top of page
  • Writer's pictureVera

Agility: A Dynamic Blend of Way of Working and Leadership Mindset

Updated: Jul 21, 2023

In today's rapidly changing and competitive business environment, agility has emerged as a crucial factor for organizational success. Many often wonder if agility is merely a way of working or if it involves a deeper leadership mindset. In reality, agility is a dynamic blend of both. It encompasses a flexible and adaptive way of working, coupled with a leadership mindset that embraces change, collaboration, and continuous learning. This article explores the relationship between agility as a way of working and as a leadership mindset, shedding light on their interdependence and the impact they have on organizational effectiveness.

Agility as a Way of Working: Agility as a way of working emphasizes iterative and incremental development, rapid feedback loops, and the ability to adapt quickly to changing circumstances. Agile methodologies like Scrum and Kanban provide frameworks for this approach. Teams that adopt agile practices focus on delivering value in smaller increments, promote continuous collaboration, and welcome changes in requirements, allowing them to respond to evolving customer needs effectively. Studies have shown that agile ways of working lead to higher levels of productivity, quality, and customer satisfaction (Smith & Johnson 2018).

Agility as a Leadership Mindset

Agility as a leadership mindset involves embracing certain core values and principles. Agile leaders empower their teams, foster a culture of trust, encourage experimentation, and support continuous learning and improvement. They promote autonomy and self-organization within their teams, providing guidance and support when needed. Research has indicated that agile leadership positively influences team performance, fostering a climate of psychological safety and openness, which stimulates creativity and innovation (Brown & mIller 2019).

The Interplay of Agility

Agility as a way of working and as a leadership mindset are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. An organization may adopt agile practices, but without agile leadership, the true potential of agility remains untapped. Conversely, agile leadership without a corresponding way of working may lack the structure and focus needed to drive meaningful outcomes. When both elements work in harmony, the organization can achieve a state of dynamic balance, where teams can respond quickly to changes and leaders can guide their teams effectively through uncertainty (Robertson & Sullivan 2020).

Organizational Impact of Agility

The integration of agility as both a way of working and a leadership mindset has a profound impact on organizational effectiveness. Agile organizations demonstrate greater adaptability to market changes, faster time-to-market, and improved innovation. Employees experience higher levels of engagement and satisfaction, leading to reduced turnover and increased commitment to the organization's success. Consequently, agile organizations are better equipped to navigate complexity, seize opportunities, and remain competitive in dynamic markets.

Conclusion: In conclusion, agility is far more than just a way of working or a leadership mindset; it is a dynamic synergy of both. By integrating agile practices and fostering an agile leadership mindset, organizations can unleash their true potential for innovation, collaboration, and adaptability. This holistic approach to agility can be explore further in our Leading Digital with Agility ICP-LEA certification program from ICAgile


  1. Smith, J., & Johnson, R. (2018). The Impact of Agile Methodologies on Organizational Agility. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 321-345. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01026.x

  2. Brown, L., & Miller, K. (2019). Agile Leadership: Cultivating Psychological Safety for High-Performing Teams. Harvard Business Review, 87(5), 62-69.

  3. Robertson, B., & Sullivan, M. (2020). Agile Leadership: Finding Harmony Between Way of Working and Mindset. Journal of Organizational Agility, 12(3), 145-162. doi:10.1002/oa.267

52 views0 comments


bottom of page