Oh dear. The word agile is so fluid that, actually, it is a behavoural container to formalise lack of behavioural norms. That might be bad enough. When multiple managers apply agile-ness across different domains, operating different kinds of agile-ness, or some fully agile in its full anger, along with some others who are non-agile, agile-resisting, or agile-relucting, that paints of picture where un-pre-defined behaviours are at play, and these are outside any behavioural containers. It sounds like business process norms are difficult to apply in this scenario, and not applicable.
Such make-up of an organsiation can cause chaos, applying agile to solve or harmonise relationship and processes will be…… well, requiring a high degree of wisdom.
As it turned out, a decision made by one manager replaced approach by another manager that the first one line managed, and that combination led to a situation where whatever the approach taken by a third manager, with whom I directly reported to, became null and void.
Being a non-square square is probably a novelty, as a matter of figurative speech or otherwise, but it can result in some permanent outcomes that the best thing was to un-do the decisions, except that we didn’t have the wisdom of the after-decision before the prior-decision. While I am left with the outcome effect of the grandest horror, the managers could “learn lessons” (and may be also “move on”).
