shifts in thinking and practice: 

Start with Principles, Not Practices 

Focus on developing adaptive capabilities rather than implementing prescribed ceremonies. Teams need collaboration skills, technical practices, and feedback mechanisms. Not mandated meeting cadences. 

Apply Agile to Transformation Itself 

Begin with small experiments. Measure outcomes. Adapt based on learning. 

Treat transformation as continuous capability development rather than discrete project delivery. 

Optimise for Learning Over Control 

Create feedback loops at every level: team retrospectives, customer validation, strategic reviews. Empower teams to act on insights rather than merely collecting them. 

Build Systems That Enable Agility 

Invest in automation, observability, and tooling that supports rapid experimentation and deployment. Make agile practices easier than waterfall alternatives. 

The Opportunity 

The opportunity isn’t just to implement agile frameworks faster. It’s to cultivate organisational capabilities that transcend any single methodology. 

Companies achieving this transformation report 237% improvement in commercial performance when agility becomes a cultural capability rather than process compliance²⁵. 

As the FINRA 2024 Automation Guidelines note, “Controls should be as dynamic as the risks they mitigate”²⁶. 

Organisations embracing this principle treat agility as an emergent capability rather than a prescribed process. They consistently outperform those pursuing compliance with the framework. 

The Manifesto points toward a destination. The journey requires continuous adaptation, not rigid adherence to any single map. 

Organisations ready to move beyond framework dogma can begin with incremental experiments that build adaptive capability. The path to agility starts with treating the transformation itself as an agile endeavour: iterative, responsive, and continuously learning. 

REFERENCES 

1. Scrum Inc. (2021). Why do 47% of Agile Transformations Fail? ↩︎
2. Radix Web (2024). 42+ Most Important Agile Statistics for 2024. ↩︎
3. Agile Alliance (2025). 12 Principles Behind the Agile Manifesto.   ↩︎
4. Andy Burns (2024). Welcome to the Agile Cargo Cult. LinkedIn  ↩︎
5. eSpark Info (2025). Dive into 60+ Agile Statistics for 2025. ↩︎
6. Ibid ↩︎
7. Ibid ↩︎
8. Growing Agile Coaches (2025). Avoiding Agile Dogmatism: Balance Framework.   ↩︎
9. Scrum.org (2024). Ghosts of Agile Past: Dogma!   ↩︎
10. Jeremiah Lee (2020). Spotify’s Failed #SquadGoals. jeremiahlee.com  ↩︎
11. Agility11 (2020). Spotify Doesn’t Use the Spotify Model. ↩︎
12. Growing Scrum Masters (2025). Breaking Free From Agile Dogma and Rigid Practices.  ↩︎
13. Tomas Kejzlar (2017). Are you in a Cargo Cult? Skeptical Agile  ↩︎
14. eSpark Info (2025).  ↩︎
15. LitheSpeed (2025). Make your ‘Big Bang’ Agile Transformation ‘Agile’. ↩︎
16. The Value Hub (2023). Big bang Agile Transformation: too radical or good to go?   ↩︎
17. Miro (2025). Almost half of all Agile transformations fail.   ↩︎
18. Scrum Inc. (2021).  ↩︎
19. McKinsey & Company (2017). ING’s agile transformation. ↩︎
20. Agile Federation (2025). Transforming Banking: How ING’s Agile Revolution Redefined Success.   ↩︎
21. Managed Agile (2021). What is Systems Thinking and Why is it Important?   ↩︎
22. Martin Fowler (2006). Agile Imposition. martinfowler.com ↩︎
23. lbid ↩︎
24. Radix Web (2024). ↩︎
25. eSpark Info (2025).  ↩︎
26. FINRA (2024). 2024 Annual Regulatory Oversight Report.   ↩︎