Management

Agility as the Discovery

California Management Review
2021, Vol. 63(4) 27­–50
© The Regents of the
University of California 2021

of Slowness Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00081256211028739
https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256211028739
journals.sagepub.com/home/cmr
Christiane Prange1

SUMMARY
How can companies avoid the agility acceleration trap and align their level of agility
with environmental complexity to include reflection and slowness? An answer to
this question is pertinent to understanding the real value of agility, which is often
equated with speed. This article introduces a framework for analyzing agility through
three kinds of change—resilient, versatile, and transformational—with respect to the
level of environmental turbulence. The value of this framework is demonstrated by
company examples where “agility as slowness” in some areas and “agility as speed”
in other dimensions provide a basis for competitive advantages.

Keywords: agile transformation, resilience, slowness, speed, decision-making

Since his early childhood, John Franklin has been playing catch badly because his
reaction time was too slow. Despite the bullying of his peers, Franklin was deter-
mined to follow his own way and eventually became an Arctic explorer where he
found an environment that praised his particular “asset.”

—Sten Nadolny, The Discovery of Slowness1

In the world of arctic explorers, there does not seem to be a place for
someone like Sten Nadolny’s John Franklin, whose every action was slow.
Today, managers seem to face a similar challenge because they have to act and
innovate fast to find a competitive edge.2 Those who fail with first-mover advan-
tages are unlikely to gain high brand awareness,3 while others who work on new
products or business models may not succeed because competitors copy them
quickly, leading to the emergence of vicious circles.4 In this scenario, companies
continue to do what they are good at and, thus, may be trapped by temporal
dominance over competition. This illusion of dominance sometimes leads such
companies to engage in similar processes as their rivals. In the end, what some-
times results is a reciprocal system of causality.5 This effect is a central and driv-
ing force behind the evolution of success and failure. Nevertheless, it is a losing

1Tongji University, School of Economics and Management, Shanghai, P.R. China

27
28 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 63(4)

proposition because it amounts to doing more of the same, merely at a quicker

pace—the so-called acceleration trap.6
Management guidelines often tell us to speed up, to be more flexible, or
(more recently) to become more agile.7 Obviously, speed is highly important in
contexts that thrive on accelerated action and high environmental turbulence and
volatility.8 These environments change so fast that companies face disentangled
cause-and-effect relationships where they cannot be sure that actions that previ-
ously worked well will continue to yield the same results in the future. For exam-
ple, the current Chinese automobile market illustrates the dilemma that most
Western companies face. Having experienced long and successful growth, they
now realize that exactly the same actions that served as a basis for their success
(leadership strategies, subsidiary control, and knowledge transfer) do not work
any longer.9 Even worse, there is no single best option to solve the problem, but
companies need to keep on taking action in the hope of arriving at a solution that
fits the market. At this point, strategy veers away from linear planning, leading to
more experiential trial and error to flexibly adapt to changing circumstances.10
The bottom line is that, yes, speed is important for Western companies to survive
in China, but simply moving at a fast pace without in-depth reflection means
tumbling forward and waiting for meaning to emerge, that is, an agility accelera-
tion trap.
There is other evidence showing that speed is not always supportive and
can even be detrimental to corporate success. For instance, a study of 343 compa-
nies that “paused at key moments to make sure they were on the right track”
realized an average of 40% higher sales and 52% higher operating profits over a
three-year period than companies that were moving fast.11 Moving fast is also
context-dependent; that is, speed in low-velocity environments is less likely to
critically affect performance than in high-velocity environments.12 Acting on low
speed has also been described as “active waiting”13 to distinguish it from ignorant
forms of non-action or laziness. Active waiting may be useful when companies
cannot be sure which activity leads to a desired result. To continue taking action
in the hope of arriving at acceptable results is one solution. However, waiting
until some meaning emerges from a chaotic context is often a driver to increased
efficiency.14 The companies examined in this study understood that “agility”
involves multiple dimensions and that some dimensions benefit from low speed—
that is, resilience15, reflection, and stability—in other words, “agility as slowness”
(see Appendix: About the Research).
The concept of agility as slowness has mostly been neglected in previous
research and requires some conceptual framing. Thus, this article introduces a
conceptual model with different manifestations of agility—some of them includ-
ing slowness and others including speed. Interviews with managers and two illus-
trative case vignettes help to answer the practically relevant question: How much
agility do companies need when they want to create competitive advantages in
different environments? The model presents a holistic approach to diagnosing
agility and builds on several theoretical concepts, some of them requiring in-depth
Agility as the Discovery of Slowness Agility as the Discovery of Slowness 29

reflection and further details. Given the scope of this article, I tried to keep theo-
retical descriptions as simple as possible and added relevant material in the foot-
notes for further reference.

Revisiting the Concept of Agility

There is considerable debate among managers and scholars about what
the term “agile” or “agility” really means. Numerous studies have shown that
agility is a core differentiator in volatile environments.16 What is common to
many authors is that they relate agility to rapid decision-making and execution
or flexibility.17 Part of this understanding derives from the origins of the concept
in manufacturing and software development where agility was understood as a
set of principles and practices for the rapid delivery of projects. Instead of suffer-
ing from time-consuming and highly inefficient procedures, agile methods were
seen to provide more flexibility in adapting to change.18 Over the years, both
researchers and managers have started to incorporate the notion of agility into
different organizational functions to the extent that the concept has become fur-
ther diluted.
Different streams of research define agility as a capability (with activities
like sensing or seizing that remain invariant vis-à-vis the environment), and/or as
a manifestation of this capability, where the implementation of agility incorporates
different forms or degrees of transformation (e.g., different structures, leadership
styles, or strategies are implemented to match different environments).19 The
focus of this article is on the second stream, which has received considerably less
attention and looks at the manifold facets in which agility presents itself—for
example, action or non-action; resilient incremental or large-scale transforma-
tional change; stability or dynamism; and high or low speed.

Agility as Speed and Flexibility

In the early beginnings of study surrounding agility, especially in manu-
facturing, researchers put a focus on process improvements, speed, and adapt-
ability. Researchers from Lehigh University defined agility as the “ability of
organizations to be quick and to have an effective response to unexpected varia-
tions in market demand.”20 Especially in industries with short product life cycles
and rapidly developing technologies, this focus on speed helped, and the more
quickly companies transformed, the better. For instance, a top manager of Ford
Motor Company in China said, “Agility is how you pivot, how quickly you see
the external environment changing and how you react to it.”21 Others, like a
former Siemens board member of a high-tech division, re-iterated that “Agility
is the skill to quickly react to new technology and market trends; a very valu-
able skill.”22 In information technology, people considered agile as a set of val-
ues and principles guided by self-directed, low-risk, and adaptable step-by-step
development for the delivery of IT projects.23 Instead of suffering from time-
consuming, inflexible, highly complex, and inefficient procedures, agile methods
30 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 63(4)

(such as SCRUM or extreme programming) provided more flexibility to adapt to

changes over time. An agile approach is faster than traditional processes, such as
the “waterfall approach,” which follows a step-wise linear planning sequence.
No doubt, speed is important, but a prerogative on action coupled with overcon-
fidence about speed may be harmful. This realization on the part of some compa-
nies has led them to start to reconsider their approach to agility. With increasing
complexity and the integration of leadership and soft-scale organizational change
into strategizing, a different understanding with new tools and methodologies
has emerged.

Agility as Slowness and Reflection

Rather than running after competitors, striving to always be the first
and adjusting to the hectic requirements of daily business life, companies
have discovered that their operations should also be based on reflection and
in-depth thinking, inviting lower speed or even inaction. For instance, a
company may decide to preserve some of its traditional values, as well as to
change some others. It may decide to preserve its products, but to change its
processes. If such decisions to maintain the status quo are based on robust
strategic thinking, they can reflect a high degree of agility. Agility as slow-
ness much resembles the athlete’s reflection on the best moves—a moment
of standing still that may only take a short while but one that could change
the game. For companies, there may also be timely, effective, and sustain-
able responses that are not necessarily based on speed or radical transforma-
tion. For example, when asked how advertising agency J.W. Thompson (JWT)
defined agility, a manager said,

Well, obviously, the simple answer is adapting to change, becoming faster and
faster. But one level below, it is not adapting to change in a revolutionary sense,
but in an evolutionary sense . . . you have to have faith and confidence in what
your ultimate center of gravity is, what your corporate DNA is, and you have to
preserve it.24

Focusing on a stable core identity is important to JWT, as this is where

consumers build trust and reliable relationships with the company.
The two approaches to agility are not mutually exclusive, and companies
may adopt both in their organization.25 In some cases, like John Franklin, sitting
back and deciding to reflect on challenges may lead to more success than prema-
turely jumping onto every new business model that promises salvation (thus, the
metaphor of “agility as slowness”). In other cases, such as high technological turn-
over or digitization leadership that requires first-mover advantages, speed will
remain an essential component (“agility as speed”). Agility needs both the resil-
ience derived from a reliable core and the dynamism anchored in ongoing change.
Many companies have started to understand that agility is made up of a delicate
mix between action and reflection, rather than an exclusive focus on speed and
transformation.
Agility as the Discovery of Slowness Agility as the Discovery of Slowness 31

Figure 1.  The Agility Transformer Model.

ORGANIZATION

Structure TRANSFORMATIONAL
Capabilies

VERSATILE

Identy RESILIENT
Strategy
BEING

DOING
AGILITY
TRANSFORMER

Mindset
Leadership

Knowledge Communicaon

INDIVIDUAL

The Agility Transformer Model

There are several steps to arriving at a diagnostics model (see Figure 1):

•• Determine the degree of environmental complexity because agile manifesta-

tions differ with different environments;
•• Identify different degrees of agility—what I call “orbits”—that are required to
meet the respective environment;
•• Check whether agility needs to be managed on the individual or organiza-
tional level and whether the orchestration of agility is primarily a challenge
of selecting tools or developing an awareness state (e.g., doing or being);
•• Select the different dimensions in which a company has to decide how much
agility it needs (e.g., structures, leadership, and capabilities);
•• Identify the current and desired positions of a company in the model.

Agile manifestations differ according to their environments. With high

degrees of turbulence, agile transformation or high speed is likely to have a higher
effect, while in stable environments, high levels of change come at a cost, and few
companies are therefore able to or willing to remain in a constant state of flux.26
For instance, in environments with high-security requirements (e.g., hospitals,
aircraft, and high-end manufacturing), one would also expect high levels of oper-
ational experimentation, exploration, and playfulness to tease out potential pit-
falls and security leaks. At the same time, transformational agility that breaks out
32 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 63(4)

of the clearly determined confines of safety would rarely be acceptable in real

scenarios. In other words, a pilot operating out in the air would not be encour-
aged to fiddle around with technology at the expense of passenger safety. On the
ground, in the flight simulator though, every possible crash is being experienced
to anticipate adequate reactions to unforeseen events. Many other conservative
companies, such as banks, have been engaging in agile activities in their attempt
to balance innovation and service excellence on one hand, and with safety, reli-
ability, and robust systems on the other hand. Given these challenges, leaders
need to calibrate the optimal state of agility manifestations and cultivate the
knowledge of when, where, and how much agility is needed.

Agility Orbits
The three orbits of agility—resilient, versatile, and transformational—
reflect different levels of environmental complexity and respective degrees of
agile implementation.27 The first, resilient orbit, reflects a simple environment
with reliable and fairly predictable developments. It is the one John Franklin
prefers. Agility on this orbit relates to incremental change with the objective
of preserving the status quo or changing it only incrementally. Resilient agility
here implies progressive reaction, though one with low speed (or even non-
action)28—much like the athlete example mentioned earlier. The second, versa-
tile orbit, matches to a complicated environment where agility is characterized
as adaptability. Changes are desirable if they help to increase fit with the envi-
ronment. Finally, the third, transformational orbit, mirrors constant experi-
mentation and change that is prevalent in a complex environment with a lack
of linear cause-and-effect relationships. While many companies tend to move
toward transformational strategies to increase their agility, this study shows that
the inverse direction—moving toward resilience, or slowness—can be equally
successful. As a result, agility cannot be measured in absolute terms, but always
relates to the degree of environmental complexity it needs to deal with (see
Appendix for examples).29

Level and Status of Agility

Agility exists on different levels, both individual and organizational.30
Insight on individual agility stems primarily from research in human resource
management and leadership, emphasizing talent and knowledge development
strategies that lead to transformation and change. In particular, leadership quali-
ties that involve managing and reconciling tensions and a mindset that empha-
sizes growth and learning are seen as drivers of agility.31 As leaders become more
agile, their capacity for stepping back also deepens and broadens, and the fre-
quency with which they move through cycles of reflection and action increases.32
Research in psychology has further provided important input by investigating
some of the underlying challenges of dealing with uncertainty in work situations
and increasing adaptive performance.33 Ultimately, companies whose leaders and
leadership cultures exhibit higher levels of agility are supposed to have greater
organizational agility.
Agility as the Discovery of Slowness Agility as the Discovery of Slowness 33

Organizational agility focuses on the role of facilitating structures and strat-

egies that support self-organizing units and integrate non-linear elements into
planning systems, for example, different patterns of strategizing, with some lead-
ing to higher safety and others incorporating play and experimentation.34 The
identity and purpose of a company can further drive the propensity for transfor-
mation to the extent that companies encourage more permanent engagement
with renewing capabilities.35 For instance, Lego, the company most people grew
up with, has revised its strategy and capabilities a couple of times to focus on
enhanced creativity with its toys.
One can further distinguish agility according to its status, that is, “being” or
“doing” agile.36 Being agile refers to who we are. It has to do with awareness,
consciousness, and mindset; it is a psychological viewpoint of agility that triggers
both individual and organizational elements that are sometimes hidden in our
subconsciousness and thus are more difficult to detect and change. For instance,
the structure of a company is a visible manifestation of values that are mostly
ingrained in its DNA; structure provides both order and guidelines for behavior.
Given that structure develops over time, it is rather difficult to change. In contrast,
doing agile is more focused on tools, practices, iterations, and user stories. In the
recent past, insight has emerged that complexity requires tools, methodologies,
and special approaches to information technology (IT) that differ from those used
in the past, which has led to the emergence of SCRUM, SAFe, or other frame-
works to implement and scale agility across organizational levels.37 From a “doing”
view, an organization is agile if it dynamically adapts its leadership principles or
communication formula, hoping that regular practice leads to routine. Adopting
these practices is likely to lead to quick benefits, with industry reports noting up
to 20% improvement on inefficiency.38

Dimensions of Agility
Previous research and managerial insights suggest that agile companies
adjust their degree of agility around different dimensions, including structures,
capabilities, leadership, and strategy, and among others.39 Many of these dimen-
sions occur in different variations—for example, low or high, fixed or flexible,
and isolated or comprehensive. For instance, psychologists Carol Dweck and
Robert Kegan independently introduced different states of mindsets, ranging
from rather fixed (stable frame of learning) to a growth mindset (abilities and
understanding can be developed), and a self-transforming mindset (where people
constantly challenge themselves).40 Similar examples exist for how knowledge is
considered (individual property and shared within or beyond company boundar-
ies). Knowledge is an important component of being agile, as it reflects a general
state of mind to share things with others.41 One of the most discussed agility
dimensions is leadership, which can vary between extremes of hierarchical order
with top-down relationships and enabling guidance. Enabling leadership encour-
ages self-organization and acts as a catalyzer for people to develop themselves.42
Communication is another important dimension that draws from literature on
change communications in agile environments.43 It could range from affirmative
34 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 63(4)

communication that re-iterates what was done previously or sensemaking com-

munication in complex environments where it creates new meaning.

Illustration of Positions in the Agility Transformer Model

While companies may occupy different positions across the dimensions of
the Agility Transformer Model, I selected one example per company per posi-
tion and elaborated on examples on the first orbit in more detail. I used short
examples to illustrate the most pertinent positions that resulted from the data,
but it is important to realize that positions reflect a cross-sectional view and may
vary over time—that is, companies may change their approach to agility. Table 1
depicts selected examples for agility positions at the organizational level.
The identity of a company is an enduring element that defines what the
organization stands for.44 For instance, French luxury company Hermès’ identity
is centered on quality. As former CEO Jean-Louis Dumas says, “We don’t have a
policy of image, we have a policy of product.”45 The most critical aspects of what
Hermès stands for have remained the same in the company’s evolution during its
close to 180-year history. The ability to adapt and integrate while staying true to
the core promise has been key to building an enduring company. The choice to
remain on the resilient level of identity (first orbit) is the result of thorough reflec-
tion and does not stand for immobility or standstill; rather, it reflects a high degree
of agility because the company knows precisely the value of stability. Maintaining
the core identity is likely to be the best response to external changes.46 This is very
different from companies like Dr. Oetker (second orbit) or Nokia (third orbit) that
have significantly changed their identity over time.
With regard to structure, companies may want to benefit from the positive
implications of hierarchy, for instance, if they need to secure operations. This
may be the case in an emergency unit in a hospital where patients are treated
after a life-endangering accident, and medical doctors only incorporate experi-
mentation and play into their daily activities when this remains within the
framework that is stipulated by the need for safety. Here, highly automated rou-
tines help doctors to perform at their best in order to save lives. In this system of
routines, everybody sticks to a primordial hierarchical order. However, hierarchy
does not mean there is no agility. As the director of a hospital said, “In fact, we
are practicing agility management all the time . . . We control everything under
tight regulations and convince others to obey. Each stage must be open and
transparent and permanently improving.”47 In this sense, agility is related to
maintaining the resilience of the hospital, which is very different from the agility
of companies that are experimenting with different structures, like Ford (second
orbit) or play around with self-organizing structures to increase flexibility, like
Zappos (third orbit).
Companies also use different strategy processes. Some companies follow a
planning approach that involves methodological, directed, and sequential action.
While it has been argued that this type of strategy is dated,48 following a linear
planning process remains relevant to others. For instance, automotive company
Agility as the Discovery of Slowness Agility as the Discovery of Slowness 35

Table 1.  Agility Positions on the Organizational Level.

Resilient Versatile Transformational

Identity Hermès (luxury) Dr. Oetker (food and Nokia (telecom)

maintains a stable
identity based on high
quality of its products
which is at the core of
its business model and
serves as distinction
beverages) gradually
adjusted both their
identity and image to
appear more modern
(e.g., advertisements)
significantly changed its
identity when it moved
from rubber boots to
telecommunications,
for example, a new
business model

Structure A hospital adopts a
very clear top-down
hierarchical structure
with strict guidelines,
especially for its
emergency cases
Ford Motor Company
(automotive) uses
dual structures,
some focusing on
conservative, others on
innovative business, so-
called ambidexterity
Zappos (online shop for
fashion) is a forerunner
in adopting flexible
and self-organizing
structures known as
“holacracy”

Strategy Volkswagen China Gemü (automotive Groupon (electronic

(automotive) follows
a step-by-step linear
planning approach
to adjust to ongoing
changes in the
environment
components) is
proactively questioning
its own strategy process
in relationship to the
environment, making it
more adaptable
marketplace) builds on
emergent rather than
pre-defined strategy
to venture into new
business fields

Capabilities Michelin (automotive) Flixbus (mobility) SAP (information

carefully orchestrates is building up its technology)
their project capabilities but stays managed continuous
management capabilities close to its core reconfiguration of
and excludes less competence of ground its operations while
feasible options from its mobility, that is, busses, moving toward being an
program trains, and taxis Internet-based solutions
provider

Volkswagen China operates in an emerging market environment with clearly

defined institutional boundaries. Managers know that external conditions are
constraining and that incremental and reactive advancement of strategic goals is
the most feasible option. As one manager said, “Because the market has not
changed much in the last twenty years, we adopt a planning approach . . . this is
mainly because we are a state-owned enterprise, and we are responsible to the
government.”49 A linear planning approach is also useful because managers have
the power and the capacity to define and implement precise steps to align strategy
with environmental conditions; agility here denotes implementing top-down
action, which is very different from Gemü, a company that constantly questions
its own strategy process (second orbit), or Groupon, which allowed for emergent
elements to appear in its strategizing approach (third orbit).
Finally, organizational capabilities can be described on three levels. For
example, insights on second-mover instead of first-mover advantages decree that
it is wise to observe competitors, to learn from their failures, and to enter the mar-
ket with improved capabilities.50 On the first orbit, companies may decide to do
36 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 63(4)

exactly this, to sense and evaluate opportunities and upon careful reflection, refuse
to pursue them. Agility here can be understood as reflective non-action. Companies
like Michelin in China have dedicated project management based on the use of
agile tools. When considering their capability development process, one of the
advantages of the company is that they are permanently observing the market to
understand competitor movements and new product development but at the
same time using the results of their sensing process to exclude many options. In
focusing on what the company is good at, they continue to reinforce the existing
capability base without diluting its core competence. While we find this approach
in many other companies, there are also examples where companies diversify
much stronger into adjacent business fields (e.g., Flixbus on the second orbit) or
even reconfigure their capability base to change their business models (e.g., SAP
on the third orbit).
Table 2 highlights the positions of individual agility.

Table 2.  Agility Positions on the Individual Level.

Resilient Versatile Transformational

Mindset J.W. Thompson (Asia) is Apple, the global Allsafe-Jungfalk (logistics
a global advertising computer company, provider) recruits and
company that focuses requires flexible encourages people
on stability, which is mindsets with with a growth mindset
necessary to preserve fresh thinking, that want to take
status and maintain an sometimes confined responsibility and
existing mindset to organizational develop themselves
boundaries

Knowledge International Atomic Wal-Mart (retail) has Jokoson (clean energy)

Energy Agency encouraged partners is a start-up company
(international from different that actively
organization) builds industries to use encourages knowledge
on strong knowledge their retail space. search, including
mapping with clarity, Thereby, knowledge regular meetings
precision, and defined is exchanged beyond with challenging
responsibilities of industry boundaries competitors and
experts and the degree suppliers
of knowledge sharing

Communication Postfinance (financial Infineon (semiconductors) Ministry Group (multi-

service) realizes that has created several media) uses language
communication has a CoPs for people to create new
stabilizing aspect and to share functional responsibilities (new
uses it to create trust communication styles job profiles) and
and to emphasize the and their effects on to drive a spirit of
status quo adaptation permanent change

Leadership Trip.com (online travel) Winner’s Alliance Axel Springer Ideas

uses an administrative (ecommerce Engineering
leadership style company) shifts (information
strongly based on between leadership technology provider)
individual expertise to styles when they deal adopts a catalyzing
only gradually change with different project leadership style that
their operations types and clients encourages self-
organization among its
employees
Agility as the Discovery of Slowness Agility as the Discovery of Slowness 37

“Agility is all about mindset.” This classic statement was formulated in the
so-called Agile Manifesto,51 the starting point for developing agility in information
technology. Mindset refers to a set of assumptions and values regarding learning,
collaboration, and the respect that determines the way individuals behave. It also
includes how people feel about their own qualities and competencies and whether
they perceive them as fixed or in flux. Many Asian-based companies, like a sub-
sidiary of J. Walther Thompson advertising, find their people positioned on the
first orbit with a dependent mindset that functions as orientation and guidance.
Within this safeguard, people can experiment and adjust to changes because they
feel their status is preserved. This is different from most Western companies (e.g.,
Apple), where employees (typically developers) are encouraged to develop their
internal compass (second orbit) but face some selected constraints in interactively
developing themselves (security concerns even within the company); or compa-
nies like German logistics provider Allsafe-Jungfalk, where transformation is
engrained in individual employees and their interaction (third orbit).
Knowledge is one of the most important assets of a company, and recent
surveys emphasize that successful companies invest in successful knowledge shar-
ing programs.52 In volatile environments, knowledge sharing and updating are
activities pertinent to maintaining a competitive edge, but agile companies differ
in their understanding of how they deal with knowledge. Companies with highly
sensitive assets put a major emphasis on safety and preservation to remain agile.
For instance, the International Atomic Energy Agency undertakes numerous
advances in knowledge mapping through indexing, searching, and retrieval
mechanisms for employees to get hold of critical knowledge. Agility implies high
internal expertise worthy of preservation (first orbit). This is different from com-
panies that encourage knowledge exchange—for example, large retailers like
Walmart adopt shop-in-the-shop practices to increase mutual benefits resulting
from knowledge incorporated in different business models. In a similar example,
clean energy company Jokoson actively invites all stakeholders, including com-
petitors, to enhance its knowledge base and to find the best solutions that work
(third orbit).
Communication serves the objective of informing people and avoiding
misunderstandings. At the same time, communication smoothens interpersonal
behavior and creates safety. This is important in times of high volatility and
upheaval or crisis. For example, Postfinance, the financial services arm of the
Swiss Postal service, uses a direct top-down communication style (first orbit) that
helps share the main messages of the company’s leadership to create trust (“stabil-
ity is the focus, and we focus on information via direct channels”).53 This is differ-
ent from other companies that communicate more interactively regardless of
existing hierarchies (e.g., Infineon within its communities of practice, second
orbit). It is also different from companies that engage in sensemaking through
communication (third orbit) (e.g., multimedia agency Ministry), whereby people
give meaning and expression to what they experience.
Finally, manifestations of agile leadership are likely to differ in rather stable
and production-oriented businesses, where an administrative approach may be
38 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 63(4)

effective. With a fundamental top-down orientation, there are obvious advan-

tages with regard to precision, and some companies, like Trip.com, a Chinese
travel organizer, implemented agile projects to increase efficiency and customer
orientation. They applied an administrative leadership style that builds on subject
knowledge with tactical and incremental improvements (first orbit). Reporting is
based on one-on-one feedback, and guidelines are formulated to help individuals
develop expertise. A tight organization helps to create a public pool of resources.
One manager said, “We can dispatch the related employees for emergency mis-
sions at any time, and this makes us more agile.”54 This is different from compa-
nies like Winner’s Alliance, which uses a more situational leadership style to
comply with changing environments, or Axel Springer IE, the IT-service provider
of the media company Axel Springer that promotes an enabling leadership style
where employees are encouraged to take on responsibility for their own work-
design (third level).
Taken collectively, the selected positions provided a snapshot and some
information on why and how companies may favor the first agility orbit of resil-
ience or others.

How Companies Orchestrate Agility

Following are two case vignettes55 that help to apply the model to two
companies by identifying their agility positions across dimensions and the ten-
sions this may incur (see “About this Research”). Figure 2 provides a schematic
overview of the two companies and their agile manifestations in the Agility
Transformer Model.

Case Vignette Advertising: Stability to Facilitate Transformation

The first case example is an advertising company with more than 200
offices in over 90 countries, employing nearly 10,000 marketing professionals.
The case looks at an Asian subsidiary that faces several contextual challenges
(declining revenues, need for innovative solutions, and ongoing debate about
structure) that gave rise to a discussion of agility.
The case reveals several agility positions on the first orbit (leadership, iden-
tity, and mindset) that focus on stability and slowness: core values, a robust orga-
nization, and a stable mindset with the preservation of status for its people. For
instance, employees require a strong top-down leadership framework with the
basic rules defined, what they called “freedom in a framework.” Employees need
protective guidance, and it is only within this strict framework that people feel
encouraged and empowered to express themselves. The company engages in agil-
ity that is closer to incremental changes or resilience (first orbit) than to disruptive
change on the third orbit. As one manager said, “In order to be agile, managers
need to experience a stable and reliable framework with an unchanging set of
core elements that preserve their position in society. Within this safeguard, they
can experiment and adjust to changing circumstances.” This was also expressed in
the stable identity of the company that serves to maintain guiding values.
Agility as the Discovery of Slowness Agility as the Discovery of Slowness 39

Figure 2.  Two Case Vignettes.

ORGANIZATION

Structure Capabilies
TRANSFORMATIONAL

VERSATILE

Strategy
Identy RESILIENT
BEING

DOING
ADVERTISING

Mindset Leadership

Knowledge Communicaon

INDIVIDUAL

ORGANIZATION

Structure TRANSFORMATIONAL
Capabilies

VERSATILE

Strategy
Identy RESILIENT
BEING

DOING

CONSULTING

Mindset Leadership

Knowledge Communicaon

INDIVIDUAL

Agility in the leadership dimension (first orbit) has the paradoxical effect of
slowing down to increase the speed for action otherwise. That is, only through
predictable and stable leadership behavior did people maintain the required
degree of efficiency and customer orientation in the capability dimension. Here,
reconfiguring capabilities (third orbit) have become a necessity due to changes in
40 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 63(4)

the industry, such as digitization and changing governance structures. Employees

remarked, “people are risk-averse, and needing [so much] faith, and positive
acknowledgment, and not wanting to lose their faith, a top-down framework is
even more critical when we talk about agility.”
An agile mindset on the first orbit helps equally to preserve the existing
status quo with relationships and current occupational areas, which was consid-
ered necessary for change in other dimensions. Positions on the first orbit were
expressed as “resilient agility” that facilitated gradual change, but only to the
degree that was acceptable in society.
However, the strong focus on the first orbit also incurred tensions between
stability and change that became visible by looking at the strategy dimension.
Here, complex and volatile environments required positions on the second orbit
with more situational adaptation and creativity while still trying to avoid emer-
gent and non-planned elements. In this scenario, the company realized that
strictly hierarchical structures were seen as too rigid to encourage speed and
experimentation, and adopted matrix and horizontal structures (move from first
to second orbit), supported by incentives for more open and critical communica-
tion (move from first to second orbit).

Case Vignette Consulting: Expert Knowledge and Reconfiguration to

Attract Clients
A subsidiary of a consultancy with 1,300 associates in its offices world-
wide has recently started its own agile transformation process where it had to
define how much agility it wanted internally. Driven by digitization, personaliza-
tion, and the internationalization of consulting offers, consultancies themselves
need to adopt agile principles as the service they also sell to clients. The follow-
ing illustrative case vignette highlights the company’s positions on the first orbit
in some dimensions and the resulting tensions that arise from positions in other
dimensions.
As in the previous case, there were several positions on the first orbit (lead-
ership, identity, knowledge, and capabilities), but differences in the diagnostics
approach. A major challenge occurred in the leadership dimension (currently
positioned on the second orbit, situational leadership) with contradictory
employee requirements both toward more hierarchical leadership (first orbit) and
more transformational catalyzing leadership (third orbit). Moves toward more
hierarchical leadership reflect the need for more rather than less guidance to
improve efficiency (“people feel it is the job of leaders to give guidelines”). On the
contrary, several people in the organization supported a move toward catalyzing
leadership (and less hierarchical structures) to the extent that self-organization
was encouraged. The challenge for the organization now is to find a level of lead-
ership where people feel comfortable and can exercise their desired degree of agil-
ity, one that balances both stability and change. This tension is also reflected in
communication, where people often engage in doing rather than in extensive
change communication, for example, moving with fast action and retrospective
sense-making for the justification of changes.
Agility as the Discovery of Slowness Agility as the Discovery of Slowness 41

The identity of the company is perceived as an extremely important signal

for reliability and trust. Sharing values internally and working together as a team
forms the basis for an authentic and rather stable appearance on the market.
Identity positioning on the first orbit signals exactly this degree of necessary stabil-
ity, one that revolves around the company’s core values, which are only incre-
mentally changed. Like many consultancies, the company attracts and supports
people with a growth mindset (transformational agility on the third orbit), char-
acterized by a high level of mental engagement with their surroundings and the
willingness and desire for ongoing learning.56 In a project-based organization,
each project is welcomed as a source for new learning. With increasing industry
experience, knowledge has consolidated and company experts are much sought
after (resilient agility on the first orbit). It is this expertise that the company can
sell. However, there are potential tensions between the mindset and the knowl-
edge dimensions because an expert status in one domain could lead to inertia if it
prevents broad learning across and beyond existing practices. A focus on expert
knowledge may also conflict with the capability dimension.
While it is important that company capabilities are positioned on the first
orbit, where they are constantly improved and consolidated, market disruptions
also require the reconfiguration of capabilities to account for future developments
in the consulting market (third orbit). The intra-dimensional tension for capabili-
ties is further broadened by challenges that revolve around strategy where the
company intends to move toward the third orbit in order to better adapt to clients’
needs. This involves more flexible and speedy capacity management, better oppor-
tunity creation, and shorter planning cycles.

Summary
The two case vignettes highlight both similarities, but also differences
in their agility positions. Both companies agree that positions on the first orbit
(identity, mindset, knowledge, capabilities, leadership, and capabilities) are desir-
able to preserve stability and to signal reliability. Agility here implies gradual
adaptation and slowness in change. In the leadership dimension, different argu-
ments lead to stable and more hierarchical positions. In the case of advertising,
hierarchical leadership eases the pains of change that may be socially unaccept-
able in the respective environment, whereas employees in the consulting com-
pany individually define requirements for more guidance. The rather stable
positioning in identity provides the basis from which companies can start their
changes toward required positions on the second (e.g., structures) and third orbit
of agility (e.g., capabilities) with fast moves and high transformational efforts. In
the diagnosis, it is possible to identify different sources of intra- and inter-orga-
nizational tensions for each company. For instance, the advertising company has
to deal with strong mindset and leadership requirements on the first orbit that
are culturally anchored, and the consulting company deals with knowledge and
capability needs in order to communicate and meet stakeholder needs for stabil-
ity and consistency in consulting offers. The examples also show that both com-
panies have to increase their level of agility in selected dimensions (e.g., structure
42 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 63(4)

and communication for the advertising company and strategy and strategy and
leadership for the consulting company). Overall, the diagnosis of positions high-
lights different interdependencies between individual dimensions of agility that a
company has to manage.

The Advantage of Agility as Deep Reflection

Based on the insights from the case vignettes, this section discusses how
companies may integrate an understanding of “agility as slowness” into their
agile transformation projects. Despite ongoing research and the increasing
importance of agility, many managers still follow the suggestions of the public
press57 to increase the level of transformational change in their organization. If
this involves permanent movement at high speed (agility on the third orbit), it
would be a difficult “normal” because agility comes at a cost. Instead, managers
need to carefully calibrate the optimal state of agility and cultivate the knowl-
edge of when, where, and how much agility is needed.58 The case vignettes illus-
trated the need for a broadened understanding that includes the notion of agility
as slowness (first orbit).

Successful Companies Recognize the Importance of the First Orbit of

Agility
As illustrated with the introductory paragraph at the beginning of this arti-
cle, running after best practices by simply benchmarking existing competitors is
no longer a viable solution in complex environments where linear relationships
between action and results are often missing.59 Companies need to find other
ways of becoming agile rather than just increasing their speed of transformation.
Agility on the first orbit becomes important for companies who wish to preserve
stability in thinking and doing that helps to increase trust among clients and
employees, which in turn gives rise to increasing sophistication and continuous
improvement (e.g., case vignettes: knowledge and capability dimension). A posi-
tion on the first orbit proves advantageous when stability and reflective move-
ment signal high reliability. This reflective variant of agility can be understood as
a positive form of resilience (i.e., a system’s ability to resist disturbances and to
“bounce back” to a state of equilibrium) and further as a positive and proactive
adjustment to challenging conditions, though in an incremental manner. Many
companies have realized that a focus on speed obfuscates the real value of agility,
which includes slowness. The importance of slowness becomes even more per-
tinent when perceptual dimensions (e.g., mindset and identity) are concerned.
This is because the identity of a company is normally perceived as an endur-
ing element that defines what the organization stands for; and employees, cli-
ents, and patients are looking for this stability before or alongside potential agile
transformations. However, many companies today change their identity when
they enter a new market, when they merge with former competitors, or when
they want to regain a competitive edge. Others update their identity over time to
comply with modernity, which may come at a premium because observers might
lose trust. Thus, the choice to remain on the resilient orbit of identity should
Agility as the Discovery of Slowness Agility as the Discovery of Slowness 43

be the result of thorough reflection that does not equal immobility or standstill;
rather, it should reflect a high degree of agility because a company knows pre-
cisely the value of stability. Maintaining the core identity may likely be the best
response to external changes. At the same time, companies need to be aware
of potentially counterproductive developments, such as lock-in or complacency,
which is why it may be necessary for other dimensions to be positioned on more
transformative levels of agility. For example, the case vignette consulting showed
that the company explicitly tries to move strategy to the third orbit and encour-
ages an approach to capability developments with oscillations between the first
and third orbits to balance stability and change.
The distinction between slowness and speed is also well recognized by Nobel
prizewinner Daniel Kahneman60 who says that when it comes to responding to
emerging patterns, fast thinking can mislead when the context is changing. The goal
is responsive action rather than acting out of habit, and companies can achieve com-
petitive advantages by decreasing their speed of action (first orbit of agility). It fol-
lows that high degrees of agility may be expressed by slowness and deep reflection,
and low levels of agility can be reflected in high speed and transformation (e.g.,
when a company positions itself on the third orbit while the environment invites a
position on the first or second level). Consequently, as a first step, managers need to
identify the relevant environment the company is operating in and, secondly, deter-
mine the degree of agility required to deal with this level of complexity.

Successful Companies Are Aware of Over-Transformation and Under-

Transformation
From the above, it has become clear that there is no absolute level of agil-
ity; it is always relative to the respective environment. This can be illustrated
by looking at extreme cases of companies’ over-transformation (i.e., striving for
positions on the third orbit) or under-transformation (i.e., striving for positions
on the first orbit). Both over- and under-transformation occur if there is a mis-
match between the degree of complexity in the environment and the degree of
agility the company adopts. Over-transformation goes along with squandering
resources, and under-transformation potentially results in a lock-in.
In order to identify the degree of complexity in the environment, managers
may use the qualitative indicators provided by the Cynefin framework or revert
to studies with quantitative indicators.61 For instance, over-transformation occurs if
the company operates in a fairly simple environment (recommended action:
sense, categorize, respond), but decides to adopt agility on the second or third
orbit, with rapid decision procedures, high speed of implementation, and experi-
mentation and probing that incur unnecessary high costs. This is the case that
David Teece et al.62 describe when they mention situations where companies use
offshoring to insulate themselves from the known risks of exchange rate fluctua-
tions (a simple environment/problem with sense-categorize-respond rather than
a complex environment/problem with probe-sense-respond; see Figure 3). The
solution to the problem is well known, and the attempt to increase efficiency
through transformational agility on the third orbit would be both futile and costly.
44 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 63(4)

Figure 3.  Agile Over- and Under-Transformation.

Complex Environment

UNDER-TRANSFORMATION
OVER-TRANSFORMATION
Third Agility Orbit
Probe  Sense  Respond

Complicated Environment

Second Agility Orbit

Sense  Analyze  Respond

Simple Environment

First Agility Orbit

Sense  Categorize  Respond

On the contrary, under-transformation occurs if the company operates in a

complex environment (recommended action: probe, sense, and respond) but
behaves as if it can still extrapolate past experiences based on categorization,
adopts slow decision-making procedures and hierarchical leadership styles, or
provides guidelines where implementation is presumed to follow a fixed plan.
While these activities may work in a simple environment, they are likely to fail if
the environment is characterized by uncertainty rather than risk. If the company
does not accelerate, it may lose momentum. Thus, successful companies align the
implementation of agility across different dimensions to cope with the respective
environment they are operating in. The degree of agility and the speed of action
will necessarily be higher in complex than in simple environments. At the same
time, companies should not lose sight of dimensions where stability needs to be
maintained, even in a complex environment (e.g., case 1: advertising with leader-
ship on the first orbit).

Successful Companies Balance Different Agility Dimensions to Maintain

Both Stability and Change
Companies can be successful whether they are positioned on the first, sec-
ond, or third orbit. However, they need to carefully identify which orbit they
should choose for different dimensions. By maintaining stable identities or hon-
oring continuity in the types of products and services they offer along with sup-
porting capabilities, companies can seek to maintain a competitive edge as much
as possible by moving around quickly. Companies that strongly depend on sta-
bility as a core of their DNA need to be careful with positions on the third orbit,
which may be perceived as too much noise or speed.
Agility as the Discovery of Slowness Agility as the Discovery of Slowness 45

For instance, the linkage between the dimensions of structure and capabili-
ties is particularly important for companies in conservative industries (e.g., bank-
ing, medical services, and transportation with high requirements for consistency
and safety), where hierarchies and emergency routines are necessary to guaran-
tee high reliability (while at the same time, experimentation and play in risk-free
arenas are required to anticipate potentially dangerous interruptions). As organi-
zation theorist Herbert Simon says, emergency routines represent “analyses fro-
zen into habit,”63 that is, they are preceded by conscious knowledge and training
that has become automated and later helps to accelerate procedures in crisis situ-
ations. At the same time, these companies may be expected to also adopt positions
in the third (transformational) orbit to accelerate knowledge development across
industry boundaries. For instance, this is the case in patient care institutions,
which experiment with best practices that may then be shared in more hierarchi-
cal structures or leadership styles (first orbit).64
Taken collectively, companies may not stick to a single agility orbit for all
dimensions, but typically combine positions on different orbits to counterbalance
negative effects. For example, McKinsey found that only 12% of organizations in
their sample combined speed and stability but suggest that it is the power of both
that leads to success.65 As agility is still widely associated with speed and flexibility,
and it is worth considering the element of slowness as a vital parameter and
understanding that over-transformation often downplays the value of agility. In
particular, the cost and insecurity of employees in permanent transformation
mode needs to be carefully considered. It is further important to note that diag-
nosed positions provide a snapshot in time, but are likely to change dynamically.
For instance, as shown in the case vignettes, clients may expect a significant repo-
sitioning of the strategy in a company’s future activities (third orbit) accompanied
by a change in identity (third orbit), for example, in cases when consulting fully
or partially moves online, or adopts more coaching than facilitation elements.
Similarly, companies operating internationally will also most likely have to adopt
different degrees of leadership agility in different countries, for instance, more
catalyzing styles in the United States/Europe (third orbit) as opposed to more
hierarchical styles in Asia (first orbit).
As a consequence, agility diagnosis and implementation need to remain an
ongoing exercise rather than a one-time effort and have to account for potential
cultural variations.

Successful Companies Realize That a Single Score for Agility Is

Misleading
One of the open questions in launching agile transformation projects and
identifying the appropriate levels of manifestation is the question of measure-
ment. In terms of input, the Agility Transformer Model helps to specify resources
per dimension and thus makes it more feasible to develop a project plan in a
respective domain (e.g., how to change a company’s identity through market-
ing activities or how to move the capability level to the second orbit through
46 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 63(4)

conducting sensitivity workshops). With regard to outputs, key performance

indicators should be derived from these same dimensions (e.g., leadership evalu-
ation), and their match with the respective environment (e.g., structures on the
third orbit may be detrimental in a stable environment; administrative leader-
ship may be fundamentally misplaced in a complex and innovation-intensive
environment).
Companies should be aware that a single score for agility may be mislead-
ing. First, this is because the score may relate to the capability of agility itself and
not its manifestations. Second, the score could simply add up agility manifesta-
tions across dimensions without taking into account whether each of them reflects
the optimum relationship with the environment, which could even be different
for companies operating in the same industry. For instance, a position on the third
orbit may yield a high numerical value if it reflects a fit with the environment, or
a low value if it reflects a misfit with the environment (see again the section on
over- and under-transformation). Thus, arriving at an accurate measurement
requires a qualitative discussion of the positions on each dimension.

Conclusions
Taken collectively, the case vignettes in this article illustrated that com-
panies should not only think about becoming more agile but also about how
agility is interpreted and implemented. The Agility Transformer Model provides
managers with an evaluation tool for doing so and offers concrete steps from the
diagnosis of the environment and suitable agility orbits to selecting the most rel-
evant dimensions and agility manifestations. Thereby, the model offers a quick
appreciation of where companies can position themselves on different orbits and
in which direction they want to develop their agility scores. This opens the view
for a different notion of agility as slowness. Overall, agility is not a one-size-fits-
all solution; its meaning and implementation may be different for companies in
different contexts. Desired orbits and positions of agility may vary for large and
for small companies and can take different shapes for companies operating under
different contextual contingencies, such as national cultures, particular profes-
sions, legal structures, or different industries. With each of these cases requiring
independent diagnosis, this article provides a set of guidelines.

Appendix
About the Research
The Agility Transformer Tool was developed during a multiple-year
research project. I organized the project along three steps:

•• I conducted interviews with 25 managers to identify the most relevant agility

dimensions; respondent companies belonged to a variety of industries (auto-
motive, FMCG, high-tech, media, consulting, engineering, IT, and others);
Agility as the Discovery of Slowness Agility as the Discovery of Slowness 47

•• I used insights from the academic literature, the public press, and existing
cases to identify agility positions, and conducted further interviews with
selected firms to consolidate insights; and
•• I interviewed managers from two case firms to apply the model to a con-
crete company situation. The two companies (advertising and consulting)
were selected because managers initially identified very different challenges
that companies face in the respective industries. In addition, access to the
two companies was facilitated through previous contacts, and managers were
willing to report on their progress with agile implementation.
Overall, I used an abductive research design to refine the eight dimensions
and 24 positions of the model (starting from surprising facts and iteratively
engaging with the literature). To facilitate discussion, I followed a rough ques-
tionnaire: What do you understand by agility? Why do you think agility is impor-
tant? Do you think agile companies are more successful? How would you describe
the environment your company works in (prompt with the Cynefin criteria, if
necessary)? Where do you position your company? Can you do this for every
dimension? Where do you see discrepancies (e.g., where should your company
move to the inner/outer orbit and why)? The following description facilitated
positioning:

•• First Orbit—Rather slow, stable, clear cause, and effect; straightforward think-
ing, but potentially oversimplification; categorize, and respond. Agility is
understood as “active waiting” that may or may not lead to action. If there is
action, it aims at permanent improvement and optimization, mainly within a
frame of reference, occasionally beyond.
•• Second Orbit—More balanced between first and third orbit with a cause-and-
effect relationship. Multiple answers, sometimes interrupted through volatile
jumps; known unknowns; expertise required; sense, analyze, and respond;
agility as situational adaptation.
•• Third Orbit—Rather speedy, high degrees of change and volatility, cause-and-
effect only understood in retrospect; system in constant flux; patterns emerge
over time; probe, sense, respond; agility as rapid decision-making and action
including wholesale change.

Author Biography
Christiane Prange is a Full Professor of International Business and Strategy at the
School of Economics and Management, Tongji University in Shanghai, P.R. China.

Notes
  1. Sten Nadolny, The Discovery of Slowness (New York, NY: Penguin Random House, 1997). John
Franklin is often used as an example to illustrate how people can succeed with deceleration
or slowness in a world that is often perceived as thriving on dynamics. This does not imply
that speed is not required in several other activities.
48 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 63(4)

 2. The focus on speed is evidenced by rising product vitality rates, which measure the per-
centage of revenues coming from new products during a certain time. The “topple rate” is
another indicator for increasing speed. It shows that the rate at which big companies lose
their leadership positions has more than doubled since the 1970s. The following research-
ers take up the importance of speed in management: Bernadine J. Dykes, Margaret
Hughes-Morgan, Kalin D. Kolev, and Walter J. Ferrier, “Organizational Speed as a Dynamic
Capability: Towards a Holistic Perspective,” Strategic Change, 17/2 (May 2019): 266-278; J.
Robert Baum and Stefan Wally, “Strategic Decision Speed and Firm Performance,” Strategic
Management Journal, 24/11 (November 2003): 1107-1129.
  3. Glen L. Urban, Teresa Carter, Steven Gaskin, and Zofia Mucha, “Market Share Rewards to
Pioneering Brands: An Empirical Analysis and Strategic Implications,” Management Science,
32/6 (June 1986): 645-659.
 4. This process of racing after one another was originally called the “Red Queen Effect,” a
hypothesis developed in evolutionary biology that proposes that species must constantly
adapt, evolve, and proliferate in order to survive while pitted against ever-evolving opposing
species. Leigh Van Valen, “A New Evolutionary Law,” Evolutionary Theory, 1 (1973): 1-30.
 5. Ibid.
 6. Weick introduces a similar idea with his notion of retrospective sensemaking. See Karl E.
Weick, Making Sense of the Organization (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2009).
 7. Nearly all major consulting companies have jumped on the topic of agile transformation,
though consensus and in-depth conceptual development have remained sparse, for exam-
ple, Accenture, “Taking the Agile Transformation Journey,” 2017, accessed March 12, 2019,
https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/pdf-67/accenture-taking-the-agile-transformation-
journey.pdf; Boston Consulting Group, “Taking Agile Transformation beyond the Tipping
Point,” 2018, accessed March 12, 2019, https://www.bcg.com/de-de/publications/2018/
taking-agile-transformations-beyond-tipping-point; McKinsey & Company, “The Journey
to an Agile Organization,” 2019, accessed January 12, 2020, https://www.mckinsey.com/
business-functions/organization/our-insights/the-journey-to-an-agile-organization.
  8. Sucheta Nadkarni and V. K. Narayanan, “Strategic Schemas, Strategic Flexibility, and Firm
Performance: The Moderating Role of Industry Clockspeed,” Strategic Management Journal,
28/3 (March 2007): 243-270.
 9. This tendency is amply illustrated by the rise of local automotive companies. See Willy
Shih, “Don’t Underestimate Chinese Automaker,” Forbes, July 2018, accessed January
12, 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyshih/2018/07/25/dont-underestimate
-chinese-auto-makers/?sh=177157a3ec96.
10. Christiane Prange and Alicia Hennig, “From Strategic Planning to Agility Patterns,” Journal of
Value Creation, 5/2 (November 2019): 1-13.
11. Jocelyn R. Davis and Tom Atkinson, “Need Speed? Slow Down,” Harvard Business Review, 88/5
(May 2010): 30, accessed June 19, 2021, https://hbr.org/2010/05/need-speed-slow-down.
12. Kathleen E. Eisenhardt, “Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High-Velocity Environments,”
Academy of Management Journal, 32/3 (September 1989): 543-576; William Q. Judge and Alex
Miller, “Antecedents and Outcome of Decision Speed in Different Environmental Contexts,”
Academy of Management Journal, 34/2 (June 1991): 449-463.
13. Donald N. Sull, “Strategy as Active Waiting,” Harvard Business Review 83 (September 2005):
120-129.
14. Karl E. Weick, Sensemaking in Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995).
15. There are different definitions of resilience. Some authors define resilience as “bounc-
ing back” to a stable state, others see resilience and agility as two sides of the same coin.
See Chris Cancialosi, “Organizational Agility and Resilience: Two Critical Sides of the Same
Coin,” Forbes, March 10, 2020, accessed January 10, 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/
chriscancialosi/2020/03/10/organizational-agility-and-resiliencetwo-critical-sides-of-the-
same-coin/?sh=2cf456a1614a. It is this latter understanding that I follow in this article.
16. For an overview of different consulting approaches to agility, see Christiane Prange,
“Engaging with Complex Environments: Why Agility Involves More Than Running Hard,”
International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management, 3/3 (2016): 182-196. For
an overview on the concept of agility, see Yakov Weber and Shlomo Y. Tarba, “Strategic
Agility: A State of the Art Introduction to the Special Section on Strategic Agility,” California
Management Review, 56/3 (Spring 2014): 5-12.
17. Sajad Fayezi, Ambika Zutshi, and Andrew O’Loughlin, “Understanding and Development of
Supply Chain Agility and Flexibility: A Structured Literature Review,” International Journal
Agility as the Discovery of Slowness Agility as the Discovery of Slowness 49

of Management Reviews, 19/4 (October 2017): 379-407. John Baker, “Agility and Flexibility:
What’s the Difference?” Working Paper No. SWP 5/96, Cranfield University, 1996, pp.
1-13. See again the distinction between agility as a capability and a manifestation in the
introduction.
18. Mike Beedle, Arie van Bennekum, Alistair Cockburn, and Ward Cunningham, “Manifesto for
Agile Software Development,” 2001, accessed October 19, 2016, http://agilemanifesto.org.
19. See, for example, Yves Doz and Mikko Kosonen, “Embedding Strategic Agility: A Leadership
Agenda for Accelerating Business Model Renewal,” Long Range Planning, 43/2-3 (April
2010): 370-382; David J. Teece, Margaret Peteraf, and Sohvi Leih, “Dynamic Capabilities
and Organizational Agility: Risk, Uncertainty, and Strategy in the Innovation Economy,”
California Management Review, 58/4 (Summer 2016): 13-35; Christopher G. Worley, Thomas
Williams, Edward E. Lawler III, and James O’Toole, The Agility Factor: Building Adaptable
Organizations for Superior Performance (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2014), Chapter 5; Yves
Doz, “Fostering Strategic Agility: How Individual Executives and Human Resource Practices
Contribute,” Human Resource Management Review, 30/1 (2020): 100693.
20. H. Sharifi and David Zhang, “Agile Manufacturing in Practice—Application of a
Methodology,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21/5-6 (2001):
772-794.
21. Personal interview (2 December 2016).
22. Personal interview (23 November 2016).
23. Kent Beck, Mike Beedle, Arie van Bennekum, Alistair Cockburn, and Ward Cunningham,
(2001), Manifesto for Agile Software Development, http://agilemanifesto.org (accessed June
25, 2032).
24. Personal interview (15 April 2016).
25. This understanding supports the assumption of orthogonality rather than being a continuum.
26. This understanding of agility as being in a constant state of flux is shared by several authors.
For a discussion, see Teece et al., op. cit.
27. Snowden and Boone in their Cynefin framework. David J. Snowden and Mary E. Boone, “A
Leader’s Framework for Decision Making,” Harvard Business Review, 85/11 (November 2007):
68-76.
28. This understanding departs from conventional definitions of resilience as a reactive move-
ment. See again Footnote 15 for different resilience definitions.
29. Measuring agility can be done by using language indicators, as suggested by the Cynefin
framework and subsequently developed analytics. See Andrea I. Cerniglia, “The Cynefin
Framework and (the Complexity of) Classroom Instruction,” accessed April 20, 2018, http://
andrewcerniglia.com/?p = 301; Julie McLeod and Sue Childs, “The Cynefin Framework: A
Tool for Analyzing Qualitative Data in Information Science?” Library & Information Science
Research, 35/4 (October 2013): 299-309; Snowden and Boone, op. cit. In particular, the
Cynefin framework offers a set of descriptions that help to classify environments to which
companies might fit their respective degree of agility. Some examples are mentioned in the
Appendix: About the Research.
30. Doz and Kosonen, op. cit.
31. Carol C. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (New York, NY: Random House,
2006).
32. Bill Joiner, “Leadership Agility for Strategic Agility,” in Agility.X, ed. Christiane Prange and
Loizos Heracleous (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 17-31.
33. Elaine Pulakos, Sharon Donovan, Michelle A. Donovan, and Kevin E. Plamondon,
“Adaptability in the Workplace: Development of a Taxonomy of Adaptive Performance,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85/4 (August 2000): 612-624.
34. Prange and Hennig, op. cit.
35. David J. Teece, “Strategic Renewal and Dynamic Capabilities: Managing Uncertainty,
Irreversibilities, and Congruence,” in Strategic Renewal: Core Concepts, Antecedents and Micro
Foundations, ed. Aybars Tungcdogan, Adam Lindgreen, Henk Volberda, and Frans van den
Bosch (New York, NY: Routledge, 2019): 21-51.
36. For instance, Bill Joiner and Stephen Josephs distinguish between awareness and intention-
ality, and Doz and Kosonen talk about the sharpness of perception and difficult adjustments.
William Joiner and Steven Josephs, Leadership Agility: Five Levels of Mastery for Anticipating
and Initiating Change (San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass, 2007); Yves Doz and Mikko Kosonen,
“The Dynamics of Strategic Agility: Nokia’s Rollercoaster Experience,” California Management
50 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 63(4)

Review, 50/3 (Spring 2008): 95-118. See also Abbey Bishop, “Doing Agile Versus Being Agile,”
SHIFT314, 2016, accessed August 12, 2017, https://shift314.com/doing-agile-vs-being-agile/.
37. For example, see Andrew Whitley, Julien Pollack, and Petr Matous, “The Origin of Agile
and Iterative Methods,” The Journal of Modern Project Management, 8/3 (2021): 20-29; Josh
Morton, Patrick Stacey, and Matthias Mohn, “Building and Maintaining Strategic Agility: An
Agenda and Framework for Executive IT Leaders,” California Management Review, 61/1 (Fall
2018): 94-113.
38. “14th Annual State of Agile Report,” 2020, https://stateofagile.com
39. Most of these dimensions have already been treated separately, but not in conjunction. For
the capability dimension, see, for instance, Sebastian P. L. Fourné, Justin J. P. Jansen, and
Tom J. M. Mom, “Strategic Agility in MNEs: Managing Tensions to Capture Across Emerging
and Established Markets,” California Management Review, 56/3 (Spring 2014): 13-38. For an
overview on other dimensions, see Prange, op. cit.
40. Robert Kegan, In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1994); Dweck, op. cit.
41. Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, Pedro Soto-Acosta, and Anthony K. P. Wensley, “Structured
Knowledge Process and Firm Performance: The Role of Organizational Agility,” Journal of
Business Research, 69/5 (May 2015): 1544-1549; Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger, Situated
Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
1991).
42. Joiner, op. cit.
43. David Newman, “Agile Companies Need to Change Their Communication Strategies,”
Forbes, June 14, 2016, accessed December 2, 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/
danielnewman/2016/06/14/agile-companies-need-to-change-their-communication-
models/?sh=56d763833eee.
44. Stuart Albert and David A. Whetten, “Organizational Identity,” in Larry L. Cumming and
Barry M. Staw, eds., Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,
1985), pp. 263-295.
45. Margaret M. Perlis, “Four Steps to Building an Enduring Brand: Lessons from Hermes,”
Forbes, October 11, 2012, accessed December 10, 2016, https://www.forbes.com/sites/
margaretperlis/2012/10/11/4-steps-to-building-an-enduring-brand-lessons-from-
hermes/?sh=df6a173ad6b6.
46. Albert and Whetten, op. cit.
47. Personal interview (25 May 2017).
48. Ellen E. Chaffee, “Three Models of Strategy,” Academy of Management Review, 10/1 (January
1985): 89-98.
49. Personal interview (15 June 2016).
50. Marvin B. Lieberman and David B. Montgomery, “First-Mover (Dis)Advantages:
Retrospective and Link with the Resource-Based View,” Strategic Management Journal, 19/12
(December 1998): 1111-1125.
51. Beck et al., op. cit.
52. Technology Service Industry Association, “The State of Knowledge Management: 2018,”
accessed January 20, 2020, https://www.tsia.com/resources/the-state-of-knowledge-
management-2018.
53. Personal interview (by research partner) (11 January 2017).
54. Personal interview (22 January 2017).
55. I opted for case vignettes rather than for full case studies because the objective is to apply the
Agility Transformer Model to specific companies. For details on the design, see Robert K. Yin,
Case Study Research and Applications, 6th ed. (London, UK: Sage, 2018).
56. These are the typical characteristics of a growth mindset, as explained earlier.
57. See again Note 2.
58. Teece et al., op. cit.
59. Snowden and Boone, op. cit.
60. Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow (New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).
61. See again Note 29. In the following description, I neglect the case of complicated
environments.
62. Teece et al., op. cit.
63. Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior, 4th ed. (New York, NY: Free Press, 1997).
64. Personal interview (25 May 2017).
65. Michael Bazigos, Aaron De Smet, and Chris Gagnon, “Why Agility Pays,” McKinsey
& Company, December 1, 2015, accessed May 12, 2020, https://www.mckinsey.com/
business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-agility-pays.